Dear Pope Benedict,
You are cramping my style. Don’t you read Parchment and Pen. Don’t you know that I have been making the argument that things had changed since the Reformation? Don’t you see that there was some progress being made; we were moving in a direction that is more positive and hateful polemics were being looked down upon. Haven’t you downloaded Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft’s Ecumenism with Compromise to your IPOD?
Then I read this article about your recent actions saying that I and my Christ-fearing brothers and sisters in the Protestant church are not a part of the true church. This is very disheartening. What is up with that? It is not as if I thought that Trent said anything less, but level with me, (just between you and I) you guys always change your position, you just don’t call it “change,” you call it “progression.” I can roll with that. I am not too uptight. But the fact is that those on your side and ours thought that things were “progressing” in the right direction. Vatican II attempted to “progress” by softening the language of Trent. It essentially said to us, “we are sorry,” and that “Protestants are not confined to the pits of hell.” Phew . . . that was encouraging.
I know, I know, it was not as if I expected us to unify publically or for you to renounce your thro . . . umm, seat, but Trent’s claims to exclusivity were arrogant and beyond your authority (yes, question begging, but this is a letter, not debate). Some of us were even calling you a cult until Vatican II. And then there was John Paul II. While he was rather odd about Mary, I was excited to see his willingness to chan . . . ahem . . . I mean progress (I keep forgetting that you cannot admit change as a presupposed foundation to your system).
I have been getting emails from Catholics all over the world that read our blog saying that they were disappointed with this statement. Someone even apologized on your behalf. I know that this someone (I can’t name names – don’t want them to get in trouble) does not have the authority in your system to apologize on your behalf, but I was glad he did nonetheless. My saddened countenance is expressed by all those who believed that things were changing. Sigh . . .
But we can fix this! It is not too late. Here is what you can do to both rectify this situation and save face. First, you have to redefine your use of the word “Church” in that document. You know, like that clever maneuver you did when you changed the intent of Trent’s “anathema” upon Protestants. You softened it to the point that we are now “separated brethren.” That was nice. Kudos. Granted, I would have much rather you said that Trent was wrong and apologized for saying we were all going to Hell, but the “You just misunderstood us” was accepted.
What you can do here is say this: “You misunderstood me.” Oh yeah! You then continue, “All I meant to say was that Protestant Churches are not true Roman Catholic churches.” It would be like Baptists saying that all those not Baptists are not Baptists churches. Pretty self-evident, huh? That is the beauty of it! Then you go on, “But we did not mean that you were not part of the Body of Christ or that you could not gather in local fellowships.” That would be slick. I won’t tell anyone I told you to.
Later down the road, I was going to tell the next Pope to soften Vatican II, but you can only do so much.
BTW: I am working on the Evangelical church and our problems. They are many. We have so many maverick churches, denominations, and TV evangelists who say whatever they want. They have no regard for those who have gone before them. They have no regard for any type of authority out side of their own private interpretation. As you know, there are some who are claiming that God wants everyone to be rich and healthy. Others are saying that faith is a force. Still, others are beginning to devalue the exclusivity of Christ all together. We are an odd bunch and many in our ranks have either lost the Gospel completely or have lost focus. They are disrespectful and arrogant (oh, but that is a criticism that I have of you as well–but you already knew that). Protestants are just all over the place and frankly we don’t know what to do.
I know, I know, you warned us. But you must understand that most of us believe that it was still worth the risk. I am currently working on a project at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. We have a program called The Theology Program which seeks to help people understand theology biblically and historically. It has been great. We have over 30,000 students online and in local churches. What it does is encourage people to reengage their minds helping them to be accountable to those who have gone before us and authorial intent hermeneutics. It also helps people to understand what essential Christianity is. OK, enough of the self-promotion, but I do think it can have a serious impact, Lord willing. (BTW: Could you endorse The Theology Program? Chuck Swindoll did. Your endorsement might make some of our constituency think we have gone soft, but I think it is worth it to help educate your people to think critically . . . we will talk more about that later).
