contradictions?

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/

also

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8779

The above link deals with [quote]--

To be specific, the Lefebvrites insist that theDeclaration on Religious Liberty contradicts what they call infallible teachings of Pius IX found inQuanta cura and the Syllabus of Errors. They often point also to Gregory XVI's Mirari vos.These claims can be answered, but a preliminary point should first be made.

The article above gives very good discussion and details on the subject.  Then this one is particularly good:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/07/conscience-and-coercion

"The declaration is not a statement about religious liberty in general but about a specifically civil liberty: religious liberty in relation to the state and other civil institutions. It does not oppose religious coercion in general, but coercion by the state. The state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence. "

also Brian Harrison’s work on reconciling pre-Vat2 and Vat2 on the issue of religious liberty? Many of his articles are online at http://www.rtforum.org/lt/ – you may be interested in
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt44.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html#II
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt151.html
Also in comment 85 here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/#comment-78258
 In the same speech, Benedict XVI applied the «hermeneutic of reform in the continuity» precisely to the controversial question of religious liberty. The Pope admitted that there is «some kind of discontinuity» in the Catholic teaching about this issue from Pius IX to the Council. Once the correct hermeneutic is applied, however, we may conclude that there is no rupture. The general principles taught by the Church have not changed. Their applications have changed, also as a consequence of new and different historical situations. The liberalism of the French Revolution considered religious freedom as a philosophical doctrine, implying that all religions are equal and that religious truth is merely subjective. This notion of religious freedom was rightly condemned by Pius IX, the Pope said, and the Church cannot accept it even today. «If religious freedom, the Pope explained, were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge».

However, the meaning of religious liberty derived from the French Revolution is not the only possible meaning. «The American Revolution, the Pope argued, was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution». Thus, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed the right to religious liberty not at a «metaphysical level», but «as a need that derives from human coexistence» within the context of the modern secular State. The Pope did not claim that there is a literal continuity between Pius IX and Dignitatis Humanae. Obviously, there is not. But he did argue that the discontinuity concerned the application of the principles, «the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change», while there was continuity at the more crucial level of «the principles that express the permanent aspect». This «combination of continuity and discontinuity» is precisely a clear example of a «reform in the continuity», as opposed to a rupture.

http://www.cesnur.org/2011/dan-mi.html

see also: https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR89103.HTM

and http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1883/vatican_ii_and_religious_liberty.aspx#.Uxdiu_mYLw9  
 To this, the Council Fathers say that while the State must “take account of religious life,” it would “clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.”

This language in article three of Dignitatis Humanae was changed in nearly every draft of the document. The 19th-century popes taught that the State could inhibit public acts of religion. To avoid a direct contradiction, the Council Fathers argued that the State could not presume to inhibit such acts as if it were the arbiter of the true religion. The State could only inhibit religious acts if those acts violated public order and thus the common good.

.......................

Dignitatis Humanae’s definition of religious liberty at the start has it that “all men are to be immune from coercion…, within due limits.” That last phrase is most important, for here the Council Fathers had to walk a very narrow line. Article seven of the document starts to unpack the meaning.

Pope Leo XIII criticized the notion that citizens could worship whatever and however they wanted just so long as “public peace” wasn’t disturbed. In other words, condemned is the notion that you’re free to say and do and believe whatever you want so long as you don’t prohibit another from saying and doing and believing what they want. That was too low a bar for Pope Leo.

He taught that the common good should be the standard for State intervention. Practically, this meant that even if no public peace has been violated, the State may at times repress error to maintain the common good. 

Some argue that because the phrase “common good” is replaced with “public order” there is a contradiction. But the drafters had a good reason to avoid using “common good.” Bishop Emile de Smedt, the official spokesperson for the drafters, argued that the term was not used by modern governments. So the drafters chose “public order” as “the more basic component of the common good” but were careful to define “public order” to include not just “public peace” but “public morality.”

This was still not satisfactory to some. Archbishop Karol Wojtyła—later Pope John Paul II—noted that the Communists appealed to the “public order” all the time as they suppressed and persecuted the Church. He insisted that a reference be made to an objective moral standard. As a result, the drafters decided to define “public order” as the “objective moral order.”

Therefore, according to the declaration and in line with Pope Leo XIII, a right to religious liberty is necessary for the common good, but if one were going to limit religious liberty one would have to demonstrate that the religion was violating the objective moral order.

 Jimmy Aiken's article  here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110911193031/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

praying to saints? some questions/answers

Evidence in the Early Church: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

Also a prayer to Mary in the early days of the church: http://frederica.com/gallery/places-and-things/1067611

Good article here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/02/do-the-saints-pray-for-us-a-response-to-perry-sukstorf-and-marcia-fleischman/

from comment  7 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/a-catholic-reflection-on-the-meaning-of-suffering/comment-page-1/#comment-7404

How can a saint in heaven hear our prayers? Saints are not omniscient or omnipresent; only God is omniscient and omnipresent. So how can they seemingly have such abilities?

