Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Thursday, January 9, 2014
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:
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:
Sunday, January 5, 2014
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.
Friday, January 3, 2014
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.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
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
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 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,
{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:
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:
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)
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
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
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."
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
honoring those in church leadership
I wrote this in a comment concerning why people kiss the ring of a Pope or a Bishop:
An example of affection and respecting and demonstrating this in a physical way is seen in Acts 20: 37 where the elders were weeping aloud and they fell on Paul’s neck and repeatedly kissed him.
It is not against Scripture to show physical demonstrations of love/respect for someone in authority. The Scriptures also teach in I Tim 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching”
Cultures may differ in how they show this honor . This text shows it is appropriate to show honor to those God has placed over the church as stewards. So we are commanded to give honor to the elders who rule well. These can include physical demonstrations (also monetary demonstrations may be implied in 5:18).
around comment 305 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/comment-page-7/#comment-62531
An example of affection and respecting and demonstrating this in a physical way is seen in Acts 20: 37 where the elders were weeping aloud and they fell on Paul’s neck and repeatedly kissed him.
It is not against Scripture to show physical demonstrations of love/respect for someone in authority. The Scriptures also teach in I Tim 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching”
Cultures may differ in how they show this honor . This text shows it is appropriate to show honor to those God has placed over the church as stewards. So we are commanded to give honor to the elders who rule well. These can include physical demonstrations (also monetary demonstrations may be implied in 5:18).
around comment 305 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/comment-page-7/#comment-62531
Saturday, October 26, 2013
James White's sister Patty Bonds
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/1829614/posts Part of her testimony converting to Catholicism
http://www.askacatholic.com/_webPostings/Answers/attachments/Conversion_of_PattyPatrickBonds.pdf
her full testimony -- it is called Out of Darkness
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/s2.htm This link gives the Journey Home audio and catholic answers audio
http://www.catholic-convert.com/blog/2009/02/18/patty-bonds-her-father-her-mother-and-her-brother-james-white/
http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/ one of her blogs
her story of abuse and how she received healing: http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/p/out-of-darkness-rough-draft.html
http://www.askacatholic.com/_webPostings/Answers/attachments/Conversion_of_PattyPatrickBonds.pdf
her full testimony -- it is called Out of Darkness
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/s2.htm This link gives the Journey Home audio and catholic answers audio
http://www.catholic-convert.com/blog/2009/02/18/patty-bonds-her-father-her-mother-and-her-brother-james-white/
http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/ one of her blogs
her story of abuse and how she received healing: http://abbaslittlegirl.blogspot.com/p/out-of-darkness-rough-draft.html
Thursday, October 24, 2013
infallible statements explained/ also Protestant's need
First from comment 409 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/keith-mathisons-reply/#comment-181686
Thanks for your helpful comment. I agree that if Protestantism embraced some form of infallibility in the Church, then this would give us a common ground, and allow the ecumenical dialogue to focus on the locus, nature, scope, etc. of ecclesial infallibility, rather than, as you said, infallibility being a “discussion-ending bogeyman.” However, regarding infallibility there remains a difficulty here for Protestantism. The difficulty can be explained by considering both horns of the following dilemma: for Protestantism, either the Church has some sort of infallibility, or she doesn’t. Consider the last horn first. If the Church has no infallibility, then every doctrine, every line of every creed, and even the canon, is still up for grabs, not settled, and possibly false. (See the quotation from John Frame incomment #137 of the Tu Quoque thread.) Regarding the first horn, Protestantism not having a non ad hoc visible-church ecclesiology (see “Why Protestantism has no visible catholic Church“) entails that any claim to ecclesial infallibility is ultimately ad hoc, as I’ve explained both in my reply toChristianity Today’s Mark Galli, and in my response to Carl Trueman’s second tu quoque criticism of Brad Gregory’s Unintended Reformation (see comment #89 in the “Brantly Millegan reviews Brad Gregory” thread). The only two options, if one wants to remain Protestant, are either to embrace the last horn and all its consequences, or not to think about the dilemma.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110911193031/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp This one especially concerns some statements a Pope made against Luther showing they are not considered infallible and showing some tests for a statement being infallible
also from the canons:
Unlike what your (2) and (3) imply, “sacred tradition” is by no means limited to magisterial statements, whether written or oral. You have also misdescribed (some) magisterial “documents” as “infallible.” No document is infallible; only persons can be infallible. Doctrines taught infallibly by the Church are called “irreformable.” But not everything contained in documents that contain irreformable teaching is itself irreformable.
Those corrections are important. For one thing, most “interpretations” of magisterial documents by representatives of the Magisterium are not irreformable and are not presented as such; only interpretations set forth under certain conditions, regarding faith and morals, are irreformable. You seem unaware of what has been explicitly taught about those conditions, let alone of what is a matter of debate about them among Catholic theologians. Given as much, the fact that some interpretations of “the sources” (Scripture, Tradition, and irreformable magisterial interpretations thereof) by magisterial representatives have been wrong is not an insoluble problem for the CIP.
