Quote of the day
posted at 10:40 pm on July 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
“We are going back. A long way back.”
GreenRoom
- Syria, Russia: It all looks different from out there
- Hot Air Survey Results: CPAC Edition
- ‘Playboy’ bunny who cabby thought was vampire sues NYPD for abuse
- Embalmer penalized for speaking ill of dead sues to get license back
- Obama attempting to ‘get his groove back’ with young voters
- NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hit
- 9pm “Whitney Houston DEAD, latest developments, CPAC, Maine Caucuses”
- Why isn’t Sarah running?
- Contraception mandate: MSM stuck in “narrative capture”?
- ObamaCare architect: Health insurance premiums will rise, not fall, under law
Hot Links
|
|
Feeds
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
You read your own Roman catholic understanding of those quotations into their writings. Those quotations were referring to works as sanctifying the believer, not justifying him. True faith manifests works, as James points out.
Luther added alone, but there are numerous other texts that demonstrate the doctrine of sola fide, for example Romans 4:5-19. Working out your salvation with fear and trembling refers to the believer’s works cooperating with the SANCTIFYING influence of the Holy Spirit. It’s an issue of sanctification at that point. It’s assuming justification has already taken place.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Coming late to this thread, so it’s probably dead already… but I’ve got to ask…. Catholics around here get pissed when we say things like “Catholics and real Christians”, imply Catholics aren’t real Christians… but here we have your leader essentially saying Catholics are real Christians, and others aren’t.
And, not that anyone didn’t recognize what a secular organization the Catholic Church (which seems to be worshipped by Catholics more than Jesus anyway) has become, but how much has it become like secular left-drifting governments?
This clown, the leader of the friggin’ Catholic Church says that Christianity isn’t superior to Islam, yet he wants to come out against other Christians, true Christians (not types who pray to dead women, confess their sins to other men, pretend men in goofy robes have some special powers that others don’t)?
http://www.cathnews.com/news/203/19.php
So let me understand this… People who “call” themselves Christians (which implies Ratzinger doesn’t believe they are, which as we know for the subject of this post he doesn’t) have “darkened” Christian faith… but he wants to have “interreligious dialogue” with Muslims?
Here’s yer sign…
RightWinged on July 11, 2007 at 12:57 PM
Great. Don’t worship at the church of Laodicea either.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Quick clarification…
I’m talking about how Catholics appear to worship “The Church” more than Jesus. They treat the Church, the organization, even the building, like it’s what they truly follow.
This is unimportant to the real points in my post, but I wanted to eliminate any confusion on that before it became a distraction.
RightWinged on July 11, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Yes, the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon!! Some of you people sound just like the Protestant propaganda machines of the 16th Century…Don’t worry, the Catholic Church will be around loooong after you and I are dead and buried in the ground. Not sure if you can say the same about the myriad Protestant denominations…I mean, seriously, the flavor of the week theology is just hard to take seriously…I’ll put my trust in an organization that’s been around since Christ…you guys put your trust in Reverend Billy Bob down the road. See, one remarkable similarity between Protestantism and Islam is the lack of a centralized Orthodoxy…witness the jihadis claiming to be the “authentic” voice of Islam. Whose to say they’re wrong?
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:01 PM
He does? I thought he only considers you not to be Catholic, which I gather, you don’t either. But yes, he thinks his “brand” of Christianity is better than yours. Nothing wrong with that, just like there’s nothing wrong with you believing your “brand” of Christianity is better than his. He thinks Catholicism is the “true” form of Christianity, you thing a different form is the “true” one. To pretend otherwise for the sake of “getting along and playing nice” is simply disingenuous.
taznar on July 11, 2007 at 1:03 PM
PRCalDude,
Now you are working your own interpretation into the meaning of the text. The preponderance of evidence is on the Roman Catholic understanding of the Church Fathers. When you read Luther’s works you find that he is actually quite hazy about the distinction between sanctification and justification. It was not until Melancthon wrote a more systematic theology after Luther tha this isdea was created. Calvin took it to its conclusion in his Institutes but realized he was coming up against a double predestination and left it somewhat in the air until he could try to work it out. He never did and left that to the future Calvinists to try and work out.
To the best of my knowledge, and years at the university as professor, no one has managed to work Calvin out of double predestination – God creates creature that he damns to hell for no reason.
This is a great problem. It turns God into – well, a mean Guy, for lack of a more crass term.
The Roman Catholic theology does not have such an understanding of God but works with Paul and James that there is an aspect of our effort involved in salvation.
DrM2B on July 11, 2007 at 1:03 PM
ColtsFan,
Thanks! But I repeat, The Church does not teach that salvation depends on a life time of good works. See my above comment.
I think we all agree that as a result of our faith, we are called to good works. It just doesn’t make sense to me that someone can be saved at 13 and then leads a pretty awful life and he is given a free pass to heaven? Sorry. That just doesn’t fly with me.
Whether one believes that because of his faith, he does good work, or one believes that good works helps him in his salvation, we are pretty much all called to do the same thing. Love God, love each other.
I’m not trying to convince you that the Catholic Faith is for you. I think we all find our own path to God. If you are happy with the path you are on, then more power to you.
