First Things Blogcast #3: Catholics and recent blog activity

You may want to include a download link to these blogcasts so that people can just download the mp3 and listen to it in their players as well. For example, here’s the link to download this blogcast:

First Things Blogcast #3

Done! I forgot.

Dear Michael,

I admire your honesty and admission of being somewhat naive about the RCC. This is not exactly your fault, it is just lack of experience. Also I think you are right, if a church wants to change for the better they should be allowed, if a church wants to repent, they should be allowed and this is not confined to RCC. Jesus says unless we repent we will also perish. Every church body needs to repent and needs correction, not just RCC.

Here is what happens in the RCC and I mean no caricature but a layman’s simplistic and also naive reflection of the RCC….

Say in the past the RCC says “it is A”.

Say now sometime in the future, the RCC makes another pronouncement and now says “it is NOT A”.

Now seeing this, to you this is a change of position. But to the RCC this not a change of position , actually it is a further reflection of the statement that was made in the past, it is a further reflection of A. Hence, they can say “NOT A” is really a further understanding of “A”.

I hope you can get the drift. Want another example?

Another example, the naive Lutherans who signed JDDJ thought that the RCC and them are one on JBFA.

Say this is statement is “A”.

Lately, it has been published that indulgences are still around in the RCC. Say the statement “indulgences are ok” as statement “B”.

Now to the naive Luths, A–>(implies) NOT B.

But the RCC now asserts B but B–> NOT A. So the naive Luths protest in hurtful woe, and say “you just negated A”. The RCC says no, it has never said NOT A because they are not asserting that, they are asserting B.

Lgically,
A
B
NOT A

Therefore (A and NOT A) a contradiction but the RCC does not think of it that way.

Kurt Vader

I enjoyed your blogcast–And I hope your daughter is doing better, my prayers are with you and the well-being of your family….

On to the issue…

As a Catholic, I’d like to ask you a question:

If you believe that the way we (Catholics) view “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” meant one thing originally, and we now have “changed” it to the current “articulation” of the statement meaning something different, how can a Catholic defend his Church? You have basically set up a system where even if we say you’re wrong about how you see our Church, we are simply misguided and deluding ourselves. Furthermore, you are happy to “let” us continue our mass delusion. With all due respect, is that your right? If we are wrong, by all means, shed your light on the gospel and “articulate” the error of our ways! To allow us to remain ignorant is not Christian.

In reality, I see several points that I could address in your blogcast, but if you simply believe I operate under a delusion you are happy to let me mire in, what point would there be in addressing any of it? Is that what you wish to do? Create a “system” where you can continue to believe what you believe and allow Catholics to believe what we believe so that you can imagine some sort of “unity” in this Body of Christ? To me, THAT seems like a self-imposed delusion.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding your perspective on this issue.

Felicity

Sorry that you had no audience when you recorded this blogcast. I logged on to CG but found no one there.

Well, Michel, you were very irenic in your presentation. Not quiet so as Olson but irenic nonetheless.

I found the article by Brad Harper to which you referred us most enlightening. His closing paragraph is salient:

“At the end of the day, even though these documents are not aimed at Evangelicals, should we consider them a step toward further communion with our Catholic brothers and sisters? Yes, definitely, if not without some reservations. Despite continued support of Catholic ecclesial exclusivity on the one hand and even further leanings toward universalism on the other, the reaffirmation of the centrality of Christ along with an expanding openness to the presence of the grace of Christ in other religious traditions increases our hope for unity, even in the midst of serious disagreement.”

Clay

Felicity,

“If you believe that the way we (Catholics) view “There is no Salvation outside the Catholic Church” meant one thing originally, and we now have “changed” it to the current “articulation” of the statement meaning something different, how can a Catholic defend his Church?”

This is a good question. I would say that if you acknowledge this change, then the system cannot be defened. Therefore, I believe the “doctrinal development” is the best way to progress if you wish to remain committed to the system.

“Furthermore, you are happy to “let” us continue our mass delusion. With all due respect, is that your right?”

I am not sure if this is a good way to put it. These points have been argued for quit some time. One side saying there is change and giving the evidence, the other side explaining the evidence differently. My point is that in the end, if the two sides come close enough to saying the same thing, then I don’t really care so much about battling for an admission of change. I am not saying that is going to happen, but I am not going to stand in the way of progression, even if in my mind it takes a less than honest form. You have to choose your battles and compromise on some apologetic issues.

Hope that makes sense.

From CMP:
Hope that makes sense…

RESPONSE:
It does make sense, but it really didn’t answer my main question which is (more succinctly):

If you consider Catholic apologetics on this matter self-delusion, and therefore dismiss the merit of the argument out of hand, are you not creating a system by which you justify and rationalize your own bias against Catholic hermeneutics?

You make the classic Petitio Principii error in logical reasoning. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Perhaps if you better understood what “anathema” means you would better understand the issue concerning your perception of doctrinal “change” within the Catholic Church. (heh-heh—James White is mentioned in this article 🙂 but do read past that, please.) http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

Thanks,
Felicity

I read your article and find it somewhat amusing. The Council of Trent closed with the participants all shouting “Anathema, Anathema, anathema.” The article you listed said this…

“Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, “When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: ” Does this mean that what Paul said in Gal 1:8-9 is no longer a rule from God? 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Or, does I Cor 16:22 no longer apply? If anyone does not love the Lord–a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!
I realize that we may play with word meaning, but how am I to take these statements from Trent?
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.
I must say I am in deep trouble by their stnadards. Why can’t we say there will be no unity until the question of where God speaks with authority is agreed upon?
David

***From David (murmex)
“Does this mean that what Paul said in Gal 1:8-9 is no longer a rule from God? 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! Or, does I Cor 16:22 no longer apply? If anyone does not love the Lord–a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!”

RESPONSE:
Catholic belief is that as long as there is breath, there is hope that one would turn back to the Lord. Anathema means “set apart.” If one is set apart from God—not within the grace of His goodness, is that not an accursed position to be in? I don’t know where you get the “eternally condemned” translation…what is that from?—(I looked it up, and it’s the New International Version—if you’ll note, that’s the ONLY translation that says such a thing… http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%201:8-9;&version=31; ) Regardless—if you believe that, I’d be pretty concerned about following a teaching made up by Martin Luther called Sola Scriptura. That’s What Canon IX was attempting to warn people from following.

***From David (murmex)
“I realize that we may play with word meaning, but how am I to take these statements from Trent?
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

RESPONSE:
If one holds to an anti-Biblical doctrine of man, he sets himself apart from the grace of God.

***From David (murmex) quoting CoT
CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

RESPONSE:
God can give us the grace to live his commandments—do you disagree with that? If you do, you are set apart from the teaching of the Apostles. With God all things are possible.

***From David (murmex) quoting CoT
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

RESPONSE:
Do you believe that just saying you believe in Jesus but not living His gospel will receive eternal life no matter what? That’s anti-Biblical also—and that person sets himself apart from God.

etc…I’ll respond to the others if you wish, but I think you get the gist…

***From David (murmex)
I must say I am in deep trouble by their stnadards. Why can’t we say there will be no unity until the question of where God speaks with authority is agreed upon?

RESPONSE:
I agree.
The Bible testifies to the Authority given the Church by Christ himself, even per your preferred translation:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Check out these sources concerning the historical context of our Lord’s words to Peter.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=191&letter=K
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1073&letter=B
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1283&letter=A

In response to Felicity

Thank you for your response I think I know where I stand based on the words of the Council of Trent CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
I do believe what Jesus said in John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.
That is not my ground of justification before God, or in any way increases my justification. It does show my justification. Romans 3:20-22 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe.
How do I live now? The same way Paul instructed in Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[a] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.” Perhaps a close reading of Romans 7 would be beneficial to everyone here. What is the purpose of the law? And what is our self assesment of our abiltiy to keep it? read vss 14 ff.

I would humbly submit Paul’s words in Phil 2:12-13 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Also Phil 3:8-9 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
I hope you see this as a discussion and not an angry argument. Thank you for your time.

David

***From David (murmex)
That is not my ground of justification before God, or in any way increases my justification. It does show my justification. Romans 3:20-22 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

RESPONSE:
The Catholic Church agrees with you. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm
The issue is that you are interpreting the CoT saying something it is not because you understand their words differently than they intended them. In the Catholic faith, you cannot look at one statement in isolation of the body of the teaching. When Trent says,” If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, …. the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.” It is saying exactly that. The Church is a Mystery in that it is an institution of God. When you say the Church is somehow not operating under the Divine Revelation of God, one thing you contradict is the protection from corruption given by Jesus. If you contradict Jesus, you separate yourself from the Truth that He came to reveal—you separate yourself from God. The duty of the Church is to be clear about its teachings—Trent is being CLEAR—painfully so to many.

***From David (murmex)
I do believe what Jesus said in John 15:14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

RESPONSE:
From the Catholic perspective, Jesus commanded many things that do not occur within Protestant communities, but Protestant communities do follow many of His commandments as well. No one faults Protestants for what Truth they have, Catholics merely want to share the fullness of the Divine banquet with fellow Christians.

***From David (murmex)
(several Bible passages)

RESPONSE:
There is nothing contradictory to Catholic Doctrine in your reading of any of these verses (from what I can see)—Of course we should all live so that the laws are not necessary and therefore irrelevant. But as Paul states, the laws exist so that when we fail, we have a means to recognize our failure and return to righteousness. Jesus gave us the Church in order that we might have that nuptial union with God as Paul describes in Ephesians 5.

***From David (murmex)
I hope you see this as a discussion and not an angry argument. Thank you for your time. David

RESPONSE:
Of course I see it as Christians witnessing to one another because we love God! And thank-you as well.