Good stuff on the previous post's comment thread.
Joel said:
since the Catholics did kinda sorta take a lot of it back in Vatican II, don't you think that amounts to a de facto retraction, at least of some of it?
The inconsistencies and complete lack of clarity with respect to this issue make such questions an exercise in wishing upon a star, I should think. Which side do you want to prefer they meant? They certainly can't tell you; the RCC has felled thousands of trees in its self-"clarification"; if they could, they'd'a done it by now.
So, what are we, Reformedigelicals, to do? I guess it comes down to what you want to do. I think it's far more useful to nail people to Trent and hold them there, b/c ISTM this allows the difference inherent in the true Gospel to shine forth that much more brilliantly. Much like the Law kills in its condemnation, and it is in finding our condemnation to a messy and awful eternity lifted by the messy and awful sacrifice of Christ that we understand how exalted and wonderful the free gift of grace truly is.
There's also the smaller issue that people need to come out of RCC, whether you think RCC teaches saving doctrine or not. Being right before God is not the end; it is the beginning. And most ppl are far more familiar with Vat2 and the modern squishy liberal RCC than they are with the heretic-burning Trent RCC. I seek to remind them that the modern RCC has not taken back Trent, and remind them that they need to come out of such a screwed up church in favor of one that is far less doctrinally screwed up. Even if you're saved, it does you no good, and in fact does you a lot of bad, to be bowing down to Mary all the time.
bossmanham,
Let's go further into Trent, though:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
(In other words, if you say you're justified ONLY by the sacrifice of Christ, anathema to you.)
CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
(Anathematises Calvinists. And Augustinians.)
Oh, and "anathema" to RCC generally means "cut off from the Church". It's a roundabout way of damning you, but a few observations on that:
1) It's sort of a cowardly way of affirming Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus w/o affirming it.
2) It allows a man the time to come back to the Church.
3) It's a different meaning than what the Bible means when it uses the term. Which is a problem.
4) It's supposed to be a bad deal for the anathematised man b/c he is thus cut off from the reception of the Sacraments (confession, Eucharist, etc), which are the main ways thru which grace is infused into the soul. The hidden message is: "Good luck getting to Heaven without the Sacraments. If you know what's good for you, you'll come back to The Church®".
Showing posts with label the Pope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the Pope. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
bossmanham, Pope Benedict, condoms, and me
bossmanham and I have just concluded a Facebook conversation. He had posted this:
Like usual, the media has made someone say what they didn't actually say. Sad. The media truly is dead.
about this column from Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin - "The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???"
bossmanham is a bit too sympathetic to Rome for my taste, and I chimed in with a comment. The following is our dialogue.
--Rhology-- Well...I don't know about that. He said it, after all.
This kind of ridiculous double standard doesn't make sense from Roman Catholics, like: "It does not carry dogmatic or canonical force."
Oh, b/c Jimmy Akin says so? Where's his imprimatur, nihil obstat, or Cardinal hat? Where's his Magisterium card?
Also, the Pope's statement that the use of condoms by males prostitutes could be "the first step towards moralization" was quite disturbing. As if the job of the church is to see that the world is "moralized". I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel. He talks like a politician, not a shepherd of souls.
--bossmanham-- It's the spin the media has put on what he said that is the problem. A private interview with the pope isn't a dogmatic judgment. Catholics are pretty clear about this actually. Only when the pope speaks ex cathedra does it carry infallible force in their view. The pope can have private views that are wrong according to RC doctrine.
The media has painted this statement as an approval of using condoms, if only in this situation, when it seems that what he is saying is that in that case, it is a realization by the prostitute that what he is doing isn't necessarily right; that perhaps they are having a moral reckoning that what they are doing is wrong. That's what I take away from it after reading about it for a bit.
I'm not sure why Akin would need any of those things to try to interpret what the pope was saying. As a Catholic, it would seem he'd have some knowledge as to Catholic dogma.
I'm not sure how the pope saying that someone may be realizing their moral failure could lead you to believe that his soteriology is one of moralizing the world. I don't have a problem with moral teachings as long as we aren't concluding that that can make us right with God. So I think you're being a little hasty saying, "I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel." I don't think we can make that judgment off of this tiny portion of an interview.
But I will agree that it seems to be something said carelessly. I wouldn't have said that was acceptable at all, but would have said that if you need to use a condom, you shouldn't be having sex. So it was a dumb thing to say, but my critique of media spin still stands.
--Rhology-- --A private interview with the pope isn't a dogmatic judgment.
Says you. You need to explain why what you say is more important/authoritative than what the Pope says.
--Catholics are pretty clear about this actually
Not that clear, if you read the combox of the post to which you linked. One is tempted to think that RCism is a blueprint for anarchy.