Why I am Catholic.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 1:04 PM
You’re pretending, of course, that there’s uniformity of thought in the Roman church as well. There is not. There are liberal Catholics, conservative catholics, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Benedictines,… There’s no real orthodoxy in the Catholic church either. The very idea of papal infallibility should convince you of that. No sinful human can speak infallibly.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Of the items on your list, many are not doctrines. (Red hats for cardinals? Huh???) Some on the list can be proven by scripture, including the role of tradition (2 Thessalonians 3:15: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”). With that kind of batting average, it’s enough to call your list’s reliability into question.
In light of a desire for “interreligious dialogue,” the Pope has laid his cards on the table. Muslims have done the same: convert or die. By comparison, Benedict is being more reasonable. Unless your into that fatwa thing. In which case…
Here’s YER sign.
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Every time I look at this guy, I can’t help but think that he’s the most evil looking priest I’ve ever seen. I’d be scared crapless to be caught in a dark church with him.
Is it just me, or does he give anyone else the creeps? I mean, toss a black robe on him and you’ve got the Emperor from Star Wars.
That said, I’m sure he’s good people.
jcmorris on July 11, 2007 at 1:08 PM
That’s not our assertion.
The question is not, “Do you love God?” The question is, “Does He love you?” If you are not justified, you stand condemned already. You are under his wrath.
There isn’t more than one path. The way is narrow. It is only through the righteousness of Christ that you will be received by Him.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Give me a break PRCalDude…they all accept the fundamentals of THEOLOGY…they may have varying beliefs of politics and practice, but there is still a Pope who is the ultimate arbiter of what is truly Catholic and what is not…To make distinctions between the Dominicans and Franciscans just shows your ignorance of Catholicism…they are different holy orders, with different practices, but they certainly would not reject the fundamental theological claims of the Catholic Church…or they would be heterodox. Sorry.
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:09 PM
My comments were not meant to be hateful and I did not mean to imply that YOU were diligent in doctrine and short on devotion, just that it seems this thread is running that way. God Bless
abinitioadinfinitum on July 11, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Sorry, no breaks. There are theological liberals even in the college of cardinals, they just don’t form the majority. It’s a matter of simple majority as to whether or not the next pope is a liberal himself, in which case you’ll have one ‘speaking infallibly’ in matters of the church. Seems to be pretty heterodox to me.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Sorry I came off as snide. We must keep in mind that all of the letters to the churches apply to us at once.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:13 PM
I’m not going to get into a debate about papal infallibility, bc I haven’t the time…needless to say, it only regards certain theological issues, more or less…BUT if you hold that no sinful person can speak right or wrongly, how do you know Luther or whatever Protestant you think interprets the Bible correctly, is, in fact, correct? You are willing to admit that you are, in fact, possibly wrong in your beliefs?
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:13 PM
PRCalDude, again, you have no idea what you’re talking about…”Theological liberals”? What, exactly, does that entail in the college of cardinals? Could you please give me some names of a Cardinal that, for example, doesn’t accept the Catholic view of justification? Oh, you cannot…Perhaps a name of someone who doesn’t accept papal infallibility? Hans Kung, you say? Oh, wait, Hans Kung is not a cardinal and was removed from teaching duties, and his views declared heterodox. Try again.
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM
I know that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice, not the church and not the Pope. Luther never claimed to speak infallibly, and he always submitted his views to the authority of Scripture, subject to further revision. Semper Reformanda The Pope, a sinful man, claims to speak infallibly. How can any human claim to be an absolute standard?
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Perhaps somebody who is Catholic can explain this for all us non-Christian heretics (i.e. Protestants): If the Pope is chosen by God to lead the faithful, why is it that God only picks Western Europeans- almost all of whom were Italian.
As this thread has progressed, it has been interesting to me to see how people approach their faith and how they deal with conflicting faiths. Pope Benedict and Catholics should be ashamed of themselves for laying claim to “THE ONE TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH.” That’s so 1239 a.d. !
I’m not a fan of the “many paths” crap of secular humanism but it is equally wrong for a leader of a denomination to dismiss other Christian denominations in the way that the Pope did. By the logic set forth by Benedict, it is a very Catholic thing to molest young children and hide those crimes “for the good of Christianity and the RCC.”
highhopes on July 11, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Hey Will, I do not want to spit flames or engage in any Catholic vs. Protestant bashing. I do not want to call names, or do ad homimen attacks, against any religious or non-religious views.
But may I please respond to one point above?
I respect tradition and I respect church history. But they are not primary sources of epistemological authority. They are only secondary in nature. Scripture is primary. The reason is because the Bible claims primary epistemological authority over everything else.
My epistemological trust is not in using Billy Bob as a primary source, (you are indeed correct to question him or me or anybody) but in the primacy of Scripture alone. My salvific trust is in Christ’s finished work on Calvary.
Many of us respect church tradition and read much of church history. We are repulsed by much of current day “popular” Protestantism.
Our desire is just get others focused on the main thing, Jesus Christ. We want others to return to Jesus Christ alone.