Now I know that you cannot actually consider the contents of this letter since consideration itself will undermine your own offices’ authority (I know, it’s a crazy mess you guys have gotten yourself into. I will explain how to get out of that later . . .) And I know that critical thinking is not really encouraged since no one in your church has the right to criticize its head (nice job, BTW, keep them all in line). But I nonetheless encourage you to be wise, humble, and rethink what you have done here. The atmosphere has changed. “Progress” has ceased. You have come dangerously close to putting us back in the time of the Reformation and we will all have to act accordingly to preserve the essence of what Christ did for us.
Pope, we all have problems . . . this I know. None of us has it all figured out. But yours is very significant. Nevertheless, you can change and greatly help your people to realize the fullness of the truth and release them of their unnecessary burden. Please consider my shrewd yet sincere proposal.
Truly and respectfully,
C. Michael Patton
Ordination 2001, Stonebriar Community Church
Th.M. 2001, Dallas Theological Seminary
President of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries
122 replies to "Letter to Pope Benedict"
Perry,
As to Lutherans on baptismal regeneration and Augustine on non-forensic justification:
I would give a pass to Augustine and other church fathers simply because Augustine was dealing with the Latin term ‘iustificare’ instead of the Greek ‘dikaioo’, and so, he did the best he could in his ignorance.
Nowadays, there is simply no excuse for ignorance (at least not in the West).
As for all of them (i.e. Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, Wycliffe, Huss, etc. and the Lutherans on baptismal regeneration), there is a markedly different manner in which they treat human merit (or in the case of the Lutherans, baptism) and the way the Roman Catholic theologians that I’ve heard treat human merit. The former downplay it greatly while the latter exalt it.
It means more of something like amendment or correction of life/disposition rather than a paying God off for a debt….Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in purgatory, but it doesn’t give you any credbility in the eyes of informed Catholics to attack a strawman based on a misunderstanding technical terms.
I suggest you read the quote again:
“Purgatory (Lat., “purgareâ€, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.â€
Maybe my reading comprehension is poor, but it sounds like the “satisfaction” requires punishment. I guess those sins weren’t nailed to the cross.
John 4:2 clearly says that saying the “Christ came in the flesh” is from the Spirit of God. It is an essential. In essence, what was happening is that people were saying that God could not have come in the flesh. Therefore, this is a proclamation of deity. Ed Komoszewski’s book “Putting Jesus in His Place” will deal with this quite a bit. (There is your plug Ed!).
I think one thing that people need to recognize about Paul’s condemnation of the Judizer is that it was levied against Peter himself as Paul illustrated what lengths he was willing to go to preserve the Gospel. In other words, he would even stand up to Peter.
Therefore, Paul’s beef with the Judizers is the same as he has with Peter in Gal 2. Do you think he condemned Peter to hell?
Something to think about.
Here are some more quotes for you, Perry:
“Hence, since our prayers and our sacrifices can help those who are still waiting in purgatory, the saints have not hesitated to warn us that we have a real duty toward those who are still in purgatorial expiation.†Catholic Encyclopedia
â€In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.” In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.†CCC 475
“An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity. Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted†CCC 478-479
There is always an upside to the tough teachings of Catholicism. What Christ couldn’t accomplish on the cross, your friends and family can accomplish by good works.
Mr. Patton,
I expect that your style of Protestantism is typical in that you have
little to no control over your 30,000 member flock. So, as usual
Rome will have to clean up the mess of disrespect in the wake of
this blog.
M. Jay Bennett,
Perhaps if you knew the difference between infallible and impeccable,
it would show your ability think rather than parrot the ignorance you
have gained from protestantism and demonstrated here. I trust that
you are not in The “Theology” Program, for those students would never
make that mistake. Notice how they all show proper respect by not
addressing me as I asked.
Pope Benedict XVI; Vicar of Christ
Therefore, Paul’s beef with the Judizers is the same as he has with Peter in Gal 2. Do you think he condemned Peter to hell?
Oh come on. Do you think Paul was accusing Peter of teaching “another gospel” because he sat with those guys?
If he wasn’t condemning the judaizers to hell, then who was the anathema against? I am no exegetical wizard but this sounds crazy.
Pope B, I am still not talking to you.
“Necessary for Salvation”:
Catholic Catechism:
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation…
1277 Baptism…is necessary for salvation, as is the Church herself…
183 Faith is necessary for salvation…
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation…
980 …This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation…
846 …the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…
1816 …Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation…
1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.
837 …Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved.
2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation…
2068 …so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.
Michael,
your letter was to me. I am addressing it. Tell you what. You seem
like cardinal material. Have you ever considered baseball?
Mr. Pope to you
Carrie,
I think it is something to consider. The main point is that his confrontation with Peter is used as an illustration as to what lengths he was willing to go to protect the Gospel–even confront Peter when he had it wrong.
Why would this be so hard to believe? It is in the argumentative context which Paul is using.
Then Paul says, in the same context, if we or an Angel from heaven preaches to you a different Gospel, let him be anathema. I think the idea is that while he confronted Peter, he was even willing to confront himself (“we”) or, better, an angel from heaven. I don’t think we need to push this too far and say that Paul was actually condemning these people to hell, but he certainly was speaking of their message.
In other words, Peter’s message that warranted Paul’s confrontation was anathema just as those who were trying to burden them again with circumcism.
The Gospel message is that important!!
Carrie,
The nice thing is that if you don’t believe these things you are “invincibly ignorant” and therefore not condemned.
The funny thing is that it is actually easier from a Catholic perspective, post VII, for a non-Catholic to be saved than a Catholic.
🙂 Yet another reason to keep your self dry of the Tiber water!
You are too funny Pope. I will have to check an see who you are.
CMP,
“Therefore, Paul’s beef with the Judizers is the same as he has with Peter in Gal 2. Do you think he condemned Peter to hell?”
I’ve never denied that it is possible for someone with a deficient view of justification to be saved. Rather, I’ve stated that it constitutes an exclusion from the visible church. This is why Paul *rebukes* Peter and calls him to repent.
Paul was following the procedure of Matthew 18:15-17, the end result of which is excommunication if there is no recanting (v.17).
Third, does the term “anathema” in 1:8 mean absolutely nothing? What about being “severed from Christ” (5:4)?
Bennett,
It was an implication drawn from your previous comment. And the Lutherans argued for centuries (still do) against the Reformed on perseverance and other points. They “outright†reject ithem. You earlier wrote that denying perseverance of the saints implies synergism and hence semi-pelagianism. By logical implication then, the Lutherans are semi-pelagian. You need to own your implications. So it is quite to the point, because you can only consistently condemn one teaching by condemning the other. But you are clearly unwilling to do so.
Carrie,
I suggest you define what “satisfaction†amounts to for Catholic theology first, since the point in question hinges on it. Otherwise you are begging the question at issue and equivocating. Satisfaction in penance and purgatory doesn’t mean the same thing as in the atonement. I don’t need more quotes as I study theology for a living, not to mention teach about medieval scholasticism. Furthermore, the quotes you provide still leave undefined what “satisfaction†for sin amounts to. Bringing in expiation won’t advance your claims either since the expiation will be derived from the grace of Christ. Hence you confuse accomplishment with application.
Saint and Sinner,
Augustine knew Greek and was sufficiently proficient at it later in life, even though he never liked it. In any case, he considers the idea that justification is forensic and rejects it. That isn’t ignorance, that is rejection. And I can’t see how it matters how they treat merit, since all of the Augustinians like Augustine and Bernard thought that even though we merit justification, it is merit crowned by and grounded in grace. That is exactly the kind of synergism Trent advocates. Augustine and Bernard were synergists plain and simple in relation to justification so I can’t see how one can be fair and condemn the teaching of one without doing likewise for the other.
CMP,
I think you are way off-base on that one.
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. ”
The condemnation is targeted at the person, not the message. “If we or an angel, anyone”, let “him” be accursed.
Maybe someone can tell you from the greek that what you suggest is impossible.
Second of all, Peter was not preaching the Judaizer’s message. Paul condemned him for simply hanging out with them to the exclusion of the gentiles. To me this says that the message is so important you shouldn’t even give the appearance that you support “another gospel” in any way. That I believe applies to this ecumenism with Rome.
“The Gospel message is that important!!”
Then, doesn’t that include the exclusion of Heretics from the visible church AND considering them as heathen (Matt. 18:17)?
I believe that many RC’s will go to heaven. However, for the sake of protecting the gospel and not giving the lost a false hope, I would consider them as gentiles and tax-collectors.
I have never said that heretics not excluded from the visible Church. The visible church has to do with those that the church places their approval upon. Who said that I ever said otherwise?
“In other words, Peter’s message that warranted Paul’s confrontation was anathema just as those who were trying to burden them again with circumcism.
The Gospel message is that important!!” ~C Michael Patton
CORRECT! It was so important they all convened in Jerusalem to hash out the doctrinal implications. That first Church Council is evidence that the early Church participated in a structured hierarchy with Peter at the head and established a central teaching authority.
In addition, Michael–thanks for the warm welcome! 🙂
“That is exactly the kind of synergism Trent advocates. Augustine and Bernard were synergists plain and simple in relation to justification so I can’t see how one can be fair and condemn the teaching of one without doing likewise for the other.”
As for Augustine and Greek, I’m not qualified to speak to that issue.
I’m not denying that Augustine’s or Bernard’s stated theology denied merit. However, there is a notable difference between the way that they treat merit *in practice* from the way most RC theologians I’ve heard speak on the issue.
the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins.
Perry,
The answers are right there in front of your face.
But since you study theology maybe you can tell me the definition of “punishment”. And then you can explain how the merits of the saints plays in with the grace of Christ.
I don’t really care how Catholics define their terms. If you must be punished for your sins, then Christ has not done it for you.
Carrie:
“The condemnation is targeted at the person, not the message. “If we or an angel, anyoneâ€, let “him†be accursed.”
Yes, I agree, but here is my point. I don’t think that we make the text say more than intended by the rhetoric. I do believe that Paul was saying the same thing about Peter. But I don’t think that this necessarily means that Peter was going to hell. Do you really think that Paul was saying that he was absolutely certain that those people were going to hell? I think that is going beyond the intent of the author.
“Maybe someone can tell you from the greek that what you suggest is impossible.”
I don’t know. I do have my Th.M. in Greek, but really, the Greek wording is not at issue, it is the context of the argument and the context of Paul’s rhetoric. Paul often said things that have more rhetorical force than theological preciseness. For example:
1 Timothy 6:3-5 3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
Notice, there are a few things that are relevant here:
1. “Advocates” is the issue, not simply teaching. Therefore, he is speaking of those who believe contrary.
2. “Sound words . . . the doctrine conforming to godliness.” This is much broader than what the Judizers were condemned for. In Paul’s mind, if you deviate at all, you are in serious trouble like the Judizers.
3. Notice Paul’s rhetorical hyperbole: This person “understands NOTHING.” Does Paul actually mean this? They don’t understand ANYTHING? No, it is rhetoric. Simply because you are an inspired author does not mean that you cannot utilize rhetorical devises that give strength of passion to the argument.
Paul does the same thing here when he says that “all Cretans are liars” (Titus 1:12-13).
We have to get to know Paul before we can understand him. I am not saying that I am absolutely certain about his (surprise!), but it is something that we need to wrestle with.
“Second of all, Peter was not preaching the Judaizer’s message. Paul condemned him for simply hanging out with them to the exclusion of the gentiles. To me this says that the message is so important you shouldn’t even give the appearance that you support “another gospel†in any way. That I believe applies to this ecumenism with Rome.”
But I think the force of his argument might suggest that he was using the situation to show a direct parallel. He was even willing to confront Peter when he is wrong. He will confront the Peter, Judizers, himself, or an Angel.
Michael
“I have never said that heretics not excluded from the visible Church. The visible church has to do with those that the church places their approval upon. Who said that I ever said otherwise?”
OK. Then, do you *consider* the Roman Catholics to be Christians, or do you consider them to be *as* gentiles and tax-collectors? [Again, I am not asking about their eternal state. You and others on this blog have been stating that we should *consider* professing and practicing RC’s to be Christians. I am saying that, on the basis of Galatians 1, we shouldn’t (whether they are or not).]
That first Church Council is evidence that the early Church participated in a structured hierarchy with Peter at the head and established a central teaching authority.
And yet James made the final judgment. And Jame’s name was mentioned first when Paul recounted this episode in Galatians (when Paul kept saying James, Peter and John “seemed” to by pillars, but Paul didn’t care because God shows no partiality).
And after that whole council Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for associating with the group that the council had ruled against (oops).
Sorry Felicity, not seeing it,
Saint,
At my local church, we would not allow those who believed in salvation by works to be in a position of leadership or service in so far as it placed our “hands of approval” on them. In this sense, we would be treating them as “a Gentile and tax gatherer.”
Then again, neither would we for those who deny inerrancy.
You make a good point and argument that has honed in well. I was taken aback by how you progressed here and made me think. Thanks for doing so. It has clarified some things in my own thinking.
You are a good teacher.
P.S. I had to do a paper on this in seminary . . . defining what it meant in those day to be treated in the synagogue as a Gentile and tax gather. Essentially, it meant that you were excluded to the court of the Gentiles which did not mean that you were kicked out of the synagogue. You were only allowed to listen, not serve or lead. Don’t ask me to send it to you. I lost all those files from one year of seminary 🙁
CMP,
I see the Timothy passage directed toward Godly living and Paul getting frustrated with those who go against his doctrines in that area. And I see his reaction to the judaizers as much harsher. Whether he was really condemning them to hell or just using rhetoric doesn’t change anything for me.
What I see is that denying the simple message of salvation by faith alone in Christ (no works of any kind) was something that Paul believed could absolutely not be tolerated. If the Galatians believed that they needed to be circumcized in addition to their faith in Christ, then they were severed from grace. If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Paul actually dealt with alot of mistakes with the early churchs. You have to wonder, why would just circumcision throw him into such a rampage. And you have to wonder why God chose to preserve this particular epistle for us.
“You are a good teacher.”
Thank you. I find myself humbled as well.
“Essentially, it meant that you were excluded to the court of the Gentiles which did not mean that you were kicked out of the synagogue. You were only allowed to listen, not serve or lead.”
I’ll have to plead ignorance on this one. However, you’re probably right, and I don’t doubt you.
Having said that, this was during the Roman occupation when the Jews weren’t allowed to enforce the laws of the Torah. This poses a question: would such offenses have resulted in execution, the result of being excluded from the Mosaic Covenant?
“Then again, neither would we for those who deny inerrancy.”
If the modern Church had guts, we should *consider* them unbelievers as well. [Again, I don’t doubt that there are many errantists who are regenerate. However, we should “deliver [them] unto Satan” for correction (1 Corinthians 5:5).]
CMP,
I had logged of, shut down and was off to bed when I realized why you keeping focusing on the anathema.
I was not trying to say that Catholics (as modern day judaizers) are condemned to hell b/c of Paul’s words. But I do believe the severity of the sentiment is applicable to the Catholic Church. And I believe we must oppose the gospel of Rome for that reason.
Anyway, S&S did a much better job than I could of getting the point across. Excellent points, S&S.
Great discussion – I hope everyone has a great weekend!
Carrie, I am with you on this. Saint . . . good stuff to think about.
God bless and good night.
S&S
Vance and CMP:
I’d like to re-direct my previous question specifically to you two for a direct answer. This is an excerpt from a Marian prayer (that is sanctioned by Rome) that I quoted above:
“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.â€
Please indulge me with a thumbs up (approve of this prayer as being within the boundaries of proper christian worship) or a thumbs down (categorically false and idolatrous).
Please avoid answering with a subjective “Well, who can really know?”
Vance wrote: “I am glad I am not the judge of that, but I see a lot of people who seem willing to pass judgment on such issues by labeling heresy/false Gospel. I agree that we must draw the line somewhere and be willing to call a spade a spade, but where do we draw the line?”
Would this prayer be a ‘spade?’ If not, what would you call a ‘spade?’
Your thoughts?
Well, who can really know?
OK, in reality, if they say that prayer in the way that it sounds, then it is absolutely idolatrous. I wonder what our Catholic friends here would say. Maybe they could defend the use of this or somehow take away the sting.
I’m with you.
Interestingly, I just posted this on our site from the ETS paper database that I am working through . . . slowely.
Perry wrote,
“Bennett,
It was an implication drawn from your previous comment. And the Lutherans argued for centuries (still do) against the Reformed on perseverance and other points. They “outright†reject ithem. You earlier wrote that denying perseverance of the saints implies synergism and hence semi-pelagianism. By logical implication then, the Lutherans are semi-pelagian. You need to own your implications. So it is quite to the point, because you can only consistently condemn one teaching by condemning the other. But you are clearly unwilling to do so.”