--Only when the pope speaks ex cathedra does it carry infallible force in their view.
Not that anyone can ever identify when he does speak ex cathedra.
--could lead you to believe that his soteriology is one of moralizing the world.
Why would someone who's familiar with the Gospel say anything, ever, to the effect that "moralising the world" is a worthy goal?
-- I don't think we can make that judgment off of this tiny portion of an interview.
I didn't, thanks for your concern. ;-)
But you'd never catch me saying anything like that. Ever. Words mean things, you know?
--bossmanham-- "Says you. You need to explain why what you say is more important/authoritative than what the Pope says"
Because what the pope says isn't always authoritative as dogma. Beyond that it could be debated, I'm sure. Just like many opinions of other Catholic theologians, liberal or conservative.
"Not that clear, if you read the combox of the post to which you linked. One is tempted to think that RCism is a blueprint for anarchy."
Well one reason I'm not Catholic is because I don't think their hierarchical structure is Biblical. I honestly don't think that many random internet Catholics are that informed about their dogmas. But then here's another problem with magisterial infallibility, who interprets the magisterial proclamations?
Anyway, I said they were clear on what is authoritative from the pope. That doesn't mean that I approve.
"Not that anyone can ever identify when he does speak ex cathedra."
Perhaps, but what IS ex cathedra teaching is distinct from the dogmatic proclamation that ex cathedra is all that is considered infallible.
"Why would someone who's familiar with the Gospel say anything, ever, to the effect that "moralising the world" is a worthy goal?"
I don't know that he said that, but I also wonder what the problem with moral teaching is. Jesus did it. So did Paul. That doesn't mean it saves you, but it also doesn't mean that it's bad to tell people to stop sinning either.
"But you'd never catch me saying anything like that. Ever. Words mean things, you know?"
Well we all have unguarded moments, which is why I'm thankful for the forgiveness of Jesus :D
--Rhology-- --what the pope says isn't always authoritative as dogma
The problem is that it's virtually never clear when it is authoritative as dogma. It's left up to the layman in real practice, just like now.
And of course, why would a layman have authority to pronounce this statement of the Pope non-authoritative? Akin has no standing, no authority. Guy's not even a priest.
I should think Akin should do the right thing and submit himself to the Pope, not the other way around.
--But then here's another problem with magisterial infallibility, who interprets the magisterial proclamations?
Um, yep.
-- I also wonder what the problem with moral teaching is. Jesus did it. So did Paul.
I'm sure you realise that "moralising the world" is far different from teaching people about morals.
--we all have unguarded moments, which is why I'm thankful for the forgiveness of Jesus
And if your statements were to cast doubt on your acceptance of Christ ALONE as your atonement and merit... you would not in fact have His forgiveness. That's the problem here.
--bossmanham-- Well just because it isn't clear when it is authoritative doesn't mean really anything about it, other than we may face epistemic issues in figuring out when it is. I would say that Catholics would say that a private interview where the pope airs his private views on things is clearly not.
"I'm sure you realise that "moralising the world" is far different from teaching people about morals."
Sure. But I'm not sure the pope has ever advocated the former.
"And if your statements were to cast doubt on your acceptance of Christ ALONE as your atonement and merit... you would not in fact have His forgiveness. That's the problem here."
I don't think confusing statements one may make causes you to not have forgiveness. No one is perfect, and I'm sure I haven't spoken clearly before. Doesn't mean my relationship with Christ is nullified, does it?
--bossmanham-- Also, "moralizing the world" seems a tad ambiguous anyway, as I could take it as just spreading moral teachings. If it means to preach sinless perfection to gain heaven, well then Catholic dogma is against that.
--Rhology-- The point is: Why say "moralising the world"? Why not talk about preaching the Gospel? A man's priorities say a lot about him.
-- I would say that Catholics would say that a private interview where the pope airs his private views on things is clearly not.
I'm questioning on what basis they say that.
-- I'm not sure the pope has ever advocated the former
He just did, man.
--I don't think confusing statements one may make causes you to not have forgiveness.
If you're THE POPE, a man who has studied theology his entire life, and say stuff like that, there's a reason. The reason is not that he made a mistake or that he's ignorant. The reason is that he believes what he said and communicated what he believes.
-- Doesn't mean my relationship with Christ is nullified, does it?
What reason could you give me to think that he has a relationship with Christ, to begin with?
--bossmanham-- Did he say "moralizing the world?" I think he said that the use of a condom by such a person is a moralizing step. And just because that might be a priority wouldn't mean it's THE priority. Without knowing the man, I couldn't make that call.
"I'm questioning on what basis they say that."
You'd have to ask them, I suppose. They'd probably point to the magisterial teaching.