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 1:21 PM
It’s not a matter of his views of what the Roman catholic church believes, its a matter of what he believes the Bible teaches. Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God or not? But there are also plenty of heterodox cardinals in various issues, some more important than others.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:23 PM
PRCalDude,
Funny you should mention that. One of the things that amazed me in my research is that of all the evil Popes that we have had (and we have had a few) “the gates of hell did prevail against thee.” I suppose it could have been easy to declare that homosexuality was fine (for example) but that never happened. Nor do I believe it can. 2000 years, evil Popes, corruption, reformation, wars, death, you name it, and the Catholic Church still thrives today with over a billion followers. I find that pretty miraculous.
Satan loves for us to argue. He loves division. I am just of the mind that we should focus on what we agree on (like loving Christ) and not what we disagree on. The path is narrow, but I’ll trust Christ on what is necessary for heaven, and not waste time arguing semantics.
Rightwingsparkle on July 11, 2007 at 1:23 PM
I think we have a paradox, PRCalDude…Luther is still making one important claim: that the Scriptures are the sole authority! What makes him right about that, unless he is infallible (with regard to that issue)?
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Say it with me, PRCalDude: “There is a difference between views of theology and political issues.”
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Because the Bible itself teaches sola scriptura.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:27 PM
There’s an ever more steeply liberal slope present in the catholic church. John Paul kissed the Qur’an and claimed in was “God’s Word.” Is that a political issue, or a theological one?
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Papal infallability is only in regards to Papal Bulls and not in regards to anything and everything a pope says or does.
It’s a big misunderstanding that Catholics pray to Mary & other Saints as if they are the ones that answer prayers. Catholics believe just as other Christians do that prayers are only to/answerable by God. It is better understood as asking a Saint to pray with them, on their behalf. Much in the same way that members of other Christian denominations (including Catholics) will talk to a friend or a prayer team and ask them to pray for them. It’s the same concept. The only difference is that Catholics don’t believe that death precludes someone from being able to pray to God on your behalf, so, they will ask bygone Saints as well as living friends to pray for them.
I’m not Catholic, so I can’t point you to a specific source, but I know that the Catholic church is a very legalistic church. They document everything and have records going back (some of the original documents) to the 1st century AD. As long as you are willing to read dense materials, there is plenty of material available on what Catholic beliefs/teachings/dogmas actually are.
Agreed! I have no problem with people whose views differ from my own (I was a Conservative in the theater program at NYU for Pete’s sake!). But Fragility, from day 1, has been nothing more than a hit & run troll. Glad to see him/her/it banned.
I think you’re in competition with the Orthodox Church for the ‘founded by Christ’ award. They claim the exact same founding legacy and apostolic succession and are extremely close to the Catholic church (which is why the Pope put them in a special category in his missive). I don’t expect a Catholic to see them as the original church any more than I expect a Greek Orthodox believer to see the Catholic church as the original church – just a heads up that you’re going to have competition for that claim.
Also, not entirely sure what you meant by apostate Catholic, but, President John F. Kennedy did not strike me as a man who was devoutly following the tenants of the Catholic faith either.
A higher percentage of teachers in the U.S. molest children than priests do, but somehow, it’s o.k. to broadly smear all priests with the pedophile label?
The Catholic church may seem irrelevant here, but, perhaps we should ask the large number of AIDS infected Africans that are being cared for by Catholic charities whether the church is relevant. Or you could ask the poor in India being cared for by those ‘sadistic’ nuns whether or not it’s relevant.
There are good and bad people in every group. That you have chosen to focus on the bad people in the Catholic church and smear the entire Catholic leadership with their sins is more an indication of the type of person you are than the type of people that are leading the Catholic church.
So good of you not to mention all those things.
This is a document from 2000 (back when JP was still Pope) that is just now getting press. In my opinion, it’s the same as how the Danish cartoons didn’t cause any upset when they first ran (including being reprinted in Egyptian papers), until the wider media decided that someone should get upset. Suddenly, it was a big issue. This is the same thing. People are getting whipped up into a fervor over a mention of a 7-year-old document. It’s silly.
New flash: The Pope thinks the Catholic church is the true expression of Christianity. I hope everyone that is attending a church is there because they believe it’s the closest they can get to the Christian church that Jesus established.
Even bigger news flash: The Pope thinks non-Catholic churches have fallen away from the correct expression of Christianity and, therefore, are missing something. From what I’ve gathered from other posters here, proetestants seem to think the same thing about the Catholic church. The only difference is that the Pope has a cooler hat.
I’m sure a quick lexus nexus search would show that the Protestant church has it’s share of sinners as well. Perhaps men that hired male prostitutes and did meth with them? Perhaps people that raised millions of dollars through televangelism and spent it on lavish vacations, expensive clothes, etc rather than on charity work. And, I’m certain that I can’t find any instances of Protestant/Evangelical pastors molesting any of the children in their care.
I think this is the whole “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” situation.
JadeNYU on July 11, 2007 at 1:30 PM
How is that any kind of response to my lengthy post, part of which lays out that this non-Catholic Christian bashing Pope praises Islam and wants interreligious dialogue. Not only is he attacking real Christians in the new story, he attacked them while praising Muslims. Again, it’s not news that the Catholic Church is just a secular organization, weak on belief and heavy on historical tradition, but it’s all the more evident when they act just like any left-leaning secular government by bowing to Muhammad’s sword while attacking those that adhere to the Bible.