The saints in heaven can hear/see our requests to them, though not with physical ears/physical eyes (since they are not embodied, Mary excepted). In three places in the gospels, Jesus tells us that in the resurrection we will be like the angels. One of the ways in which we will be like the angels is that we will not marry. But another way is that we will know, not only by our physical senses, but in a supernatural way, i.e. a way that exceeds the capacity of our epistemic faculties. All the angels and saints presently enjoy the Beatific Vision. (See Benedictus Deus.)

When a person has the Beatific Vision, he not only knows God; he also knows what pertains to himself, through God. St. Thomas Aquinas explains:

The Divine essence is a sufficient medium for knowing all things, and this is evident from the fact that God, by seeing His essence, sees all things. But it does not follow that whoever sees God’s essence knows all things, but only those who comprehend the essence of God [Cf. I, 12, 7,8]: even as the knowledge of a principle does not involve the knowledge of all that follows from that principle unless the whole virtue of the principle be comprehended. Wherefore, since the souls of the saints do not comprehend the Divine essence, it does not follow that they know all that can be known by the Divine essence–for which reason the lower angels are taught concerning certain matters by the higher angels, though they all see the essence of God; but each of the blessed must needs see in the Divine essence as many other things as the perfection of his happiness requires. For the perfection of a man’s happiness requires him to have whatever he will, and to will nothing amiss: and each one wills with a right will, to know what concerns himself. Hence since no rectitude is lacking to the saints, they wish to know what concerns themselves, and consequently it follows that they know it in the Word. Now it pertains to their glory that they assist the needy for their salvation: for thus they become God’s co-operators, “than which nothing is more Godlike,” as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. iii). Wherefore it is evident that the saints are cognizant of such things as are required for this purpose; and so it is manifest that they know in the Word the vows, devotions, and prayers of those who have recourse to their assistance. (Summa Theologica Supp. Q.72 a.1)

As St. Thomas explains, anyone who sees the face of God sees also in God all things pertaining to himself, through God. The petitions of the members of the Church militant, pertain to the saints in heaven. And for this reason they see these petitions supernaturally, through the Beatific Vision. Notice also in the selection from St. Thomas that he points out that “it pertains to their glory that they assist the needy for their salvation.” God doesn’t need the saints to intercede for us. He has given them a great gift, in allowing them to participate in this glorious way, in His work of redemption.

Because God is love, He does not do everything Himself. He created us, and gave us real causal powers. So, He doesn’t operate by the principle, “If I can do it, then there is no point in having anyone else do it.” He works by love, which is the very opposite of such egoism, because by love He gives to us the dignity of participation in His glorious activity. This is what we mean in speaking of His love as self-effusive. Strictly speaking, God did not need to give us causal powers of any sort. God could have done everything, entirely, Himself. He loves to give to us the opportunity to participate as real [secondary] causes in His work. That’s one of the gifts He has given to the saints in heaven, by allowing them to be genuine intercessors on our behalf.

For an explanation of the notion of “Patron Saints,” let me refer you to this article. (Feel free to ask follow-up questions on that, if that is unclear to you in any place.) As for the practice of praying to a particular saint for a particular type of need, we just discussed this in this comments of this thread, see especially comment #64.

Why travel to see the relics of saints or their shrines? Is this to pay respect, to offer penance, or to just to be close to those Giants who have gone before us?

The denial of the practice of venerating the relics of the saints, and denying their ability to hear our prayers was part of the heresy introduced by Eunomius and followed by Vigilantius in the fourth century, as St. Jerome tells us in his work against Vigilantius:

Does the bishop of Rome do wrong when he offers sacrifices to the Lord over the venerable bones of the dead men Peter and Paul, as we should say, but according to you, over a worthless bit of dust, and judges their tombs worthy to be Christ’s altars? And not only is the bishop of one city in error, but the bishops of the whole world, who, despite the tavern-keeper Vigilantius, enter the basilicas of the dead, in which “a worthless bit of dust and ashes lies wrapped up in a cloth,” defiled and defiling all else. Thus, according to you, the sacred buildings are like the sepulchres of the Pharisees, whitened without, while within they have filthy remains, and are full of foul smells and uncleanliness. And then he dares to expectorate his filth upon the subject and to say: “Is it the case that the souls of the martyrs love their ashes, and hover round them, and are always present, lest haply if any one come to pray and they were absent, they could not hear?” Oh, monster, who ought to be banished to the ends of the earth! Do you laugh at the relics of the martyrs, and in company with Eunomius, the father of this heresy, slander the Churches of Christ? Are you not afraid of being in such company, and of speaking against us the same things which he utters against the Church? For all his followers refuse to enter the basilicas of Apostles and martyrs, so that, forsooth, they may worship the dead Eunomius, whose books they consider are of more authority than the Gospels; and they believe that the light of truth was in him, just as other heretics maintain that the Paraclete came into Montanus, and say that Manichaeus himself was the Paraclete. You cannot find an occasion of boasting even in supposing that you are the inventor of a new kind of wickedness, for your heresy long ago broke out against the Church. It found, however, an opponent in Tertullian, a very learned man, who wrote a famous treatise which he called most correctly Scorpiacum, because, as the scorpion bends itself like a bow to inflict its wound, so what was formerly called the heresy of Cain pours poison into the body of the Church; it has slept or rather been buried for a long there, but has been now awakened by Dormitantius. I am surprised you do not tell us that there must upon no account be martyrdoms, inasmuch as God, who does not ask for the blood of goats and bulls, much less requires the blood of men. This is what you say, or rather, even if you do not say it, you are taken as meaning to assert it. For in maintaining that the relics of the martyrs are to be trodden under foot, you forbid the shedding of their blood as being worthy of no honour. (Against Vigilantius, 8)

Not only do the saints in heaven see God (as I explained above), but they retain a relation to their body. It is an ontological relation (i.e. a relation of being — this body does not merely belong to that saint, as he might have possessed a book or a cloak; this body is that saint, not the entirety of the saint, of course, but nonetheless his bodily component). The relation of the saints in heaven to their bodies is also an eschatological relation. They wait patiently to be reunited to their bodies, at the resurrection. To stand before the body of a saint is to stand before a part of someone who is presently enjoying the Beatific Vision, and is presently related (by an ontological relation of identity and an eschatological relation) to this body; it is to stand before something that we know (by the authority of the Church) will be in heaven forever. (We do not know that, with the same certainty, about any other material object, including our own bodies, because “that I [insert your own name] will persevere in faith until death” is not part of the deposit of faith.)

To ask for the intercession of a saint, in the presence of his or her body, is to do two things: (1) to honor that saint, by implicitly recognizing his heroic virtue and present glory, and (2) to draw near to that saint. If that saint’s body had no relation to the saint’s soul, then drawing near to his body would not in any way draw us near to the saint. But because of the body-soul relation, both ontological and eschatological, to draw near to his body is to draw near to the saint. We are not gnostics, who believe that we are all spirits trapped in bodies. A human soul is the form of a body — this particular body. (This is why reincarnation is metaphysically impossible.) The soul is incomplete in itself, as is the body. They are complete only when united as one substance, i.e. the body-soul composite. That is why human death is not natural, but contrary to nature, because the soul is made to remain the animating principle of this body. All this is why coming into the physical presence of the body of a saint, is to come into the presence of that saint who, at that very moment, is in heaven beholding the face of God. So, that is why the early Christians honored the relics of the saints, because they understood Christian anthropology, the communion of the saints, and the implications of the doctrine of the resurrection. (Update: I have discussed this in more detail in “Heroes of the New Covenant.”)

Lastly,

Are their prayers more effective than the living?

Yes. St. James tells us that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) But the saints in heaven are perfectly righteous, while even the most holy saint on earth still sins venially. Hence the prayers of the saints in heaven are more effective than the prayers of those on earth.

Also in a comment here  http://oldlife.org/2012/07/former-saints-remorse/comment-page-1/#comment-53132

.............in Catholic theology and practice the term ‘saint’ is used in two different senses. In one sense, it refers to all those in a state of grace. In other sense it refers to those who by the grace of God have lived lives of heroic virtue and died in a state of grace. To move from Protestant to Catholic does not mean that one ceases to be a saint in the first sense (i.e. being in a state of grace). But merely being in a state of grace does not entail being a saint in the second sense (i.e. living a life of heroic virtue and dying in a state of grace).

More discussion here comment 18  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/objections-to-the-hail-mary-leo-xiii-the-rosary-and-christian-unity-part-5-of-10/#comment-133411  :

More than that, we don’t need a 5 year old to intercede for us when we have the ladies husband himself interceding for us (Romans 8 – “Christ Jesus … is also interceding for us”).

Presupposed in this objection is the notion that sacred theology is determined by pragmatism and the principle of parsimony. But that’s not a safe presupposition. Rather, it is a human philosophical assumption. God is not necessarily limited by what is most efficient, or merely by what is “needed.” God could have forgiven us without the cross. That alone ought to give us pause when attempting to deduce or determine a priori the content of sacred theology by way of the principle of parsimony.

But the Jews never prayed to Eve, and there are no examples of prayers to Moses or Abraham or any other person in heaven in scripture that I’m aware of.