I’m still waiting for you to show me where I said what you say I said. I don’t see that here. Give me a comment number or something.
I’ll be waiting . . .
Perry,
Also, please understand, please, I think I’ve had to repeat this in our side conversation multiple times now. I am evaluating DOGMA. That is different from what someone within a tradition might argue. If you don’t stick to the dogma you are only complicating matters with regard to my point. In other words, if you don’t offer counterevidence and argument from dogma, then you are not arguing against anything I have said. Please stick to the point at hand.
Thanks,
Jay
This conversation, again, while great, may need to move to the forum if it does not have to do with the post at hand.
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/forum.
They are opened again.
Carrie,
I prefer to let people define how they use the terms they use. In the history of thought there are lots of different notions of what punishment constitutes-some retributive and some not. You need to remember that for Rome, Latin is still its official language and that Latin terms sometimes do not translate univocally into English. Moreover, Rome because of its belief in analogical predication doesn’t think that all theological terms carry all of their natural connotations into the realm of the supernatural. God is “father†but he is not a sexed being for example. Consequently, “punishment†carries the sense of consequences of actions, bearing remorse, etc. We see through a glass darkly after all. There is no strict carry over from natural justice to supernatural justice here. If there were, people wouldn’t be in purgatory on Rome’s understanding. This is all the more important since Rome doesn’t hold to a penal theory of the atonement, since this was a late development in medieval scholasticism and Reformation theology. Rome’s view of the atonement had already been set via Anselm, Albert, Aquinas and Scotus. So you are clearly importing notions from Protestantism into Roman theology.
As to the merits of the saints, the idea is that the “merits†are not things that the saints have done on their own that please God. Rather they are things that God has done in and through and with them(Christ IN me? Not I who live?-hardly imputational language), which is why they have “merit†that is they please God. Because they are done by the power of theological virtues like faith, hope and love, they have this pleasing character. All “merit†strictly speaking is Christ’s since he is the head of the body and so all merit is derivable and ultimately ascribable to him. He does what pleases his Father.
All of that said, I do not believe in the Roman doctrine of purgatory nor in the treasury of merit. Those idea, like sola fide, a penal theory of atonement, imputed guilt and created righteousness are all creations of the medieval era after the West fell to the Frankish hordes. All I am trying to do here is point out that you will not manage to be persuasive to informed and thinking opponents if you do not take the time to master their system from the inside out, understand their terms and concepts and their historical development.
Anyone can quote, but not anyone can understand. Spooftexting isn’t an argument.
If you don’t care how Catholics define their terms then simply stated you are not interested in being fair or charitable. Treat others how you might wish to be treated. It always amazes me that those who decry an infallible interpretive authority are those who act as if they have it. You could be wrong. Try to be a tad more tolerant. You might earn some respect. (1 Pet 3:15)
Sorry Michael,
I just thought I might try to deflect some of Perry’s attempts to sidetrack some key points that carrie and I initially made on the post. But alas, the sideswiping swiped me up too.
Apologies,
Jay
No problem at all. It is a great discussion.
Perry,
I don’t appreciate you claiming that I am purposely misrepresenting the teachings of Rome.
My point was that all that you said is Catholic semantics. It’s a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
I agree, anyone quote but not everyone can understand. That takes looking beyond the words and understanding the implications of what is said. That is where you seem to be failing.
~~That first Church Council is evidence that the early Church participated in a structured hierarchy with Peter at the head and established a central teaching authority.~ Carrie
*************
Acts 15
2 Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul, Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
3 They were sent on their journey by the church,…
4 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, “My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.
…….
12
The whole assembly fell silent,
***************
At Peter’s words, the whole assembly listened. Peter refers to his appointment by God. There is a structured hierarchical early church that sends Paul and Barnabas out and calls them back. Peter speaks with authority first—and the assembly listens.
~~And yet James made the final judgment. ~Carrie
Sure—after Peter already said that the Gentiles were to be welcomed. Of course James followed the authority laid out by Peter. Peter said:
*************
8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.
10 Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.” 5
****************
James even acknowledges this by stating Peter (Symeon) was the recipient of Divine Revelation:
**************
James responded, “My brothers, listen to me.
14 Symeon 7 has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.
15 The words of the prophets agree with this,
It is no doubt that James would make the final statement because it was James (Gal. 2:12) who believed that the Church needed to follow the laws of Judaism while Paul said otherwise. James was the Bishop of Jerusalem, so he delivers the “pastoral†teaching, while PETER is the leader that clarified how the Church would accept Gentiles per his revelation from God as the binding doctrinal teaching.
***************
~~And Jame’s name was mentioned first when Paul recounted this episode in Galatians (when Paul kept saying James, Peter and John “seemed†to by pillars, but Paul didn’t care because God shows no partiality). ~Carrie
If it’s an “order and numbers†game, I’m sure you are well aware that Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT, with John (not James) a distant second at 29. Also, Peter is always listed first among the apostles—often he is the only one listed as in “Peter and the rest of the apostles.†As for Paul’s writing style…he is a polemic and often conveys his irritation with particular things going on. Does it surprise you that Saul of Tarsus—the rabid persecutor of Christians—has a prickly personality?…
~~And after that whole council Peter had to be rebuked by Paul for associating with the group that the council had ruled against (oops). ~Carrie
….And just as you should not be surprised by Paul’s particular personality, you should not be surprised that Peter, the man who swore he would never deny Christ and then denied Him 3 times within hours, would go a little wishy-washy at times. The wonderful thing about Peter is his humility and his willingness to be corrected—that is a gift of the Holy Spirit—and that willingness is why he is so appropriate to lead the Church. He is a humble SERVANT of servants who can hear the direction of God and act accordingly and lead appropriately protected from error by God.
~~Sorry Felicity, not seeing it,~Carrie
I’m sorry too, since it is all right there in the Bible.
The whole point of this is that the issue that C Michael Patton takes with the latest document out of the Vatican is simply the leadership of the Church in their pastoral role leading its flock with consistent instruction. It’s the job the hierarchy was given by Jesus Himself and protected from error by the Advocate that continues from the early Church to the present day Church.
Carrie–sorry, that first quote is something I said and you quoted in your reply. I don’t want ayone to misattribute that to you. 😉
Carrie,
Good morning.
At first I didn’t imply that you were deliberately doing so but were making common mistakes. This is why I was trying to help you not to make them. But then you stated that you didn’t care what Catholics meant by their terms, and so it then seemed to me that you didn’t care what the facts were and so we determined to convict them of heresy. Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead! You seemed to not want to be confused by the facts. If you don’t appreciate people thinking that you are misrepresenting a position deliberately, then don’t write that you don’t care what the facts are.
And do you think others appreciate being spoken to like they are stupid? Its right there in front of my face? As if my problem was that I couldn’t grasp the meaning of words? Speaking of which, you are right, it is an issue of semantics, but you are misusing the term semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning and I keep pointing out to you that your criticisms miss their target and hit only a straw man because they aren’t using the terms they way you are. In any case, its best to leave personal attacks out of the discussion and stick with the arguments.
And I can draw implications just fine. I teach logic. In any case, you need to do more than merely claim that I have failed to draw the proper implications, you need to demonstrate it. Otherwise its an unsupported claim.
I know that I am a softy as far as moderation is concerned, but let’s keep this from being a debate area. The forum is best suited for that.
Sorry CMP, I hope you will allow me this.
Perry,
You need to follow your own advice. You are the one that came out attacking me with absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.
I have provided quotes from Catholic material and given my opinions on it. People can decide what they want from that material and do their own research.
Now, if I could even understand what your objections are to my use of purgatory perhaps I could address them and perhaps learn something from you. But at this point I am uninterested in any further discussion with you.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
Here’s a good article on the topic at hand.
Second try:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/july/19.20.html
Seven, just back in town:
As to you Marian prayer, I would definitely say it was false, in error, and possibly even idolotrous (depending on how that was defined). But my question would still be whether a person who is that wrong in their theological understanding of how it all works, could still go to heaven. That I don’t know. My real question would be for a Catholic since Catholics also affirm that their entire salvation is through Jesus Christ.
Well, it is a great question. I wish that a Catholic would pipe in and help us understand.