RightWinged on July 11, 2007 at 1:30 PM
One could argue the same for Islam. Miracle? You mean like the hordes of people who bow down and make the sign of the cross to a … wait for it….piece of toast?
Guardian on July 11, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Sure it does, PRCalDude, sure it does…I’ll take your word on it…and the Reverend whose link you provided…Oh wait, you mean I’ll have to submit to the authority of someone else interpretation of what the Scriptures?! CRAP THAT SEEMS ALMOST CATHOLIC-LIKE.
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Make your own!
Guardian on July 11, 2007 at 1:33 PM
Are you capable of examining the Scriptures he sited yourself or not?
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Workers at Morton Thrifty Foods said they will keep the Virgin Mary in the freezer.
Guardian on July 11, 2007 at 1:36 PM
For Mary’s faithful, a shattering loss
Guardian on July 11, 2007 at 1:37 PM
One could, but that doesn’t mean they would be correct. Again, it goes back to apostolic succession…It’s more than just the existence of the Church, it’s the line that goes all the way back to Peter…Islam might make similar claims to Mohammed (something about some imam?), but I don’t know enough about Islam to say…Nevertheless, the similarities between Islam and Christianity are present, and I think it was Belloc who characterized Islam as a Christian heresy.
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Thanks for your reply. I read your article, after recovering from seeing those toddlers on the fence!!
:-)
Where do we stand?
Well, we still disagree on the question of, “does the Catholic church teach that human merit plays a significant role in securing one’s own salvation?” Based on my sources and research, I answer in the affirmative, you answer in the negative.
You write,
“It just doesn’t make sense to me that someone can be saved at 13 and then leads a pretty awful life and he is given a free pass to heaven? Sorry. That just doesn’t fly with me.”
Rightwingsparkle, it doesn’t make sense to me either because my primary epistemological source (Scripture alone) teaches against that very false perspective.
As a Christian, I am not encouraging everyone to embrace Protestantism. As I noted in an earlier post, there is much abuse and much evil in the Protestant community. My purpose is to encourage people to embrace Jesus and the primacy of the Bible alone, not human tradition, not man-centered authorities, etc.
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Because what the Pope said about the Catholic Church as the means of salvation also applies to Muslims. You can’t cherry-pick one occasion where the Pope says something about A, and assume he didn’t have anything similar to say about B, ‘cuz in this case you’d be wrong.
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 1:39 PM
You mean where it says: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)
Besides, how could the Church have taught “sola scriptura” when the contents of what we call the New Testament was not determined for the first three hundred years of Christianity? You think they waited around for an answer, or did the Gospel already reach the far corners of the known world by that time?
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 1:43 PM
PRCalDude…Here’s a quick link: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num6.htm
read it if you want…I cannot continue this discussion, as I have a little something called “work.” Nevertheless, there are many quotes that can be taken from the Bible to argue against sola scriptura. Whose interpretation is the right one? In my younger days, I attempted to read Robert Sungenis’ Not By Scripture Alone : A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, check it out… Peace.
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 1:44 PM
What is your argument here? Were you there to see them? If not, then you’ll just have to trust what has been written in the New Testament, in accordance with 2 Timothy.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:45 PM
The Catholic Church has never required belief in private revelations. Even the appearances of Fatima were merely determined not to be harmful to faith and morals. Something like that. (See “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” #65-67)
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Exactly what it says. Refer also to my quote from 2nd Thessalonians.
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Hey, AP, you having fun yet?
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 1:48 PM
But you don’t believe it’s required to attain heaven, do you? Communion is an act of worship, but not a prerequisite to salvation?
On a different subject, not directed to you Esthier, I’m surprised at the people here that think Protestant and Catholic are different religions.
jaime on July 11, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Q: Who is the second most important person in the Catholic Church, after the Pope?
A: Jesus
*cymbal crash*
brak on July 11, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Consider the historical context of the 2 Thessalonians passage you quoted: Paul, the apostles, and the witnesses of Jesus’ ministry were still authoring the New Testament Scriptures. In matters of doctrine, they should hold fast to what they’ve been taught, especially when it comes to the preaching of another gospel. That still doesn’t get around 2 Timothy.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 1:58 PM
One main issue is epistemology. If both groups start with fundamentally different epistemological sources, then it is all together natural to expect radically different epistemological (and I believe, metaphysical) consequences.
“How we know?” is an epistemological question answered very differently by both groups, thus producing differing results.
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 2:00 PM
So then, it wasn’t sola scriptura at the time, then, obviously. Did they get a dispensation? Was it okay then but not okay now? At what point was it not okay? By whose authority?
You’ll have to be more specific. What part of 2 Timothy?
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 2:18 PM
It’s the other way around. Jesus Christ would be considered the “Invisible Head” of the Catholic Church, while the Pope is the “Visible Head,” or “Vicar of Christ.”
Isn’t that right, Mrs M?