Keep in mind that until Christ ascended, the door of heaven was closed. See “The Harrowing of Hell.”

Even after the “rebuttals” given here, I have to agree with Presbyterian’s first comment – “praying” to Mary is wasting time that could be spent praying to God, …

That would entail that asking your [presently embodied] friends to pray for you is always also “wasting time that could be spent praying to God.” Again, implicit in this objection is the supreme elevation of the [very American / modern] value of maximizing efficiency, to the point of doing theological work, even though sacred theology is entirely based on supernatural divine revelation, not what is entailed by principles of human reason.

Regarding how the saints in heaven can hear our prayers, I’ve written about that in comment #7of “A Catholic Reflection on the Meaning of Suffering.” Also, I wrote a short post explaining why the prayers of the saints are efficacious, titled “Heroes of the New Covenant.”

from comment 19 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/objections-to-the-hail-mary-leo-xiii-the-rosary-and-christian-unity-part-5-of-10/

Christ allows us, as the Body of Christ, to share in His Intercessory ministry. The key here is participation. The Blessed Virgin Mary has a special place in the Body, and as such, a special way that she participates in His Intercessory ministry. So, yes, we only have one Mediator, but He like to share. It all started when he created us.

see also http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-heroes-of-the-new-covenant/

From a comment 22 here      http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/12/ctc-radio-update/  :

Regarding prayer to the saints,there is plenty of scriptural evidence for the intercession of saints and angels.

Please see the following links:

Do the Saints Pray For us

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/relics-saints-and-the-assumption-of-mary/

Consider also the vision of Judas Maccabeaus, in which Onias and Jeremiah (both deceased) are seen interceding for the Jews: (2 Maccabees 15):

He told them that he had seen a vision of Onias, the former High Priest, that great and wonderful man of humble and gentle disposition, who was an outstanding orator and who had been taught from childhood how to live a virtuous life. With outstretched arms Onias was praying for the entire Jewish nation. 13 Judas then saw an impressive white-haired man of great dignity and authority. 14 Onias said:

This is God’s prophet Jeremiah, who loves the Jewish people and offers many prayers for us and for Jerusalem, the holy city.
15 Then Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave Judas a gold sword, saying as he did so,
16 This holy sword is a gift from God. Take it and destroy your enemies.

And Tobit 12: 15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.”

Compare this to Revelation 5:8:

“And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.”

That the saints in heaven intercede for the Church on earth is a most biblical doctrine.
That we are to ask their intercession is confirmed by the teaching and practice of the same Church that gathered the sacred scriptures together in the present canon.

I Tim 2:15 Saved Through child bearing; meaning?

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/#comment-77102

Josephus' comments on the canon

http://www.handsonapologetics.com/Articles/5-Josephus%20and%20the%20closing%20of%20the%20canon.pdf

I Tim 2:5 One mediator

from comment 246 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/

Regarding the “one mediator” passage of Scripture, the sense in which Christ is the “one mediator” is fully compatible with there being other mediators mediating in senses other than the sense in which Christ mediates. Hence, for example, my interceding for you is not made impossible by Christ’s unique mediation on your behalf. Moreover, we already know that Mary’s fiat (“Let it be to me according to your word” – Luke 1:38) is fully compatible with 1 Tim 2:5, and thus with Christ’s unique mediation. And yet, by her fiat, Mary mediated between God and man, by making way for the union of the divine and human natures in the Person of the Logos. Abraham likewise interceded for the people of Sodom, and Moses did the same for the Hebrews. So the 1 Tim 2:5 passage cannot be interpreted as excluding without qualification all other sorts of mediation between God and man, and thus any other mediators. Rather, it should be interpreted as affirming the uniqueness of Christ’s mediation, as the unique sacrifice that satisfies the justice of God regarding the sin of the world. The doctrine that Jesus is the sole Mediator between God and man is referring to that by which grace is merited for us, and our eternal debt of our sin is paid. Only the God-man Jesus Christ could do that, and has done that. But that does not mean that Christ can use no other person as an instrument by which to bring that grace to us, through their prayers and intercessions; nor does it mean that no one else can aid us with respect to temporal debt; nor does it mean or entail that those who by this grace are united to Him cannot participate in His sacrifice in derivative ways, say, by offering Him to the Father (since the Son gives Himself to us to be offered to the Father), and by offering ourselves and our actions, in union with Christ’s offering, to the Father. concerning communion of the saints:

Titus 3:5

from comment 147 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/

If Abram left Ur “by faith,” and faith is sufficient for justification, and justification is only a once-in-a-lifetime event, then he could not be justified again in Gen 15:6. But he was justified in the act of faith described in Gen 15:6. So there’s a problem in your theology.