"If you're THE POPE, a man who has studied theology his entire life, and say stuff like that, there's a reason. The reason is not that he made a mistake or that he's ignorant. The reason is that he believes what he said and communicated what he believes. "
We're debating what he said too, so just saying this statement damns him would be begging the question. He's said other things too. It's not as if one sentence of an interview is an appropriate source to gauge his soteriology.
"What reason could you give me to think that he has a relationship with Christ, to begin with"
He professes Christ as Lord. I have no reason to doubt that. Just being the pope doesn't mean he isn't saved
--Rhology-- --You'd have to ask them, I suppose.
Oh, I do. Over and over again.
--They'd probably point to the magisterial teaching.
Which is as easily identifiable as "ex cathedra" papal pronouncements.
--He professes Christ as Lord.
The demons do too, and the unregenerate will. There's a bit more to it, and a few things you need to NOT have in your confession, like any trust in your own merit for example.
--bossmanham-- Heh, the Catholic bloggers you interact with don't really have a handle on their own theology. But I've not looked into it enough to see if there are good answers.
"The demons do too, and the unregenerate will"
They know Christ is God, but they don't profess Him as Lord. And I'm aware that unregenerate can make the false claim that they are in Christ. I'm saying we can't make that determination because we don't have access to their hearts.
And Catholics don't trust in their own merit. They think the merit comes from God through the sacraments and then through the actions the sacraments and God enable and initiate. They do believe one has to willingly do good, but they chalk it all up to grace.
The main disagreement historically was over justification, and I think it's mostly talking past one another. Plus, I've quoted to you citations where the pope extols the merits of Luther's teaching on justification. I don't think your contentions here are viable.
Not only that, I'm not sure that vocalizing the doctrine of sola fide is a necessary condition of salvation.
--Rhology-- --They do believe one has to willingly do good
And there it is.
-- I've quoted to you citations where the pope extols the merits of Luther's teaching on justification
I'm confused now. When do I believe that what a Pope says outside of an official ex cathedra capacity really matters? Trent is infallible w/o question and it condemned the Gospel.
-- I'm not sure that vocalizing the doctrine of sola fide is a necessary condition of salvation.
Normally no. But Ben16 is a trained theologian. He's the Pope! If he believed the Gospel, it would come out sometime. Since it never does...
--bossmanham-- There what is? You don't think we need to willingly do good?
"I'm confused now. When do I believe that what a Pope says outside of an official ex cathedra capacity really matters? Trent is infallible w/o question and it condemned the Gospel. "
Because we're talking about the pope.
Trent was pretty much overturned in Vatican 2 (at least the anathemas, though they can't say that) and I don't judge people by 500 year old documents. Though I can judge that the institution that is Catholicism is inconsistent in what it says and what it practices.
I mean at one time it was said there is no salvation outside the institutional Catholic church, and now we're separated brethren and they've pretty much adopted an expanded mercy, respond to the light given, explanation of those outside and their salvation. 500 long years since Pope Pius and the Trent boys.
"Normally no. But Ben16 is a trained theologian. He's the Pope! If he believed the Gospel, it would come out sometime. Since it never does..."
Again, I've cited to you where he does. And I'm not sure how being a theologian magically changes his status. You and I can't examine his heart, let alone his life, so I don't think we can make that judgment.
--Rhology-- --(at least the anathemas, though they can't say that
Haha, well, those were no small thing! And that's precisely what I'm talking about.
Besides, appealing to po-mo flower-child Vatican II is not the way to go. There's a reason many conservative RCs shy away from it.
-- I don't judge people by 500 year old documents.
What about judging them by their still-active allegiance to them? Their unwillingness to put them aside and embrace the biblical faith?
--And I'm not sure how being a theologian magically changes his status.
It leaves him w/o excuse. He has zero excuse for speaking imprecisely and for not sharing the Gospel most every chance he gets. I challenge you to find me one place where he's shared it.
--bossmanham-- I agree they were no small thing. I'm not defending it, I'm saying they only give it lip-service today, because if they didn't it would show that, in fact, Roman Catholic dogma CAN change. Then they'd have to admit something they espoused didn't come from apostolic succession. But in practice it is ignored.
"It leaves him w/o excuse. He has zero excuse for speaking imprecisely and for not sharing the Gospel most every chance he gets."
Well we're all without excuse, and hopefully the blood of Christ covers our imperfections. Of course we can't really take one sentence from an interview and say it proves he believes a false gospel.
"The Letter to the Philippians, provides moving testimony of Paul's shift from a justice founded on the Law and achieved by observing certain prescribed actions, to a justice based upon faith in Jesus Christ. ... It is because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus Christ that Paul focuses his Gospel on a steadfast contrast between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the Law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ"
"Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbor the Law is present and fulfilled. So in communion with Christ, in faith, which creates charity, the Law is realized. We become just by entering into communion with Christ, who is love."