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 2:19 PM
It was at the time as well. Jesus quoted Old Testament Scriptures to Satan. Paul argued from the Scriptures to his Jewish counterparts that Jesus was the Christ. The fact that Jesus said certain things and those were handed down at first orally and later through epistles and gospels is fine because Jesus is God incarnate, and has the authority to reveal truth. It ended because those who were eyewitnesses were no longer writing under divine inspiration. The church has always had a consensus on what composed the New Testament Scriptures: whatever was handed down from the apostolic age. To quote the New Catholic Encyclopedia:
2 Timothy 3:15-17.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Allah, I agree with you here wholeheartedly in a sense.
However, the evidence for what you call “the same imaginary being” flows from atheism’s inability to account for the following:
—atheism cannot account, on the metaphysical level, for the mind-independent existence of immaterial abstract entities like propositions, concepts, numbers, laws of logic, irreducible moral laws, etc
—but even if, atheism **could** do the above, atheism simply cannot provide an epistemological account for how the human brain knows or has epistemic access to these immaterial abstract entities.
But Christian Theists do have an answer.
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Actually… There’s scripture that talks of the martyred saints crying out to the Lord for vengeance and justice.
Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.”
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 3:11 PM
True, and this is why the Catholic Church is not bound by private revelations. But a good many books and epistles were written by contemporaries of the first apostles, and those who knew them. Some were inspired, others not. If the Church knew which were inspired at the offset (that is, the moment they were written), how was this so?
To say she “always” had a consensus would mean that the entire body of the New Testament had always been there for her to form a consensus. It was not. This is not necessarily supported by your quotation. Concerning the quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia (the entry of which you do not mention, hence no means of determining the context), “implicit” is not the same as “explicit.” Witness Augustine’s impassioned plea in Council (Nicea?) to retain the Book of Revelation and the Epistle of James, among others.
“[F]rom infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
This does not refute the role of tradition, nor does tradition, properly understood (as in 2 Thess), undermine this quotation.
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 3:15 PM
ROFL!!!
Wow,someone’s still referencing Loraine Boettner?
Here. Have fun with these links: http://www.catholic.com/library/Catholic_Inventions.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/More_Catholic_Inventions.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp
I’m mildly amused and yet saddened. =/
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Errr..
Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
“So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).
“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
The early Church was a Church based not on Scripture alone, but also on the Traditions handed down to faithful men (2 Tim 2:2).
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 3:37 PM
That ‘tradition’ has a valid historical context that the Roman church likes to leave out.
Because Scripture confirms what is Scripture, and the Holy Spirit has promised to guide the church in the knowledge of the truth, just as it did with the Berean church.
When Augustine was making his appeal to the Council of Nicea, he was doing it on the basis of the knowledge the universal church at the time had, not on the basis of the Council’s authority. More on this:
We don’t dispute that tradition is useful. It is. But it doesn’t have authority over Scripture, nor does it add to them.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Can you define this tradition for us? What does ‘tradition’ mean in the Roman Catholic sense?
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 3:47 PM
How is that one unscriptural???
To be fair, “we guys” put our faith in God, not any reverend or religious organization. Furthermore, even if Peter is “the first pope,” which I can’t say I’m entirely convinced of, he didn’t build a church until well after Jesus died and rose again, so you can’t exactly say the Catholic Church has been around since the time of Jesus.
If the Scriptures, which are “God-breathed” (which is what the Bible says) are not the authority, then how can anything else be the authority. According the John chapter 1, the “Word” (the Bible) is God and was with God, meaning Jesus. If Jesus isn’t our authority, then we’re nothing more than a man-made cult.
I’m not. You could argue that even the pope thinks they’re different religions. I personally don’t believe that, but I understand why others do.
Catholics believe communion is required to go to Heaven? But I thought our works were not enough to get us there and that only belief and acceptance of God is enough. I thought that was all any Christian considered as a requirement.
No, it’s just speaking about scripture as the authority, hence the “God-breathed” part.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 3:50 PM
It does?
So tell me, just how exactly does it do this?
The early Church was a Church based not on Scripture alone, but also on the Traditions handed down to faithful men (2 Tim 2:2).
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Who said anything about me being Roman Catholic? I’m Byzantine Catholic. :)
That said, I will quote from one of the many fine articles at Catholic.com that talk about it:
Hope this helps! :)
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 3:52 PM
But the early church also abandoned many traditions that it had been taught as a child.
Peter was instructed by Christ to eat “unclean” meat.
Peter was instructed to spread the Word to gentiles.
Paul argued against circumcision.
There were many, many things they let go of in the way of tradition in favor of the heart of the matter.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Dang, I missed a tag somewhere. Sorry for the weirdness in my previous comment.
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 3:53 PM
For the Catholics here:
Are we not all in agreement that the only mandate of a Christian, above all else, is acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior?
I’ve always assumed that this was all that matters, from Paul’s letter about knowing nothing but Christ “and Him crucified.”
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 4:01 PM
And to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Can’t forget that.
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 4:02 PM
You’re saying that’s a mandate in order to be a Christian?
I understand the idea of saying it’s something we should do, just like we should pray and read the Bible, but is it a prerequisite to be a Christian?