The Judaizers believed grace was necessary in Galations. But Paul said if they add one merit or work to faith they fall from grace and are severed from Christ. Paul says ” to the one who does not work God justifies the ungodly. The adding in of the necessity of doing sacraments, cooperation, one’s own grace enabled works isn’t going to go well. Titus 3:5 says not even Holy deeds can be a part of our being justified before God.

You are presupposing here an unqualified conception of ‘work.’ And that presupposition is doing all the underlying work in your argument. But as St. Augustine explains (see “St. Augustine on Law and Grace“), the work in view is work done on our own, by our own natural power, and not done by the grace that comes to us from and through Christ. If you don’t recognize the distinction between natural righteousness, and supernatural righteousness, then you won’t recognize that St. Paul is speaking of natural righteousness in Titus 3:5. Of course we are not brought to a state of grace by works of supernatural righteousness either, because that would be a contradiction; a person not in a state of grace cannot do works of supernatural righteousness. But the point in Titus 3:5 is that we are brought to a state of grace not by works, but by baptism. (For evidence that the laver of regeneration is understood by all the Fathers to be baptism, see here.) If your response is that all the Church Fathers are wrong, and you are right, then I would note that such a reply presupposes ecclesial deism (and all its consequences), and then hold up the alternative paradigm in “The Tradition and the Lexicon” post.

philosophy/ with religion

 This video makes some good points . In relation to this Dr.Cross says:

 , .....I have explained why the attempt to bypass philosophy, and jump straight to exegesis (either of Scripture or of historical texts), and then use the results of that allegedly ‘philosophically neutral’ exegesis/interpretation to construct and evaluate philosophical and theological systems is naive, because such an attempt overlooks uncritically the philosophical assumptions brought to the exegetical and interpretive process.

Here is another aspect of philosophy/with religion
Just a few quotes from some comments here in regard to this http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/12/rome-geneva-and-the-incarnations-native-soil/ comment 61

 I just want to say that this idea of that Augustine introduced a legacy of ontology significantly determined by Neoplatonic sensibilities has been essentially dismissed by modern scholarship (see Lewis Ayres and Michel Rene Barnes among Catholic scholars and Maarten Wisse among Reformed scholars). The same (i.e., that the doctrine of participation was Biblical and not fundamentally Neoplatonic) has been abundantly clear among scholars of the Eastern Fathers for many years. So if your critique is based on such dated and inaccurate characterizations, it is hard to take seriously. In any case, it is extremely clear that the pro-Nicene account that supported conciliar Christianity was based on exactly this concept of participation, articulated in terms of the person/nature distinction. Therefore, your argument would prove too much, in that it would tar the entire history of Christianity with the Neoplatonic brush.

Unlike animals, human beings have certain capacities for instance, to learn languages or a capacity for generosity. These capacities are realized in action when particular human beings speak languages or perform generous actions. But between capacity and action there is an intermediate state possible. when we say that a man can speak french, we mean neither that he is actually speaking french, nor that speaking french is a mere logical possibly, States such as knowing french are dispositions. A disposition is halfway between a capacity and an action, between pure potentiality and actuality.For Aquinas regeneration is an infused habit or disposition that is somewhere between a mere logical possibility and a realized action: prevenient, but not actual grace.Auqinas writes” infuses the gift of justifying grace in such a way that, at the same time, he also moves the free choice to accept the gift of grace” the forgiveness of sins”. The case of infant baptism is paradigmatic for this process from infused justification to forgiveness of sins. Regeneration replaces imputation: God works in us is the basis of forgiveness.

Exactly, and orthodox Christianity formulates that distinction in terms of nature (capacity) versus person (exercise). So long as the capacity is supernatural, its exercise cannot possibly be the work of the person. But this does not imply that the person does not actualize it, i.e., that God does not work through the person. So Aquinas’s distinction is well-grounded in the categories historically articulated by conciliar Christianity.

For Calvin we by contrast say” that justification consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. If we make regeneration to be the basis of the non imputation of sin, as Tomas had it, there remains no reason to distinguish between the two. Regeneration, after all, is sanctification viewed from the angle of an initiating moment rather than a larger process. Hence, Calvin insists on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, in this development the decisive role was played for the reformed by Calvin’s response to challenge of a one-time Lutheran ny the name of Osiander. Byan salvation is ethical and juridicial as opposed to ontological and mystical. Calvin held that the righteousness of Christ is not a substance but his active obedience in fulfillment of the law and passive obedience on the cross. Calvin made a significant contribution in the distinction between essential righteousness and acquired righteousness, not only to the reformed but also to Protetantism in general. ”

I agree with you that Calvin’s position was an innovation that he himself introduced. And that innovation would rightly be characterized as a contradiction or a corruption of the nature/person distinction, rather than a development. As we saw above with your characterization of Aquinas, you have essentially collapsed the nature/person distinction that is fundamental to understanding Aquinas’s position. This collapse of the nature/person distinction was characteristic of the late medieval nominalism in which Calvin was steeped, so he had to invent a completely new category to account for it, which was this idea of ethical/juridical/covenantal salvation. Unfortunately, that category is itself contradictory of the metaphysical account of participation (nature and person) on which conciliar Christianity was built. So while you claim not to be introducing philosophical concepts, you are in fact relying on a philosophy (late medieval nominalism) that cannot be reconciled with Christianity.

By contrast, history has shown that conciliar Christianity used the categories of nature and person *without* relying on the underlying Neoplatonic philosophy; it legitimately transformed the philosophical categories to fit the Biblical categories. In fact, the heretics like Arius, Eunomius, and Nestorius were the ones who relied on philosophical categories to negate Biblical teaching, so the orthodox Fathers were actually the ones opposing the misuse of philosophy. This is the same method that Paul used in the Areopagus, and indeed, one of the most influential Christian saints was actually believed to be the same Dionysius the Areopagite mentioned in the Bible. Ironically, you are setting Calvin’s philosophical invention (the concept of free-standing juridical/legal salvation) against the dogmas taught by the very people who opposed the Neoplatonizing of the Gospel, the orthodox Fathers of the Church. Nor does Biblical scholarship support this idea of justification as juridical/legal salvation being separate from sanctification, as numerous Catholic Biblical scholars have pointed out. This isn’t to say that juridical/legal salvation plays no role, but it is grounded in the fundamental categories of the Incarnation, nature and person.

Absent that artificial separation, one would not read Bible verses as you do. For example, one would not view Peter’s communion with the divine nature as a purely covenantal category, even though that is clearly an aspect of the communion described therein. Likewise, one would understand the sense of “perfection” in Hebrews in terms of participation rather than a purely legal category, so those who are saved are legitimately perfected when they are baptized, even though that perfection can still be lost. Rather than reading the Bible through the philosophical categories of Calvin, which you admit that he invented, I would encourage you to put the late medieval nominalism aside and instead read the Bible through the categories of the Fathers who fought against the philosophers and defended the Biblical teaching.

comment 96

What may be helpful is to show how your anti-intellectual method is affecting your exegetical method. Your paraphrase of Hebrew 10:14, which you claimed to have quoted before in your paraphrase, doesn’t actually say the words that you quoted. That just goes to show how your anti-intellectual approach is corrupting your reading of Scripture. You made a similar misrepresentation of Titus 3:5; a perfectly consistent explanation is that Paul considers baptism to be the work of God, not of man, which you could see if you weren’t playing rhetorical games. Lastly, everyone agrees that Paul disdains Greek philosophy in 1 Corinthians, but your interpretation is so extreme that it would reject even Hebrew wisdom literature about natural knowledge. That approach is contradicted in Acts 17:22-34, where Paul was willing to credit Greek religion and philosophy with reaching some true conclusions, while still challenging their belief that they know it all (in particular, their denial of the resurrection). This illustrates that you aren’t taking your philosophical method from Scripture but rather reading the nominalist denial of philosophy back into Scripture.

If you want to understand more about the Christian philosophical method of the Fathers, as opposed to Neoplatonism, then maybe you should read the work of your highly learned countrymen, Luigi Gioia and Giulio Maspero. They know more about the Bible and the Fathers than you or I ever will.

what about the thief on the cross/ no purgatory?

some answers found on a facebook site :

1.I would guess that his implicit desire for baptism was all that was necessary for his slate to be wiped clean. Purgatory is only a consideration when we commit sins after our baptism.

2.Also, "faith alone" types try to use the good thief as an example of how a person only needs faith apart from works to be saved. However, clearly the good thief did both demonstrate faith and perform good works - he rebuked a sinner, educated the ignorant, publicly defended Christ, publicly admitted his guilt and implicitly demonstrated true contrition.

To perform all these works I would guess he had a baptism of desire (or blood) at that moment and was open to grace. His suffering on the cross would atone for any sins and I would guess that such a painful death and sincere contrition would mean he went straight to heaven

3.Short answer, we don't know. Perhaps his suffering combined with his faith sufficed, perhaps Christ granted him a special privilege of grace, perhaps all purgation takes mere moments in our earthly time? We don't know. The point of the story is his faith in Christ, even as a sinner, and Christ's complete grace

4.time is only really a term used in accomodation to us when we think of the places of eternity (which are timeless) like heaven, hell and purgatory. So "tonight" would be Jesus' way of saying "soon," not literally at nightfall.

This makes sense to me, because after all, we know that "...he descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven..." so Jesus isn't even in heaven, speaking in our earthly conception of time, for a whole three days.

also on a comment here  http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-need-for-perfect-law-keeping-part-1/comment-page-1/#comments

I would say, “yes”. God is greater than His Sacraments. However, it would not be normative. There is not one example of such a thing in Scripture. Let me use the Good Thief for an example.

Protestants claim that it is an example of salvation by faith alone. But is it?

— 1 —
He suffered in the flesh. Scripture says:

1 Peter 4:1

1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
Crucifixion is considered one of the most painful ways to die that man has ever invented. And, as you can see, suffering in the flesh does away with sin. Christ must have known that the Good Thief had expiated his sins by the suffering that he endured on that cross.

— 2 —
He suffered with Jesus. Scripture says:

Romans 8:17King James Version (KJV)

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Who can deny that St. Dismas suffered with Christ? There he was suffering on the cross right next to Him. The only one any closer was Mary, His mother, who was spiritually suffering on the Cross with Jesus.

— 3 —

He admonished the sinner.

Do you remember that he reproved and rebuked the other criminal in defense of Jesus Christ? Scripture again says:

1 Thessalonians 5:14 [Full Chapter]
Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.

This is a spiritual good work of mercy in accordance with the Teaching of the Church:

2447 The works of mercy are charitable actions by which we come to the aid of our neighbor in his spiritual and bodily necessities. Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting are spiritual works of mercy, as are forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently. The corporal works of mercy consist especially in feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead. Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God:
He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none and he who has food must do likewise. But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?

He gave good witness.

He openly confessed his faith in Jesus Christ, asking Him for salvation.

Matthew 10:32King James Version (KJV)

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

And I would have posted many other things that he did, but this thing is being temperamental. Suffice to say, that from the Cross, the Good Thief accomplished many good works.

Hanging upon that cross beside Jesus, it is as though the Good Thief was standing before Jesus Christ at the Judgement. Jesus Christ judged the Good Thief according to his works which he had done in the body and knowing that he believed, He counted it to him as righteousness. Just as he does for all who, with the proper disposition of humility and faith, approach the Judgement Seat of Jesus Christ at the Sacraments.

contraception/ links/ etc

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/contraception/

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html


Concerning the top link, Bryan made a comment at 185

November 24th, 2013 10:57 am :
Paul Levy, a pastor in the “International Presbyterian Church,” writes,

Sex within marriage is God’s answer to [sexual] immorality, and so Christians need to work really hard at having good sex lives.

That reminds me of Kant’s notion that we have a duty to pursue happiness, so as to avoid the temptations to violate our duty under unhappy conditions. Contrast the Reformed notion of sex within marriage as the solution to sexual immortality, with the Catholic position. According to the Catholic position, the virtue of chastity, both within marriage and outside of marriage, strengthened by discipline, prayer and the sacraments, is God’s answer to sexual immorality. The Reformed position (as described by Levy) makes single people intrinsically unequipped to avoid falling into sexual immorality. Problems with pornography? Well, he isn’t married, and thus doesn’t have access to the essential antidote to sexual immorality. Hook-up lifestyle? Again, he’s not married, and thus doesn’t have God’s solution to sexual immorality. Date-rape? He just needs to get married. This position reduces the sexual act within marriage to a necessary means for resisting sexual temptation. But it also entails that the lack thereof (or the lack of some variation/permutation of sexual expression between married persons) is the convenient excuse when one fails to resist sexual temptation, both when unmarried, and when married. There is a sense in which what Levy says doesn’t accurately represent what Reformed leaders (Levy included) would say to single people, because they would urge unmarried persons to obey the divine law, and avoid fornication, through “Bible study, accountability groups, prayer, and attentiveness to solid preaching.” (See “Habitual Sin and the Grace of the Sacraments.”) But at the same time, what Levy says isn’t merely a slip of the Reformed tongue. The notion that sex-within-marriage is the solution to sexual immorality is a widely held position among Reformed persons. It treats gratifying and appeasing the sexual appetite as the solution, whereas the Catholic doctrine teaches that training and mastering the sexual appetite is the solution.

{I needed a bit more info so I asked him:

Could you explain the relationship of what you have stated with I Cor 7. This passage popped into my mind as I read your comment. It sounds like it is one factor in resisting temptation [not the only one, for sure]…..but I am not sure I am understanding things correctly. Here is the passage:

“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

HE answered in comment 187:


In the Catholic understanding, the quieting of concupiscence is a secondary effect of marriage, and a secondary effect of the marital act within marriage. It is not the purpose of marriage, nor the purpose of the marital act. Rather it is one of the ways in which couples help each other, though necessarily only subordinate to higher ends, as Pope Pius XI teaches:

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (Casti Connubii, 59)

The Holy Spirit / including a long quote from Dr. Ludwig Ott

just wanted to pass some stuff on about the Holy Spirit from Ott's book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.  Just note that he puts commas between chapter reference and verse so I Cor. 12,13 means chapter 12 verse 13. ON page 294-5 of my book he writes under

11. The Holy Ghost and the Church

1. The Soul of the Church

     The Holy Ghost is the Soul of the Church. (Sent. communis.)

 

In the Encyclical "Divinum illud" (1897), Leo XIII declared: 'Let the one proposition suffice: Christ is the Head of the Church, the Holy Ghost her soul.  In the Encyclical "Mystici Corporis" (D2288) Pius XII confirmed this doctrine.  In its content it asserts that like the soul in the body, the Holy Ghost is the principle of being and life in the Church.  It is the Holy Ghost who welds together the members of the Church among themselves and with Christ the Head, as the Holy Ghost is entirely in the head and entirely in the members of the Mystical Body.  It is He who by His assistance upholds the hierarchy in the exercise of the teaching office, of the pastoral office and of the sacerdotal office.  It is He who with His grace excites and fosters every salutary activity in the members of the Mystical Body.  All life and growth of the Mystical Body proceeds from the Divine life-principle indwelling in it.

 

This teaching is manifested in the numerous assertions of Holy Scripture on the inner , hidden operation of the Holy Ghost in the Church:  He remains with the disciples of Jesus for all time, in His place (John 14,16).  He lives in them as in a temple (I Cor. 3,16; 6,19).  He binds them all together into one body (I Cor.12,13); He teaches them all and reminds them of all that Jesus said to them (John 14,26; I John 2,27); He gives testimony of Jesus (John 15,26); He leads them to all truth (John 16,13); He speaks in them when they are brought before the Court (Mt. 10,20); He works in them when they confess Jesus as the Lord (I Cor. 12,3)0; He helps to preserve the deposit of faith entrusted to them (2 Tim 1,14); He bestows the extraordinary gifts of grace, and allocates to each as He will (I Cor. 12,11); He molds the Christian to a dwelling of God (Eph 2,22); He effects the forgiveness of sins (John 20,22 et seq), the rebirth (john 3,5), the spiritual renewal (Tit. 3,5); He bestows the spirit of adoption of sons (Rom 8,15); He pours out love into the hearts of the faithful (Rom. 5,5); He brings forth all the Christian virtues (Gal.5,22); He inducts the superiors of the Church (Acts 20,280; He directs them in their official activity (Acts 15,280; He takes pity on our weakness and pleads with us before the Father (Rom. 8,26); supported by Him we cry to God: 'Abba Father' (Rom.8,15; Gao. 4,6).

 

The Fathers attest the intimate connection of the Holy Ghost with the Church.  St. Irenaeus says: "Where the Church is, there is also the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace' (Adv. haer. III 24,I)  St. Augustine compares the working of the Holy Ghost in the Church to the working of the soul in the body:  'What the soul is for the body of man that the Holy Ghost is for the body of Christ, that, is, the Church.  The Holy Ghost operates in the whole Church that which the soul operates in the members of the one body.'    As the soul quickens every member of the body and bestows a definite function on each, so the Holy Ghost, by His grace, quickens every member of the Church, and allocates to each a definite activity in the service of the whole.  Through one He works miracles, through others He proclaims the truth; in one He preserves virginity, in another marital chastity; in one He effects this, in another that.  As the soul does not follow the member that is cut off from the body, so also the Holy Ghost does not dwell in the member who separates itself from the body of the Church (Sermo 267, 4,4). Scholasticism adopted the thought of St. Augustine, for example, St. Thomas in his Commentary on the Apostles 'Creed (a.9). In another metaphor St. Thomas calls the Holy Ghost the Heart of the Church (cor Ecclesiae), based on the Aristotelian thought that the heart is the central organ, out of which all life-powers stream to the body.  In analogous manner the Holy Ghost is the universal principle, from which all supernatural life-powers, that is , all graces, overflow to the Church, the Head (Christ as to His humanity) and the members.  As the heart with its universal efficacy is invisible to the eye, so also the Holy Ghost and His universal quickening and uniting efficacy in the Church is invisible.  Thus the Holy Ghost is very appropriately compared to the heart, while Christ, as to His sensory human nature is very appropriately compared to the head (S. th. III 8, I and 3).  Prescinding from picturesque language, St. Thomas says of the relationship of the Holy Ghost to the Church:  The Holy Ghost unites, quickens, teaches, sanctifies the Church, indwells in her, communicates the riches of the one to the others.  CF. S. th. 2 II 1,9 ad 5:  III 8, I ad3; III 68,9 ad 2; In I Cor. c. 12 lect. 2."

Why the Church faces East/ why the altar faces east