I mean that really contradicts at least two cannons of Trent.
--Rhology-- --I mean that really contradicts at least two cannons of Trent.
If he really believes consistently with that, then here are the consequences:
1) He's a hypocrite. As Pope, he is bound to uphold the infall teachings of Rome, but here he's beating up infall anathemas.
2) What does it say about his conscience, that he would rise to be THE BIG CHEESE of a church that has officially anathematised the Gospel? Not "a priest". THE POPE.
3) He's a double-talker, a politician. These quotations are incompatible with the goal of "moralising the world".
--bossmanham-- 1) Perhaps, or he's just unwittingly inconsistent.
2) It shows that they no longer believe that we're anathema.
3) You've not shown that he actually said anything about moralizing the world. Those words aren't in the statement.
--Rhology-- 1. Unwittingly? The man has been thinking theology longer your and my combined lifetimes. Highly doubtful. Lk 12:48 and all that.
2. They SHOULD. That's part of the point, I should think. If they don't, I guess it would go to show two things:
a) What you said about their unbiblical authority structure - they can't live it out! (very Francis Schaeffer-like)
b) The supposed strong distinction between infallible-authoritative teaching and fallible-non-authoritative teaching is a phantom. Individual RCs will pick and choose between whatever whoever says, as they like. If they say they're supposed to be held fast to infallible-authoritative teaching and yet toss it aside as you're suggesting they've done, that's the exact same as what they do with what *I* say.
3. "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where ***this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization***, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."
--bossmanham-- 1) I don't know for sure. I'm just saying it isn't necessarily some malevolent intent on his part just because he's the pope.
2) I agree, and think this should be pointed out to RC's.
3) I don't take that as his whole goal is to moralize the (world).
Like usual, the media has made someone say what they didn't actually say. Sad. The media truly is dead.
about this column from Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin - "The Pope Said WHAT about Condoms???"
bossmanham is a bit too sympathetic to Rome for my taste, and I chimed in with a comment. The following is our dialogue.
--Rhology-- Well...I don't know about that. He said it, after all.
This kind of ridiculous double standard doesn't make sense from Roman Catholics, like: "It does not carry dogmatic or canonical force."
Oh, b/c Jimmy Akin says so? Where's his imprimatur, nihil obstat, or Cardinal hat? Where's his Magisterium card?
Also, the Pope's statement that the use of condoms by males prostitutes could be "the first step towards moralization" was quite disturbing. As if the job of the church is to see that the world is "moralized". I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel. He talks like a politician, not a shepherd of souls.
--bossmanham-- It's the spin the media has put on what he said that is the problem. A private interview with the pope isn't a dogmatic judgment. Catholics are pretty clear about this actually. Only when the pope speaks ex cathedra does it carry infallible force in their view. The pope can have private views that are wrong according to RC doctrine.
The media has painted this statement as an approval of using condoms, if only in this situation, when it seems that what he is saying is that in that case, it is a realization by the prostitute that what he is doing isn't necessarily right; that perhaps they are having a moral reckoning that what they are doing is wrong. That's what I take away from it after reading about it for a bit.
I'm not sure why Akin would need any of those things to try to interpret what the pope was saying. As a Catholic, it would seem he'd have some knowledge as to Catholic dogma.
I'm not sure how the pope saying that someone may be realizing their moral failure could lead you to believe that his soteriology is one of moralizing the world. I don't have a problem with moral teachings as long as we aren't concluding that that can make us right with God. So I think you're being a little hasty saying, "I think that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Pope doesn't know the Gospel." I don't think we can make that judgment off of this tiny portion of an interview.
But I will agree that it seems to be something said carelessly. I wouldn't have said that was acceptable at all, but would have said that if you need to use a condom, you shouldn't be having sex. So it was a dumb thing to say, but my critique of media spin still stands.
--Rhology-- --A private interview with the pope isn't a dogmatic judgment.
Says you. You need to explain why what you say is more important/authoritative than what the Pope says.
--Catholics are pretty clear about this actually
Not that clear, if you read the combox of the post to which you linked. One is tempted to think that RCism is a blueprint for anarchy.
--Only when the pope speaks ex cathedra does it carry infallible force in their view.
Not that anyone can ever identify when he does speak ex cathedra.
--could lead you to believe that his soteriology is one of moralizing the world.
Why would someone who's familiar with the Gospel say anything, ever, to the effect that "moralising the world" is a worthy goal?
-- I don't think we can make that judgment off of this tiny portion of an interview.
I didn't, thanks for your concern. ;-)
But you'd never catch me saying anything like that. Ever. Words mean things, you know?
--bossmanham-- "Says you. You need to explain why what you say is more important/authoritative than what the Pope says"
Because what the pope says isn't always authoritative as dogma. Beyond that it could be debated, I'm sure. Just like many opinions of other Catholic theologians, liberal or conservative.
"Not that clear, if you read the combox of the post to which you linked. One is tempted to think that RCism is a blueprint for anarchy."
Well one reason I'm not Catholic is because I don't think their hierarchical structure is Biblical. I honestly don't think that many random internet Catholics are that informed about their dogmas. But then here's another problem with magisterial infallibility, who interprets the magisterial proclamations?
Anyway, I said they were clear on what is authoritative from the pope. That doesn't mean that I approve.
"Not that anyone can ever identify when he does speak ex cathedra."
Perhaps, but what IS ex cathedra teaching is distinct from the dogmatic proclamation that ex cathedra is all that is considered infallible.
"Why would someone who's familiar with the Gospel say anything, ever, to the effect that "moralising the world" is a worthy goal?"
I don't know that he said that, but I also wonder what the problem with moral teaching is. Jesus did it. So did Paul. That doesn't mean it saves you, but it also doesn't mean that it's bad to tell people to stop sinning either.
"But you'd never catch me saying anything like that. Ever. Words mean things, you know?"
Well we all have unguarded moments, which is why I'm thankful for the forgiveness of Jesus :D
--Rhology-- --what the pope says isn't always authoritative as dogma
The problem is that it's virtually never clear when it is authoritative as dogma. It's left up to the layman in real practice, just like now.
And of course, why would a layman have authority to pronounce this statement of the Pope non-authoritative? Akin has no standing, no authority. Guy's not even a priest.
I should think Akin should do the right thing and submit himself to the Pope, not the other way around.
--But then here's another problem with magisterial infallibility, who interprets the magisterial proclamations?
Um, yep.
-- I also wonder what the problem with moral teaching is. Jesus did it. So did Paul.
I'm sure you realise that "moralising the world" is far different from teaching people about morals.
--we all have unguarded moments, which is why I'm thankful for the forgiveness of Jesus
And if your statements were to cast doubt on your acceptance of Christ ALONE as your atonement and merit... you would not in fact have His forgiveness. That's the problem here.
--bossmanham-- Well just because it isn't clear when it is authoritative doesn't mean really anything about it, other than we may face epistemic issues in figuring out when it is. I would say that Catholics would say that a private interview where the pope airs his private views on things is clearly not.
"I'm sure you realise that "moralising the world" is far different from teaching people about morals."
Sure. But I'm not sure the pope has ever advocated the former.
"And if your statements were to cast doubt on your acceptance of Christ ALONE as your atonement and merit... you would not in fact have His forgiveness. That's the problem here."
I don't think confusing statements one may make causes you to not have forgiveness. No one is perfect, and I'm sure I haven't spoken clearly before. Doesn't mean my relationship with Christ is nullified, does it?
--bossmanham-- Also, "moralizing the world" seems a tad ambiguous anyway, as I could take it as just spreading moral teachings. If it means to preach sinless perfection to gain heaven, well then Catholic dogma is against that.
--Rhology-- The point is: Why say "moralising the world"? Why not talk about preaching the Gospel? A man's priorities say a lot about him.
-- I would say that Catholics would say that a private interview where the pope airs his private views on things is clearly not.
I'm questioning on what basis they say that.
-- I'm not sure the pope has ever advocated the former
He just did, man.
--I don't think confusing statements one may make causes you to not have forgiveness.
If you're THE POPE, a man who has studied theology his entire life, and say stuff like that, there's a reason. The reason is not that he made a mistake or that he's ignorant. The reason is that he believes what he said and communicated what he believes.
-- Doesn't mean my relationship with Christ is nullified, does it?
What reason could you give me to think that he has a relationship with Christ, to begin with?
--bossmanham-- Did he say "moralizing the world?" I think he said that the use of a condom by such a person is a moralizing step. And just because that might be a priority wouldn't mean it's THE priority. Without knowing the man, I couldn't make that call.
"I'm questioning on what basis they say that."
You'd have to ask them, I suppose. They'd probably point to the magisterial teaching.
"If you're THE POPE, a man who has studied theology his entire life, and say stuff like that, there's a reason. The reason is not that he made a mistake or that he's ignorant. The reason is that he believes what he said and communicated what he believes. "
We're debating what he said too, so just saying this statement damns him would be begging the question. He's said other things too. It's not as if one sentence of an interview is an appropriate source to gauge his soteriology.
"What reason could you give me to think that he has a relationship with Christ, to begin with"
He professes Christ as Lord. I have no reason to doubt that. Just being the pope doesn't mean he isn't saved
--Rhology-- --You'd have to ask them, I suppose.
Oh, I do. Over and over again.
--They'd probably point to the magisterial teaching.
Which is as easily identifiable as "ex cathedra" papal pronouncements.
--He professes Christ as Lord.
The demons do too, and the unregenerate will. There's a bit more to it, and a few things you need to NOT have in your confession, like any trust in your own merit for example.
--bossmanham-- Heh, the Catholic bloggers you interact with don't really have a handle on their own theology. But I've not looked into it enough to see if there are good answers.
"The demons do too, and the unregenerate will"
They know Christ is God, but they don't profess Him as Lord. And I'm aware that unregenerate can make the false claim that they are in Christ. I'm saying we can't make that determination because we don't have access to their hearts.
And Catholics don't trust in their own merit. They think the merit comes from God through the sacraments and then through the actions the sacraments and God enable and initiate. They do believe one has to willingly do good, but they chalk it all up to grace.
The main disagreement historically was over justification, and I think it's mostly talking past one another. Plus, I've quoted to you citations where the pope extols the merits of Luther's teaching on justification. I don't think your contentions here are viable.
Not only that, I'm not sure that vocalizing the doctrine of sola fide is a necessary condition of salvation.
--Rhology-- --They do believe one has to willingly do good
And there it is.
-- I've quoted to you citations where the pope extols the merits of Luther's teaching on justification
I'm confused now. When do I believe that what a Pope says outside of an official ex cathedra capacity really matters? Trent is infallible w/o question and it condemned the Gospel.
-- I'm not sure that vocalizing the doctrine of sola fide is a necessary condition of salvation.
Normally no. But Ben16 is a trained theologian. He's the Pope! If he believed the Gospel, it would come out sometime. Since it never does...
--bossmanham-- There what is? You don't think we need to willingly do good?
"I'm confused now. When do I believe that what a Pope says outside of an official ex cathedra capacity really matters? Trent is infallible w/o question and it condemned the Gospel. "
Because we're talking about the pope.
Trent was pretty much overturned in Vatican 2 (at least the anathemas, though they can't say that) and I don't judge people by 500 year old documents. Though I can judge that the institution that is Catholicism is inconsistent in what it says and what it practices.
I mean at one time it was said there is no salvation outside the institutional Catholic church, and now we're separated brethren and they've pretty much adopted an expanded mercy, respond to the light given, explanation of those outside and their salvation. 500 long years since Pope Pius and the Trent boys.
"Normally no. But Ben16 is a trained theologian. He's the Pope! If he believed the Gospel, it would come out sometime. Since it never does..."
Again, I've cited to you where he does. And I'm not sure how being a theologian magically changes his status. You and I can't examine his heart, let alone his life, so I don't think we can make that judgment.
--Rhology-- --(at least the anathemas, though they can't say that
Haha, well, those were no small thing! And that's precisely what I'm talking about.
Besides, appealing to po-mo flower-child Vatican II is not the way to go. There's a reason many conservative RCs shy away from it.
-- I don't judge people by 500 year old documents.
What about judging them by their still-active allegiance to them? Their unwillingness to put them aside and embrace the biblical faith?
--And I'm not sure how being a theologian magically changes his status.
It leaves him w/o excuse. He has zero excuse for speaking imprecisely and for not sharing the Gospel most every chance he gets. I challenge you to find me one place where he's shared it.
--bossmanham-- I agree they were no small thing. I'm not defending it, I'm saying they only give it lip-service today, because if they didn't it would show that, in fact, Roman Catholic dogma CAN change. Then they'd have to admit something they espoused didn't come from apostolic succession. But in practice it is ignored.
"It leaves him w/o excuse. He has zero excuse for speaking imprecisely and for not sharing the Gospel most every chance he gets."
Well we're all without excuse, and hopefully the blood of Christ covers our imperfections. Of course we can't really take one sentence from an interview and say it proves he believes a false gospel.
"The Letter to the Philippians, provides moving testimony of Paul's shift from a justice founded on the Law and achieved by observing certain prescribed actions, to a justice based upon faith in Jesus Christ. ... It is because of this personal experience of the relationship with Jesus Christ that Paul focuses his Gospel on a steadfast contrast between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the Law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ"
"Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbor the Law is present and fulfilled. So in communion with Christ, in faith, which creates charity, the Law is realized. We become just by entering into communion with Christ, who is love."
I mean that really contradicts at least two cannons of Trent.
--Rhology-- --I mean that really contradicts at least two cannons of Trent.
If he really believes consistently with that, then here are the consequences:
1) He's a hypocrite. As Pope, he is bound to uphold the infall teachings of Rome, but here he's beating up infall anathemas.
2) What does it say about his conscience, that he would rise to be THE BIG CHEESE of a church that has officially anathematised the Gospel? Not "a priest". THE POPE.
3) He's a double-talker, a politician. These quotations are incompatible with the goal of "moralising the world".
--bossmanham-- 1) Perhaps, or he's just unwittingly inconsistent.
2) It shows that they no longer believe that we're anathema.
3) You've not shown that he actually said anything about moralizing the world. Those words aren't in the statement.
--Rhology-- 1. Unwittingly? The man has been thinking theology longer your and my combined lifetimes. Highly doubtful. Lk 12:48 and all that.
2. They SHOULD. That's part of the point, I should think. If they don't, I guess it would go to show two things:
a) What you said about their unbiblical authority structure - they can't live it out! (very Francis Schaeffer-like)
b) The supposed strong distinction between infallible-authoritative teaching and fallible-non-authoritative teaching is a phantom. Individual RCs will pick and choose between whatever whoever says, as they like. If they say they're supposed to be held fast to infallible-authoritative teaching and yet toss it aside as you're suggesting they've done, that's the exact same as what they do with what *I* say.
3. "There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where ***this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization***, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality."
--bossmanham-- 1) I don't know for sure. I'm just saying it isn't necessarily some malevolent intent on his part just because he's the pope.
2) I agree, and think this should be pointed out to RC's.
3) I don't take that as his whole goal is to moralize the (world).
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Preaching to scum
Jason Streitfeld left a comment on the last post. I'd use the more conventional word "responded", except he didn't really do that.
Given his apparently bulletproof penchant for "I say it, therefore that's the way it is,"-type statements, one wonders whether he is a convert to atheism out of the Tony Alamo school of "Christianity", or was previously a disciple of one of those screaming preacher types who goes to university campuses and harangues the student passers-by with indiscriminate promises of Hell as final destination, near-universal refusal to engage in dialogue, stubborn conviction of Pelagian sinlessness, and utter cluelessness as to grace, tact, and irony.
I say this because his "rebuttals" never get beyond the level of naked pontification. If anyone is inclined to bow down and give his undying allegiance to Jason, I guess this kind of decree-from-on-high might be convincing.
Hi Jason,
I'll take your points as numbered.
1) Yes, I suppose I might be wrong. Up to the dissenter to provide an argument for that.
Knowing sthg "100%" is a bit unclear - how does that differ from knowing sthg infallibly? Just for the sake of argument, I'll say yes, I know 100% that all humans are created in God's image, b/c the Bible says so.
No need to go by DNA - that wouldn't have been available for most of human history. It's pretty easy - if an organism looks like a human and is the product of the union from two human parents, that organism is human. Sometimes a spade really is a spade. Humanity is a matter of ontology, not performance.
Chimp DNA is not close enough, no. And it doesn't matter what anyone THINKS - it remains true that a Jewish person is a human made in the image of God.
2) If you really recognise the is/ought distinction, I'd expect you to act consistently with that recognition, but I see virtually no such recognition in your writing.
Amazingly, though I've taken great pains to explain why your bogus "explanation" of how reason "informs" morality and how unreliable emotions are, you simply point me back to what you've already said. No need to go further here - feel free to engage the arguments anytime. You have a whole holiday weekend to do so.
3)Of course, we do care about lots of things. We wouldn't have survived natural selection if we didn't.
And? More is/ought conflation. This is precisely what I mean. Tell me WHY we OUGHT TO care about things, one thing, anything.
And the fact that we don't always agree only indicates that it takes work to live together.
Which speaks not at all to whether we OUGHT TO WANT TO live together. You're a walking begged question.
That's what morality is about--working together and getting along.
The great Pontifex Jason hath so decreed it, eh?
What is your argument for that? I don't grant that in the slightest.
I've explained at length why your assertion that "Christianity can" is, at best, unfounded, and at worst, a threat to the very well being of humanity.
*snort* As close as you've come is to make an vague and rather gauche assertion that God is by definition incoherent. Anyone can play that game. Materialistic atheism is by definition incoherent. Anyway, like I said, I'll get to that later.
Let me try to help you understand. Humor me for a moment. Pretend, just for the sake of argument, that Christianity is true. In what way, according to Christian teaching (aka, performing an internal critique) does Christianity fail to fulfill this? Prove your assertion, and remember - since this is an internal critique, you can have no recourse to your (question-begging) personal moral convictions.
I think I speak for most everyone reading when I say that no one cares about what YOU think on what is good and what is bad. We want to see ARGUMENTS.
I've also explained at length how my understanding of morality does, in fact, allow for objective moral judgments.
If you're not planning to interact with my numerous rebuttals on that score, I'm more than happy to leave that point where it is.
The irrational approach negates the very possibility of discourse, and so it is antagonistic to morality.
Make an argument!!!!! An argument!!! It's as if you've never heard the word "argument" before.
Let me try to help. Answer these questions:
1. Is it bad to be antagonistic to "morality"?
2. How do you know?
3. Why is it bad?
4. Why is discourse an integral part of morality?
5. How do you know that?
Answer those questions and it'll be a start. And seriously, spare me the naked assertions and "Well, that's just how it is" that you've been feeding up to this point.
And I can say, objectively, for rational agents at all times and places, that an approach to morality which rejects the possibility of negotiating values is immoral.
How do you know?
Are you not going to interact with the numerous rebuttals I posted on this very topic?
Given his apparently bulletproof penchant for "I say it, therefore that's the way it is,"-type statements, one wonders whether he is a convert to atheism out of the Tony Alamo school of "Christianity", or was previously a disciple of one of those screaming preacher types who goes to university campuses and harangues the student passers-by with indiscriminate promises of Hell as final destination, near-universal refusal to engage in dialogue, stubborn conviction of Pelagian sinlessness, and utter cluelessness as to grace, tact, and irony.
I say this because his "rebuttals" never get beyond the level of naked pontification. If anyone is inclined to bow down and give his undying allegiance to Jason, I guess this kind of decree-from-on-high might be convincing.
Hi Jason,
I'll take your points as numbered.
1) Yes, I suppose I might be wrong. Up to the dissenter to provide an argument for that.
Knowing sthg "100%" is a bit unclear - how does that differ from knowing sthg infallibly? Just for the sake of argument, I'll say yes, I know 100% that all humans are created in God's image, b/c the Bible says so.
No need to go by DNA - that wouldn't have been available for most of human history. It's pretty easy - if an organism looks like a human and is the product of the union from two human parents, that organism is human. Sometimes a spade really is a spade. Humanity is a matter of ontology, not performance.
Chimp DNA is not close enough, no. And it doesn't matter what anyone THINKS - it remains true that a Jewish person is a human made in the image of God.
2) If you really recognise the is/ought distinction, I'd expect you to act consistently with that recognition, but I see virtually no such recognition in your writing.
Amazingly, though I've taken great pains to explain why your bogus "explanation" of how reason "informs" morality and how unreliable emotions are, you simply point me back to what you've already said. No need to go further here - feel free to engage the arguments anytime. You have a whole holiday weekend to do so.
3)Of course, we do care about lots of things. We wouldn't have survived natural selection if we didn't.
And? More is/ought conflation. This is precisely what I mean. Tell me WHY we OUGHT TO care about things, one thing, anything.
And the fact that we don't always agree only indicates that it takes work to live together.
Which speaks not at all to whether we OUGHT TO WANT TO live together. You're a walking begged question.
That's what morality is about--working together and getting along.
The great Pontifex Jason hath so decreed it, eh?
What is your argument for that? I don't grant that in the slightest.
I've explained at length why your assertion that "Christianity can" is, at best, unfounded, and at worst, a threat to the very well being of humanity.
*snort* As close as you've come is to make an vague and rather gauche assertion that God is by definition incoherent. Anyone can play that game. Materialistic atheism is by definition incoherent. Anyway, like I said, I'll get to that later.
Let me try to help you understand. Humor me for a moment. Pretend, just for the sake of argument, that Christianity is true. In what way, according to Christian teaching (aka, performing an internal critique) does Christianity fail to fulfill this? Prove your assertion, and remember - since this is an internal critique, you can have no recourse to your (question-begging) personal moral convictions.
I think I speak for most everyone reading when I say that no one cares about what YOU think on what is good and what is bad. We want to see ARGUMENTS.
I've also explained at length how my understanding of morality does, in fact, allow for objective moral judgments.
If you're not planning to interact with my numerous rebuttals on that score, I'm more than happy to leave that point where it is.
The irrational approach negates the very possibility of discourse, and so it is antagonistic to morality.
Make an argument!!!!! An argument!!! It's as if you've never heard the word "argument" before.
Let me try to help. Answer these questions:
1. Is it bad to be antagonistic to "morality"?
2. How do you know?
3. Why is it bad?
4. Why is discourse an integral part of morality?
5. How do you know that?
Answer those questions and it'll be a start. And seriously, spare me the naked assertions and "Well, that's just how it is" that you've been feeding up to this point.
And I can say, objectively, for rational agents at all times and places, that an approach to morality which rejects the possibility of negotiating values is immoral.
How do you know?
Are you not going to interact with the numerous rebuttals I posted on this very topic?
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
The Pope grows a spine
I'm sure he's really interested in props from me, but props from me on this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)