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 4:08 PM
GAWD…how many times on HOW MANY SITES do I have to explain this?!?!
What Rome means is ‘Where there’s no valid eucharist, there’s no Church’ because the Eucharist is what makes the Church the Church. What Rome does not mean is ‘Protestants aren’t Christian. God hates Protestants. Only the Catholic Church is a true Church.’
Protestant congregations are in real, but imperfect communion with the Church. That’s because ‘we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’. If you are validly baptised, you are Christian. And, by the way, the Church does recognized non-Catholic bodies as true Churches (think ‘Orthodox’, for instance). It’s all about the Eucharist, baby. If you’ve got a valid one, you’re a Church. If you don’t, but you still adhere to the basics of the Creed, you’re an ecclesial body.”
E. M. on July 11, 2007 at 4:14 PM
What is a ‘valid eucharist?’
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 4:23 PM
endorsed by Nabisco!
Guardian on July 11, 2007 at 4:28 PM
He’s talking about communion saving you.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 4:40 PM
You still haven’t supplied any argument against anything I’ve said, and I’m not going to retype it again. It’s not cherrypicking… We have a Pope who is hostile to real Christians, and regardless of what he may feel or have expressed at certain points regarding Muslims (you’ve given me no examples anyway), he praised Islam and said he wants an interreligious dialogue… in the same breath he attacked non-Catholic Christians.
RightWinged on July 11, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Well, Jesus did state “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Yeah, except that one was very much a metaphor.
In fact, to quote it like you have is to quote it out of context.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Yes, it’s cherrypicking. And a real short memory. Remember that lecture he gave a few months ago that infuriated Muslims? The press said he was sorry, but that was mistranslated. He was “greatly disturbed” by the actions taken against Christians as a result of what he said. And in appearing with them in the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, the Pope paused while holding his pectoral cross. This would have had significance for his audience, whether Christian or Muslim. You want examples, do you? As Cardinal Ratzinger, he gave a lecture at St Peter’s Lutheran in NYC in 1988 on the state of biblical scholarship. That specific enough for ya??? As Pope Benedict, he has appeared with other religious leaders, including the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is unlikely to be seen as “hostile to real Christians.”
manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 4:54 PM
So the guy makes some appearances and general statements. He’s a politician, so what?
Once again, nothing you’ve said argues my point. He’s repeatedly critical of and condemning of non-Catholic Christians, yet wants an interreligious dialogue with Muslims. Nothing you’ve said proves this to be untrue.
RightWinged on July 11, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Oh and by the way, not that your point about him “outraging” Muslims over something he said really matters (partly because it has nothing to do with my point, and partly because as MM put it, Islam is the Religion of Perpetual Outrage)… but you also might recalled that sissy boy blamed the whole thing on a translation issue, and then apologized.
RightWinged on July 11, 2007 at 5:10 PM
It’s fun seeing Christians argue about whether or not group A will get into heaven or group B will get into heaven.
I’ve got an answer for you guys: there is no proof heaven even exists, many things in The Bible are false, and the Pope and the Catholic Church in general are the worst culprits of being a corporation wrapped in the guise of a religion where membership is exclusive to those who believe something even more farfectched than a man rising form the dead and there being a paradise for those who (metaphorically, of course) eat the flesh and drink the blood of said death defier.
Nonfactor on July 11, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Errr. Actually, He’s being quite literal here. Notice the two verses prior:
The Jews listening to Him were confused. They understood His words as literal. But does He correct them as He did in the past such as in Matt. 16:5–12? No! He then goes and re-emphasizes it!
Indeed, He also tells them that they won’t be able to accept His teachings if they think only carnally, His words are after “Spirit and Life”. One has to open themselves to the workings of the Holy Spirit in order to accept this hard teaching. But many couldn’t accept this teaching
I see 30 missing verses there. But I think I get your implication, that He was speaking figuratively and you appeal to John 6:63. But that makes no sense in context. To paraphrase, if we assume that 6:63 implies He was being figurative, then we have Jesus telling us to eat His flesh, but immediately afterwards saying that it counts for nothing. And it doesn’t really explain why so many of His disciples were aghast at His words to the point they left Him. So then, what does he mean by “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” ? Well, let’s see here. If we go a bit further in John’s gospel to John 8:15–16 we see Jesus tell his opponents:
In other words, just judging by the flesh isn’t enough, we have to go beyond that and judge according to the Spirit. Hence, “the flesh is to no avail” and “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”
dscherck on July 11, 2007 at 5:21 PM
RightWinged, who protests whom? If you think the Pope doesn’t want interreligious dialogue with ALL religions (including Protestantism) you are crazy. The Pope is a very savvy man, and practical, too…What, do you want him to pull a Pope Innocent and declare a Holy War against Islam? This is what your Protestant forefathers used as a criticism of the Church!! Islam is a huge religion: let’s be pratical here…I hate Islamofascists just as much as the next guy, but you are living in a fantasy land if you think we can just turn everyone who is Islamic into our enemy.
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Not one to often belittle the pope’s comments, but I do so now.