Thanks for your helpful comment. I agree that if Protestantism embraced some form of infallibility in the Church, then this would give us a common ground, and allow the ecumenical dialogue to focus on the locus, nature, scope, etc. of ecclesial infallibility, rather than, as you said, infallibility being a “discussion-ending bogeyman.” However, regarding infallibility there remains a difficulty here for Protestantism. The difficulty can be explained by considering both horns of the following dilemma: for Protestantism, either the Church has some sort of infallibility, or she doesn’t. Consider the last horn first. If the Church has no infallibility, then every doctrine, every line of every creed, and even the canon, is still up for grabs, not settled, and possibly false. (See the quotation from John Frame incomment #137 of the Tu Quoque thread.) Regarding the first horn, Protestantism not having a non ad hoc visible-church ecclesiology (see “Why Protestantism has no visible catholic Church“) entails that any claim to ecclesial infallibility is ultimately ad hoc, as I’ve explained both in my reply toChristianity Today’s Mark Galli, and in my response to Carl Trueman’s second tu quoque criticism of Brad Gregory’s Unintended Reformation (see comment #89 in the “Brantly Millegan reviews Brad Gregory” thread). The only two options, if one wants to remain Protestant, are either to embrace the last horn and all its consequences, or not to think about the dilemma.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110911193031/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp This one especially concerns some statements a Pope made against Luther showing they are not considered infallible and showing some tests for a statement being infallible
also from the canons:
According to the "Code of Canon Law" (can. 338-341) ecumenical councils are
assemblies -- summoned and presided over by the Pope -- of bishops and some
others endowed with jurisdiction; decisions of these councils do not oblige un-
less they are confirmed and promulgated by the Pope. This assembly at Jeru-
salem probably took place in the year 49 or 50. [from the Navarre Bible commentary]
Then here http://www.ewtn.com/library/doctrine/TRIGINFL.HTM
Here is the quote from the link:
A DISCUSSION OF INFALLIBILITYFather John Trigilio
Any dogma is an infallible doctrine, divinely & formally revealed by God as a necessary truth for salvation. Extraordinary Magisterium is an ex cathedra pronouncement of the Roman Pontiff (Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX) or a de fide statement of an Ecumenical Council (Justification, by the Council of Trent). Ordinary Magisterium is the perennial teaching of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him around the world. To capriciously say that only extraordinary Magisterium dogmas are infallible is false and heretical. Lumen Gentium n.25, Humani Generis n.21, both solemnly teach on the supreme teaching authority of the Ordinary Magisterium. Some Catholics wrongly believe that only "ex cathedra" Papal Statements are infallible. This would limit infallible dogma to two, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Obviously, only 2 infallible dogmas in 2,000 years sounds very sparse. Some theologians incorrectly proliferate a notion that only the Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. Even Raymond Brown has abandoned this notion. Ergo, propositions like "the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of the B.V.M. is not infallible," are ridiculous. If in doubt, the best resource is Denziger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Next, is Ludwig Ott's monumental work, The Fundamentals of Dogma. There, one can find the theological distinctions made between divinely revealed truths (De Fide) and those which are only theologically certain. DE FIDE is the highest level of theological/doctrinal truth. They are INFALLIBLE statements by their very nature, like the Holy Trinity, The Real Presence, etc. Next, are VERITATES CATHOLICAE (catholic truths) like the existence of God which can be known through reason alone. Finally, there are four types of THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS: 1. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation. 2. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents. 3. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception. 4. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven. According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis & Vatican II in Lumen Gentium n.25, even non-infallible teachings are to receive the submission of mind and will of the faithful. While not requiring the assent of faith, they cannot be disputed nor rejected publicly, and the benefit of the doubt must be given to the one possessing the fullness of teaching authority. The heterodox concept of a dual magisteria, i.e., (the pope & bishops plus) the theologians, is not based on scriptural nor traditional grounds. Some have gone as far as to propose a triple magisteria, (adding) the body of believers. While it is true that as a whole, the body of believers is infallible in that SENSUS FIDEIis that the Church as the Mystical Body cannot be in error on matters of faith and morals, the TEACHING AUTHORITY (Magisterium) resides solely with the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him.
EWTN: Originally given in 1995 on Catholic Resource Net's bulletin board as an answer to a question, the above reflects the state of the matter as generally discussed by theologians historically, such as in the works cited (Denzinger and Ott). It should be noted that the Latin sententia (generally translated into English as opinions) does not refer to a subjective judgment of individuals, each of which is equally valid in conscience, but to a theological judgment by recognized theologians and based on the Faith (Scripture and Tradition), including the definitive sententiae of the Magisterium, and supported by reason from the Faith as at least probable. An "opinion" can never be probable which occurs in a vacuum unsupported by evidence from the Sacred Tradition and the theological tradition. While these categories still represent, therefore, valid distinctions, a more contemporary and a magisterial assessment can be found in Pope John Paul II's Ad tuendam fidem and Professio Fidei, and in the explanation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei." (See also my Summary.) This formula makes it clear that definitive theological judgments of the ordinary magisterium, are every bit as binding in Faith as are exercises of the extraordinary magisterium. Both are protected by the Church's charism of infallibility, exercised by those who hold supreme pastoral office in the Church (the Pope, or the College of Bishops in union with the Pope), so that the Church remains indefectibility in her faith and her sacraments — something absolutely necessary for her salvific mission, and guaranteed by Christ (cf. Mt. 28: 18-21). These authoritative texts came about precisely as a result of the kinds of arguments cited by Fr.Trigilio which restrict the obligations of faith to the extraordinary magisterium, and which also largely ignore matters obliged by religious submission of intellect and will (LG 25). The propaganda in favor of the licitness of contraception and the validity of women's ordination, especially the latter since the sacramental integrity of the Church depends on valid orders, are the context leading to the Magisterium's clarifications — of both the weight of certain teachings taught semper et ubique(always and everywhere), as well as the weight of teachings declared definitive, i.e. defined, by the ordinary magisterium. One final thought, contraception is an assault on the life of the human being, and not just preventively, as the low-dose estrogen pills of recent years also fall under the definitive condemnation of abortion in Evangelium vitae. The push for the ordination of women is an assault on the life of the Church and souls, since it attacks the validity of the sacramental mission and the possibility of salvation. It is no coincidence that this assault on the material and spiritual lives of human beings are occurring together, and often by the same human powers and principalities. Without doubt, they are other powers and principalities behind them. Colin B. Donovan, STLProvided Courtesy of: Eternal Word Television Network 5817 Old Leeds Road Irondale, AL 35210 www.ewtn.com
Then from a comment here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/mathisons-reply-to-cross-and-judisch-a-largely-philosophical-critique/#comment-177774 found in comment 523
Those corrections are important. For one thing, most “interpretations” of magisterial documents by representatives of the Magisterium are not irreformable and are not presented as such; only interpretations set forth under certain conditions, regarding faith and morals, are irreformable. You seem unaware of what has been explicitly taught about those conditions, let alone of what is a matter of debate about them among Catholic theologians. Given as much, the fact that some interpretations of “the sources” (Scripture, Tradition, and irreformable magisterial interpretations thereof) by magisterial representatives have been wrong is not an insoluble problem for the CIP.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
tongues and the Catholic Church
Interesting article including a lengthy quote by Protestant Piper http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2013/06/john-macarthur-on-john-piper-and-wayne.html
an article by a reformed seminarian graduate:http://www.calvinistcorner.com/gifts.htm http://www.calvinistcorner.com/gifts.htm
also the sermon by Piper: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/signs-and-wonders-then-and-now http://vimeo.com/canonwired/driscoll-wilson-spiritual-gifts
Doug Wilson Interviews Mark Driscoll | Part II - Spiritual Gifts & Cessationism from Canon Wired on Vimeo. also here protestants http://vimeo.com/37169587
EMA 2010: discussion about prophecy from The Proclamation Trust on Vimeo.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
I Cor 7 about virgins
Found this here http://trinitypastor.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/1cor-7/
a QUOTE:
IN THE COURSE OF HIS treatment of “virgins” (1 Cor. 7:25–38—the word refers to the sexually inexperienced, whether male of female), Paul writes, “Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are” (1 Cor. 7:26). Thus it is good for the celibate to remain celibate, for the married not to seek a divorce, and so forth. This does not mean, Paul adds, that if a virgin marries, she is sinning. But he does insist that “the time is short” (1 Cor. 7:29). What does this mean?
(1) Some have argued that in common with everyone else in the early church, Paul believed that Jesus was going to return very soon, certainly within their lifetime. With so limited a horizon, Paul says that on the whole it is better for those who are celibate to remain unmarried. This reading of the passage means, of course, that Paul and the rest of the early church were just plain wrong: Jesus did not come back that quickly. But there are so many passages in the New Testament that envisage the possibility of long delay that we cannot go along with the notion that early Christians suffered under this particular delusion.
(2) Some have argued that “the present crisis” (1 Cor. 7:26) refers to some specially troubling period of persecution. If the authorities are out to get Christians, especially their leaders, it might be an advantage to be celibate: you are more mobile, can hide more easily, and the authorities cannot exert pressure on you by leaning on your family. But this interpretation has two insuperable problems. (a) It may fit the celibates, but it doesn’t fit all the other people to whom Paul makes application: e.g., those who mourn should live as if they did not mourn, those who are happy as if they were not, those who buy something as if it were not theirs to keep (1 Cor. 7:29–30). (b) Above all, there is no good evidence that the Corinthians were being threatened with persecution. The entire tone of this letter suggests they were finding life a bit of a lark.
(3) The word rendered “crisis” simply means “necessity” or “compulsion.” What Paul is referring to is neither the return of Christ nor persecution, but the present “necessity,” the present “compulsion,” of living with the End in view. Unlike pagans and secularists, we cannot make our chief joy turn on marriage, prosperity, or any other temporal thing. They all fall under the formula “as if not”: live “as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31, emphasis added). There are responsible ways for Christians to enjoy these things, or mourn, or be happy—but never as if these things are ultimate.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Concerning some of Protestant history
Newman:
- So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that ‘when they rose in the morning’ her true seed ‘were all dead corpses’—Nay dead and buried—and without grave-stone.http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)