From the article:
Well, we call his cronies pedophiles and enablers. That said, there are a few priests I respect for their positions. Not their doctrine, though.
Also, our ministers do not give communion. Communion is what we as a congregation share as a relationship with each other and with God. Our minister oversee the church celebrating The Lord’s Supper.
Sensei Ern on July 11, 2007 at 5:26 PM
If we ignore them, maybe they’ll go away…
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Yes, all the priests are pedophiles and enablers…Ignorance is found on all sides of the political spectrum, I’m afraid…
Read this, everyone, who is interested in knowing about the priest abuse scandal:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
It was done by alma mater…Needless to say, only a very small percentage of priests were child abusers. No matter, the anti-Catholic bigots will say what they will!
One last thing: Remember, it was Mozart who said Protestantism was “all in the head” and that a Protestant could never understand the Agnus Dei. If Mozart says it, it’s good enough for me!
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Exactly, carnally being the flesh, meaning He isn’t literally talking about eating flesh.
Jesus often spoke in parables to those around Him, only explaining the parables to His disciples, which is what He was doing in verse 63 and is why I quoted it.
It makes sense because He wasn’t literally asking people to eat His flesh and only meant it spiritually and was explaining that to His disciples while He was alone with them.
When people talk of Christ being the “bread of life” or reading the Bible as getting their “daily bread,” they don’t mean literally.
They mean that their Spirit is figuratively “fed” by Christ and the Word, meaning their Spirit grows by “digesting” the Word and “growing” closer to Christ.
It does when you consider that they misunderstood Him and thought he was encouraging cannibalism.
Remember, this is before the Last Supper, before Jesus called wine and bread His flesh and blood. Unless one takes this message as metaphorically, the only other option is to assume He wanted people to kill and eat Him.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 5:34 PM
Seriously, WillBarrett, this is exactly the beef Protestants have with the Catholics here. WE ARE OF THE SAME RELIGION.
Saying that we’re not is an insult. If you don’t understand that, then there’s nothing else that can be said here.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 5:37 PM
What, that God accounts for these things? That’s not an answer, it’s a fairy tale.
No one can account for these things. They just are.
B26354 on July 11, 2007 at 5:42 PM
For example, we can see that Jesus life, death, and resurrection were fulfilled according to Old Testament passages (Isaiah 53, for one). We can see that Jesus’ statements and actions were in fulfillment of them as well. Paul drew out the implications of Jesus’ finished work in his epistles, as did the author of the Hebrews, Peter, and John. All of these epistles are in agreement with one another and with the gospels on every matter of doctrine. There are no contradictions between any of the New Testament authors or between New and Old Testament authors.
You’re making too much of the 2 Timothy verse. Where does the passage it give the same authority to the traditions as the 2 Timothy 3:15-17 claims that Scripture is alone God-breathed? Scripture is what gives the traditions their authenticity, not the other way around. The proof texts used to support the Roman church’ claims about tradition being passed down from the apostolic era don’t support it.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Esthier…SORRY…I honestly didn’t mean to say we are of different religions…POOR WORD CHOICE….I just merely meant that the past two Popes have tirelessly worked for inter-faith dialogue…I did not intend to insult you…Protestants certainly ARE Christians.
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Nothing just is. If God doesn’t exist, then science will eventually explain it all. If He does, then He created it all.
But nothing just is. We don’t accept that when looking at buildings or vehicles, and we shouldn’t accept that with nature just because we don’t know how something came to be.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Willstrawman, you’re pathetic. Please don’t respond to me, unless you’re actually addressing what I said… rather than what you choose to pretend I said. What you just did is not better than lying. Bye.
RightWinged on July 11, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Alright, I was too quick to jump on you for that one, but it is a sentiment being addressed by many that different denominations are actually different religions. I wrongly assumed that that’s what you were saying.
Thanks for correcting that.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Let ColtsFan handle that one. He’s good.
PRCalDude on July 11, 2007 at 5:47 PM
B26354,
Thank you for your comment. The “they just are” is the most common answer an atheist/naturalist provides. This response reveals the impossibility of atheism in accounting for our everyday usage and application of the laws of logic in our thinking. Atheists may indeed use logic. Indeed some of the most gifted people in the world are atheists. The problem is that their system of thought, if consistently applied, prevents the atheist from **accounting** for their everyday usage of the laws of logic.
Here are my feeble thoughts. I do not pretend to be the smartest guy in the world, just the guy who has the most student loan debt, that is all. That is why I can’t provide a conservative/libertarian atheist with his iphone yet.
1.) There are mind-independent immaterial abstract entities, known as propositions, concepts, numbers, laws of logic. These abstract entities exist, on a metaphysical level, independently of humans. They exist even if humans do not exist.
2.) The above entities are known by and are accessed via the human mind.
3.) Naturalism, by traditional definition, cannot metaphysically account for the existence of propositions or concepts or non-reductive moral commands.
4.) Because of 3.), something outside of Naturalism (atheism) must account metaphysically for these immaterial entities.
5.) Because of 3.), the metaphysical existence of these abstract immaterial entities lead to:
a.) either the defeat of Atheism, since there are things that are clearly incompatible with the traditional definition
b.) or the traditional definition of Atheism/Naturalism must be quickly revised, which later raises a separate difficulty for the atheist
c.) the embrace of a world view that allows for some sort of Theism, since its opposite (atheism) cannot account for these entities.
Theists can indeed account for their everyday usage of the immaterial laws of logic because we have a worldview that allows for immaterial abstract entities. Atheists do not.
Some atheists may embrace option b.) above, which leads to a different posting by me in the near future.
Thanks for letting me share my thoughts.
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 6:08 PM
I agree, we shouldn’t stop looking for answers. But we shouldn’t accept an explanation without proof. Science may find all the answers eventually, but I doubt it. That doesn’t mean God exists.
B26354 on July 11, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I take your point to be a little whine that the Pope is more open to interreligious dialogue with Islam then, say, Protestants. Is that not your point? I don’t have the time to read through all of the comments. Be clearer then….
I don’t appreciate being called “pathetic” or the creator of “strawmen” arguments….It’s not my fault you can’t explain yourself well…
My only point is that Protestants protest…and Protestants like yourself will never be satisfied with the olive branch the Pope extends: protesting is in the definition of Protestantism! If you want to clarify, please do, but there’s no need to be personally insulting. As far as the Islam remark, my experience with some of the commenters on this site is that a lot of them DO want a war with all of Islam, and dare I say it, Islam to stop existing…I’m sorry if I unfairly lumped you in with that faction, but I don’t think it was completely misguided.
WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 6:14 PM
In the philosophy of science, we know the difficulties and limitations and inherent restrictions of science. The British philosopher Karl Popper has argued against the view that “science will eventually explain it all.” The gifted atheist Bertrand Russell in his essay, “Limitations of Scientific Method” has even argued that all scientific laws are based on fallacious arguments simply because ***all science is inductive in nature***.
I am trying to refrain from summarizing hundreds of years of debates in the philosophy of science. My only purpose is to say that there are numerous problems with the view that “science will eventually explain it all.”
Hey, I agree with you here.
a.) We move from what is known to what is unknown.
b.) We know the laws of logic are **reflective of ultimate reality.** Therefore, we must move from this known to determine what worldview provides a satisfying answer.
c.) All versions of Naturalism/Atheism present difficulties with point b.
d.) Therefore, naturalism is false.
e.) Given the impossibility of atheism, agnosticism is a possibility. But Theism is a stronger possibility simply because we have human minds that access these immaterial abstract entities.
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Coltsfan, I don’t buy your proposition no. 1. What does “exist on a metaphysical level” mean? Seems to me a naturalist would reject metaphysics, as they only recognize existence of the physical world.
You don’t say how you account for “immaterial abstract entities,” only that you do. First you have to prove their existence, anyway.
B26354 on July 11, 2007 at 6:32 PM
It looks like in marketing terms, the Pope is trying to re-establish the brand.
He feels that the Catholic Church, especially in the Western World needs a renewal, and to do that you have to clearly define who and what you are and what you want. He’s aiming at the cafeteria catholics who pick and choose what they want to follow and believe.
B16 is expressing core Catholic beliefs and he wants to get everyone back on message.
Iblis on July 11, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Of course not. Then again, even if science could explain everything about the world, that wouldn’t prove He doesn’t exist either.
The only true proof comes in the afterlife, a place from where people, as a general rule, do not return. So it all comes back to a choice of beliefs.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Good point. Let us see if we both can make some progress here.
When I say “metaphysics”, I am not referring to wives’s tales, witch-craft, New Age sorcery, rumors, etc. Rather, I am referring to the established discipline within philosophy that deals with issues that lie **above the physical”, hence metaphysics.
For example, think about Truth.
The concept of Truth is a metaphysical subject.
But our ***access to Truth itself*** is an epistemological issue.
I may have heard that 2 + 2 = 4 from my schoolteacher. But the **very truthfulness** of that same proposition exists independently of the existence of my schoolteacher.
Throughout the history of philosophy, naturalists have wrestled with and have made valid contributions to metaphysics and epistemology. Many naturalists do not reject metaphysics outright.
I haven’t proved the existence of immaterial abstract entites yet. I was wanting first to be clear, so that progress and understanding can be achieved. Do you want to discuss the metaphysical existence of abstract entities yet?
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I understand that there are many problems with this idea, but that doesn’t make it impossible. And if the gaps left currently unexplained by evolution cannot be explained by God, then surely science will one day be able to fill in those holes as well as other uncertainties.
Maybe the earth won’t last long enough for science to do this, but without placing a time limitation on our endeavor for knowledge, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be made clear at some point unless the answer lies within something significantly more complicated than ourselves, like a higher being.
Esthier on July 11, 2007 at 6:51 PM
The “science will explain it all” view is impossible because you are asking or wanting science to do the very impossible. Science is a valid discipline that is descriptive in nature only. Science is not normative.
Besides, the “science will explain it all” view, upon reflection, is not a scientific view at all. It cannot be tested nor is it open to careful empirical observation.
I am not opposed to science. I want the best science, and that means understanding both its inherent limitations and its possibilities.
ColtsFan on July 11, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »