A reader writes:
As a new convert to the Catholic Church, I of course really love learning everything I can about the Faith. As I read, however, I find myself stumbling over things that at first look seem like pious legends whose truth is debatable at best. I’m thinking in particular of Mary’s mother, St. Anne (her name, being brought to France by St. Lazarus, her relics, etc.) , the history of the “True Cross”, the Sabbatine Privilege, the various promises attached to certain devotions, etc.
I realize, of course, that none of these are articles of faith at all, but absent the need to accept or reject them at a glance, I’m struggling with how exactly to approach them at all. I know there are controversies over all these cases and more, and I’m not expecting The Answers. I guess it’s just a simple question of how should a faithful Catholic deal with things like this, other than with a large grain of salt? Were these deliberate fictions later taken as truth? Some fiction mixed with truth? The whole truth and nothing but? Or were they never intended to be true in the historical sense? Fr. Benedict Groeschel’s “A Still Small Voice” was a great help in discerning private revelation (I’ve been to Medjugorje and I don’t really believe in it at all), but these things seem to be more woven into the Faith and not really disputed one way or the other. Benign subjects that are treated as more or less established facts. So I’m left scratching my head. And I’m frustrated because where I have very little patience with modernists who would “demythologize” Jesus and the Faith, in this case I feel like the demythologizer.
For starters, this might be of some assistance.
In addition, my suggestions (based solely on how I navigate such matters and not on some one-size-fits-all prescription for all Catholics) are these:
Read, re-read, and memorize Romans 14, in which Paul tackles the question of “pious stuff that matters a lot to a particular subculture of Catholics but isn’t really make or break as far as the Church is concerned”. In his day, the big thing that some Catholics got hung up on was “meat sacrificed to idols”. The problem was this: There was no Safeway grocery store. So you bought the meat in the agora and that meat had (typically) been sold to the vendor by the local pagan temple where, earlier in the morning, it had been a cow sacrificed to Apollo or whoever. As far as the Church was concerned, it was just meat. Eat it with thanksgiving to God and don’t worry about it. But for some people of tender conscience the fear was that by eating the meat, you were somehow participating in the sacrificial banquet offered to the pagan god.
Paul’s advice in Romans 14 is summarized much later in the Catholic tradition as follows: “In essential things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.” So to the scrupulous vegetarian, he says, “You are doing what you do to honor God. Bully for you!” and to the one with no qualms about eating meat he says, “You are eating with gratitude to God. Bully for you!” Then he tells the vegetarian “Don’t sit in judgment of your brother” and the carnivore”, “Don’t tempt your brother to violate his conscience”.
Much the same principle can be applied in matters of pious legend it seems to me. As long as it’s nourishing or helpful and does not teach something contrary to faith or morals, I don’t see that such legends and traditions (some of which appear to have a decent historical basis) are much of a problem. So, for instance, we know the early Church did, in fact, preserve relics. So I don’t find anything especially incredible about the prospect of the Church having squirreled the True Cross away when Jerusalem was sacked, only for it to be found later in a place known to the Jerusalem Church as a Christian shrine. Likewise, i see nothing incredible about St. Anne’s relics being preserved. Not many decades after, we find the Church at Smyrna rushing out to collect Polycarp’s relics before they are cool and writing other Churches in the serene confidence that doing so is the most natural thing in the world. In short, they make clear by their actions that this tradition of relic collection is already ancient. And given that the Church carefully preserved the relics of Peter (they’re still under the high altar at St. Peter’s) and he was martyred in the mid 60s, we are looking a Christian practice which appears to be in full swing right from the get-go. So why not preserve the relics of the Mother of the Blessed Virgin, particularly since the Virgin herself left no relics due to her Assumption? And who more naturally to take possession of such family relics than the family we know was close to the family of Jesus: Lazarus, Mary, and Martha? It actually squares with the gospel account rather uncannily.
As to other stuff like devotions, apparitions, or the back and forth on stuff like the Sabbatine Privilege, it’s good to bear in mind that the Church does not operate on the principle “That which is not forbidden is compulsory”. Rather she is deeply disinclined to define her tradition and likewise disinclined to squelch popular devotions, step on intellectual ferment, or even dismiss legends. That doesn’t mean that she credulously believes legends. Take for instance the balance you see at work as the Church hashes slowly over the Sabbatine Privilege controversy. What’s notable is that the Church leaves lots of room for people who take it seriously while not committing herself to it. In the end, the approach is basically that the Church winds up preserving the privilege since it doesn’t hurt anything while never buying the origin story for it.
In short, the Church tends to have a curious openness to the human experience of things like legends and tales and visions and whatnot, rather like an indulgent grandmother who listens with warmth while the kids tell taradiddles about things that happened that day. Much of it is stories, some of it is fact, some of it might have its origin in God, some in the devil. 99% of it will blow away like chaff and the Church doesn’t obsess over it. The kernels from God will be saved. The poison from the devil will be discerned and winnowed out (Mark 16:18). Meanwhile the Church continues focusing on the main thing, which is the deposit of faith. Those little t traditions (say, the promises attached to the Miraculous Medal) which help people get closer to following God through the normal means handed down from the apostles are weighed and, if it looks like the private revelation is “worthy of belief” (meaning “appears to have actually happened and actually been from God”) the Church says so and recommends it as one more help from the Holy Spirit in following Jesus. But she doesn’t demand that you embrace that help since not every help of the Holy Spirit is intended for every believer. Things that help, say, a Carthusian get closer to God don’t necessarily help somebody with a Dominican spirituality (and vice versa). I wear the Miraculous Medal and find it a quiet reminder at the start of the day that Mary is walking with me. I couldn’t tell you what promises are attached to wearing it if my life depended on it. But some people find it helpful to contemplate those promises, just as some betrothed people find it helpful to read over promises of love in love letters from the Beloved. Whatever floats your boat, is the attitude of the Church, just so long as it doesn’t contradict faith or morals.
One final caveat: sometimes a private revelation the Church approves or recommends will constitute a difficulty for somebody. If so, drop it. You are under no obligation to incorporate it into your devotional life. Private revelation, like the law, was made for man, not man for private revelation. Other times, something will be helpful for somebody that the Church has not approved, but has also not yet definitively rejected. If so, don’t pass judgement on the other person who finds it helpful, but proceed with caution before making it a pillar of support for your faith (you seem to be taking this very wise course with Medjugorje). The basic rule of thumb is that the Church prefers massive amounts of liberty in such matters and only decisively forbids on rare occasions. At the same time, though she has, so to speak, a huge vestibule and is the home of all the ordinary stuff of human culture, legend, stories and traditions, she has a *very* strictly delimited Holy of Holies in which sacred apostolic tradition and *only* apostolic tradition is allowed. So she welcomes Christmas trees but, should anybody ever seriously attempt to claim Christmas trees were instituted by St. Paul she would laugh. If somebody argues that they prove that Druidic nature worship is acceptable for Christians, the Church rejects such heresy as utterly incompatible with the Faith.
Hope that helps.
Comments
Post a Comment
What amazes me about non-Catholics is how readily they accept and not do not question the beliefs of atheists as though they were established facts and not theories: evolution, Darwinism, big bang, primordial soup, humans evolved from apes, etc. Meanwhile, when confronted with religious truths that have withstood the test of time, they regard it as superstition. Incomprehensible.
Dear Hat Lady,
The big bang theory was proposed by a Jesuit priest. THe scientific method was formed by medieval Catholic priests. WHile I agree with you on DareinISM, evolution does not propose that humans evolved FROM apes, neither does it contradict Catholic theology. Aren’t you open to the possibility that God could be using evolution as a very useful tool? After all, humans and chimpanzees share over 95% DNA. Isn’t there a possibility that He could have infused a soul into two primates, thus creating the human race?
Scientific theory is a word used to describe a group of useful hypotheses that have not been proven wrong, no matter how many different experiments have been designed to do so. In all humility, it is called a “theory” leaving open the possibility of being proven wrong.
As a (very orthodox)Catholic science teacher, I get very frustrated at continually having to defend the Catholic Church’s relationship with, and contribution to, science to people who think that all Catholics see things as you do.
Thank you for the reminder to keep Paul’s writing in mind - in all things.
-
I am not alone (I am sure) in regard to encounters with people who want to tell you what MUST be done to be a good and faithful Catholic. These exhortations can include everything from the number of novenas that must be said to fulfilling the requirements for the upcoming “Three Days of Darkness”.
-
I think I am a magnet for these kind - though mislead - souls by default of being the Mom of a large family who often attends daily Mass.
-
I walk away mumbling the ‘all things in charity’ line under my breathe and now the Romans line will give me support as well.
For the record we have a relic of St. Anne right here in the United States!!!
It is at St. Jean Baptiste in New York City, on Manhattan island.
http://stjeanbaptisteny.org/Patron-Saints/Anne
Dear Therese,
True.. the scientific contributions coming out of the Church are still unknown to many as this topic is not always taught or given its due in the classroom. I have a good book to recommend on the relationship of Faith and Science in the Catholic Church: Faith, Science, and Reason by Baglow.
I have an admitted bias, as I am deeply fond of all the accretions of popular devotion that have accumulated like barnacles on the Barque of Peter. Familiarity with some of the non-scriptural, hagiographic tales of the saints (especially those that come to us from the apocryphal gospels and writings like the medieval Golden Legend) provides a valuable key to interpreting the symbolism used in much religious art, as well as an insight into the ways in which people in every age have come closer to Our Lord, Our Lady, and the saints. It’s a very human urge to read between the lines of Scripture and history in order to know the homely details like names of Mary’s parents, as well as to embroider what we know with additional flourishes of the miraculous. That’s what we do in our own families—embellish the stories, and pass along the physical mementos, the relics, that carry significance. Christians inherited this tradition of pious elaboration on the Scriptures from our Jewish ancestors: in Judaism it’s called midrash. As to the “truth” of these stories, relics, private revelations, etc—things can be very true without being factually accurate or scientifically demonstrable.
Hat Lady:
Listen to Therese. Our Church has no quarrel with the sciences. It only has a quarrel with the philosophy which says “Science measures time, space, matter and energy; therefore the only things that are real are time, space, matter and energy”. Science deals with the metrical properties of material bodies. Period. It can have nothing to say, yay or nay, about the existence of a God who is beyond time, space, matter, and energy. Science is *a* way of knowing. It is not *the* way of knowing.
At the same time, Hat Lady, you are right that an awful lot of people who boast of their commitment to “reason and logic” are, in reality, people who simply have a childlike faith that our scientific class are a priesthood who faithfully mediate sacred truths to them which they themselves do not really understand.
I wonder how many people who confidently invoke the Sacred Name of Darwin have actually read the Origin of Species? I wonder how many people with opinions about Anthropogenic Climate Change could, if you buttonholed them and demanded a coherent explanation of the science, give you a shred of data beyond an invocation of What the Priesthood of Scientists Says. Our technological civilization requires that we have specialists whose job it is to know stuff so that we don’t have to. And that means our civilization runs, to a huge degree, on faith. The apostles of Reason and Logic who perpetually denigrate faith are blissfully unaware of this, as they tend to be congenitally unaware of so much of ordinary normal social and affective skills.
When a mob of pagans dragged the Arian bishop George through the streets of Alexandria and tore him limb from limb, they burned his body and scattered the ashes in the sea. They did this explicitly to prevent any part of his body from being preserved that the Christians might build a church over it. So the pagans knew of the Christian practice, too.
+ + +
Be it noted that while Darwinian theory had been falsified by the then scientific consensus on inheritance—the blending of “bloodlines” could not allow for the retention of new mutations: they would be diluted to nothing after a few generations—the rediscovery of the genetics theory of the Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel put evolution on a sound scientific basis.
As an employed scientist (Analytical/Physical Chemist) I have to agree 100% with “Hat Lady”. It is common to hear no argument about the writings of Aristotle or Socrates (intentionally mentioned)as authentic but doubt the writings of the Gospels concerning Jesus. The Gospels are more recent and have several outside corroborations, more than do the writings of Aristotle. It is important to note that science is not the search for truth. Science is the search for reproducible data that at times tends to clarify a common observation. This requires that the data be positive (space, time, matter, and energy)and verifiable. It also means that the data can be disproved at any time.
I wonder why people ask as journalist these questions, instead of a knowledgeable and reputable theologian. I would never ask Mark Shea for answers to questions like that
Bob, I think that it is because Mark is able to reply in a language that anybody is able to understand. In French the word is “vulgarisation”, I am not sure what it is in English. This does not mean the deepest of explanations, it rather means an introduction that people can grasp without having to turn to a dictionary at every second word. Once a person has such a general explanation or introduction, it is easier to ask a similar question to a theologian, who will give a more in-depth answer, but often more difficult to read and possibly discouraging to the lay reader. One example from this article is Mark’s link to a text about the “Sabbatine Privilege”, which frankly lost me… But if I later need to learn more about the subject, Mark has directed me to a good source that I could read more slowly and reflectively at another better time.
I appreciate your comment Mark, but the question seems to be dealing with a hangover distrust of Mary from a previous Protestant background. If this person does not want to accept the graces given by the Catholic Church that is up to him/her, but I think that would be a foolish choice indeed. In thus life we need all the help we can get. My suggestion to this person is to read the description and intention of Approbations and then undertake reading The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda that is reputed to be an autobiography of the Holy Family dictated by Almighty God and The Mother of God. Guess again if you still think you can ignore believe in the importance of Mary. During the Coronation of Mary,Almighty God is quoted as saying: “We make Thee the Depository of our riches, the Treasure of our goods; we place into thy hands the helps and blessings of our grace for distribution: nothing do We wish to be given to the world, which does not pass through thy hands; and nothing do We deny, which Thou wishes to concede to men.” Mary is the greatest advocate anyone can have. Everything I offer to God goes through her hands as well. I highly recommend that.
Well said Mr Roland, I am reading the book of Venerable Mother Agreda recommended by my father. All thru the hands of the Virgen Mary.
Pious legends and devotions may contain relevance for some, however they have no bearing on the condition of one’s salvation. For example, weekly devotion and prayer to St. Anthony is not on par with belief in Christ and our redemption by His shed blood on the cross. One simply needs to put legends and devotions into their proper perspective and not have these usurp their importance regarding what are core elements of the Catholic faith. Not “everything” taught, supported or advocated by the church is a condition of salvation.
Since Romans was mentioned above, it is the believer who walks by faith. The unbeliever does not and only relies upon self. Paul put it best in Romans 8:7 ——“because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.”
I wonder why people ask as journalist these questions, instead of a knowledgeable and reputable theologian. I would never ask Mark Shea for answers to questions like that
Beats me. Presumably it’s because they don’t know any theologians, or fear getting an answer they can’t understand. I suppose it’s different reasons for different folk.
But Mark, what makes a professional opinion columnist a competent authority?
and why should I take your opinion to have more value than anyone else’s opinion in these matters?
Bob:
You’re the only person bringing “competent authority” into the discussion. Neither my reader nor I say anything about it. My reader asks a question as one lay person to another. I give him a reply as one layperson to another who has likewise had to try to navigate such matters for himself. I make it very clear I’m just giving my personal take, not some sort of one-size-fits-all magisterial answer (though my personal take is, of course, informe as well possible with magisterial teaching).
Unless you are seriously proposing that lay people should never ever discuss matters of faith with one another and asserting that any attempt by a lay person to do so constitutes either a bestowal of ecclesial authority (by the questioner on the questionee) or a claim of ecclesial authority by the questionee, I don’t see what the problem is. Are you really suggesting that no layperson should ever discuss the faith? Because you are 2000 years late if so. Apollos was going around half-cocked in the New Testament. Instead of berating him for not being a competent authority, Priscilla and Aquila “explained to him the way of God more adequately” and send him on his way. If I’ve said something wrong, I’m all ears. If I’ve merely failed to be ordained before talking about my faith, then take it up with the layman St. Justin Martyr. I’ll be over here trying to obey Matthew 28:19-20.
and why should I take your opinion to have more value than anyone else’s opinion in these matters?
Where did I claim that in my reply? In this particular matter, I’m just one lay schlub talking to another. Sometimes we can help each other even if we have no particular superiority over other people in a matter of expertise. I daresay your own mother and father gave you lots of help without being experts in most subjects.
One of the greatest errors of the post-Vatican II Church was (or, perhaps, has been) an attempt to remove the miraculous and the mythical - the very essence of religion - from Catholicism. Applying the crude litmus test of empiricism to the pious legends and ancient devotional practices simply kills the spirit of Christianity. Why would it matter that St. Christopher probably never existed as a living human individual? His story is one of the most beautiful and meaningful in Christian hagiography. Stephanos of Byzantium hit the nail on the head when he declared that “a myth is something that never was but always is”. Unfortunately, the Bollandists and their assorted ilk disagreed and opted for the mere historical “reality”. We are all poorer for that. Myself, I read “The Golden Legend” religiously every week (pun intended). It truly nourishes my faith.
One thing I admire about Pope Benedict is he seems like a man that stays focused on the core of our Christian faith: Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension and His coming again, in victory. “The Great Commission”. That is key. Pope Benedict does not seem to place too much emphasis on other things that pad Catholicism, like legends; he does not carry devotions to extremes, as do other Catholics. The mystical aspects of our Catholic tradition, or the lives of saints about which little is known, in some cases, and in other cases, much of it based on hearsay & conjecture, is fluff. What I have come to appreciate about Pope Benedict is he keeps focused on the meat of our faith. Meat that nourishes believers, causing us grow in the knowledge of Christ, and resulting in us being able to love Him.
@Hieronymus: You wrote “Why would it matter that St. Christopher probably never existed as a living human individual? His story is one of the most beautiful and meaningful in Christian hagiography.” The answer is clear. You would then be perpetuating false teaching and invented tradition if you knew it was, in fact, false. It is quite important to first know either the person or audience you are speaking to. Are they already grounded in the faith or new to the faith? The danger in your approach (even for some already grounded) creates a reliance upon the experiential instead of gospel historicity which we can “know.” For a newbie in the faith, you would not want a lack of the experiential to be seen as a failing on their part. The experiential should never supersede what the gospel and NT writings tell us what we should *know*. Mark Shea’s approach is, in fact, the more sound and gospel-visioned approach as he outlined in Matthew 28: 19-20 by Jesus. It’s the command by Christ of all who claim to follow Him. Why would you bother substituting legends when we *know* the gospel of Jesus Christ is the real deal?
Bob: anyone who repeats doctrines that the Catholic Church teaches can be a competent authority. Who is a competent authority for you? If you can’t prove incompetence why do you even mention it?
It won’t do to claim that the church lets its people believe something that it does not fully endorse. Either the Sabbatine Privilege is true or not. As Bob wrote above-“During the Coronation of Mary, Almighty God is quoted as saying: “We make Thee the Depository of our riches, the Treasure of our goods; we place into thy hands the helps and blessings of our grace for distribution: nothing do We wish to be given to the world, which does not pass through thy hands; and nothing do We deny, which Thou wishes to concede to men.” should be taken to be true because that RCC has not said its not true. No one has the right to take or leave something that is true.
It won’t do to claim that the church lets its people believe something that it does not fully endorse.
Where has the Church fully endorsed the infield fly rule, Gresham’s law, the Krebs cycle, the American Film Institute’s view that “Citizen Kane” is the greatest film of all time, or the Harvard rule of animal behavior? As far as I know, no Pope or council has fully endorsed special relativity, Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood or the proposition that 2+2=4. There are vast regions of life that the Church does no concern itself with micromanaging. That’s a feature, not a bug.
To Bob Rowland:
You wrote, “My suggestion to this person is to….undertake reading The Mystical City of God by Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda that is reputed to be an autobiography of the Holy Family dictated by Almighty God and The Mother of God.”
Please, will you answer the following two questions about your statement:
First, why didn’t any of the New Testament letters contain that revealed information, if it’s an autobiography of the Holy Family - presumably on par with the Gospel of Luke?
Secondly, how are the revelations given to Mohammed, supposedly delivered to him from the Angel Gabriel, different from that of Venerable Mother Mary of Agreda’s revelations? What would make Mother Mary’s revelations true and Mohammed’s revelations false?
Mark—what do your examples have to do with the soul of a person or how they are to live in Christ? Do you really think the apostles would have tolerated the Sabbatine Privilege if it was claimed to be revealed to some lay person in the church?
Art: The approbations of this document states unequivocally that it is free of error. That being true,I take God at His Word in the document that He intends for it to be reliable truth. The Church does not demand that you believe private revelation, but I am inclined to consider it much more credible than mere speculation by theologians and philosophers. I do think private revelation should be revealed openly to everyone the same as speculation to allow them to decide whether they want to believe it or not. Thanks for your support.
Mark,
You are right, I was reading more into the piece than perhaps was intended, and my comments were out of line.
Although I do believe that there is a real danger that in a public forum like this, people take the opinion of a popular Catholic writer and make it an infallible Gospel Truth. I apologize for being out of line.
Have a Blessed Triduum and Pasch!
Bob—isn’t the Sabbatine Privilege true i.e. will release a soul out of purgatory on the Saturday after their deaths for those who meet its conditions?
Does it not have the full support of the RCC via The decree of Pope Paul V of January 20, 1613? This is no a mere private belief by just anyone in the church. This looks to me as solid as anything the Lord Jesus said in Scripture and is just as trustworthy.
Bob:
No sweat. And I agree that there is a grave danger of people elevating the word of popinjays like me to Sacred Writ. I write about that danger here.
Why would it matter that St. Christopher probably never existed as a living human individual?
Leaving aside whether or not that question matters; & meantime expressing appreciation both for Mr. Shea’s observations, including his earlier linked piece, & such caveats they might presuppose for what follows; allow me nonetheless to contest not just the implication that St. Christopher never existed, but the facile historical approach by which Hieronymus seems unfortunately to have been influenced.
As he notes, Shea’s mythical (ha! or maybe not) grandmother exaggerates the expression, but not the essence of Herod’s malignity. In like manner certain legendary qualities might have accrued around Christopher’s life (or not - the oral traditions surrounding Terah & seed endured centuries before Phoenicians even developed the alphabet that lead to a transcription): but ignoring the centrality of water to the story & a certain want of sources for the millions nonetheless baptized in the early centuries, that a widespread & then determinative recognition of his sanctity existed before somebody bothered to transcribe details - has perhaps a firmer foundation than that Chris failed to make a Roman equivalent of Time’s Top 100 Influentials back in the day.
Meantime, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The existence of a martyr St. Christopher cannot be denied, as was sufficiently shown by the Jesuit Nicholas Serarius.
Or for manualist devotees, Wikipedia:
The legend of Saint Christopher records two important historical facts that identify him with the historical Saint Menas. The first is that the Greek and Latin legends of Saint Christopher identify him as belonging to the Third Valerian Cohort of the Marmantae (Latin: Cohors tertia Valeria, at Marmantarum), a military unit of Northern Africa of Marmarica (between modern day Libya and Egypt), recruited by none other than the Emperor Diocletian.
The second is that Saint Christopher was martyred in Antioch…The martyrdom of Saint Menas corresponds to the details of the legend of Saint Christopher. The theory that identifies the two saints as one and the same concludes that the name “Christopher” meaning “Christ-bearer” was a title given to the name of the valiant Menas who died in Antioch. Since, he was not a native of that land, his name was not known and so he was simply revered by his generic title: “Christophoros” or “Christ-Bearer.” Saint Menas happens to be the patron of travelers in the Coptic tradition, which further supports an association with Saint Christopher who is the patron of travelers in the Greek and Latin traditions.
And while unsure if the Church considers Her Martyrology infallible, St. Christopher is recognized there, despite some arguably regrettable fog on the matter - as arguably on others - due to decisions by His Holiness Pope Paul VI.
Improbable St. Christopher existed? Definitive would seem the more accurate description.
Why would it matter that St. Christopher probably never existed as a living human individual?
Leaving aside whether or not that question matters; & meantime expressing appreciation both for Mr. Shea’s observations, including his earlier linked piece, & such caveats they might presuppose for what follows; allow me nonetheless to contest not just the implication that St. Christopher never existed, but the facile historical approach by which Hieronymus seems unfortunately to have been influenced.
As he notes, Shea’s mythical (ha! or maybe not) grandmother exaggerates the expression, but not the essence of Herod’s malignity. In like manner certain legendary qualities might have accrued around Christopher’s life (or not - the oral traditions surrounding Terah & seed endured centuries before Phoenicians even developed the alphabet that lead to a transcription): but ignoring the centrality of water to the story & a certain want of sources for the millions nonetheless baptized in the early centuries, that a widespread & then determinative recognition of his sanctity existed before somebody bothered to transcribe details - has perhaps a firmer foundation than that Chris failed to make a Roman equivalent of Time’s Top 100 Influentials back in the day.
Meantime, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The existence of a martyr St. Christopher cannot be denied, as was sufficiently shown by the Jesuit Nicholas Serarius.
Or for manualist devotees, Wikipedia:
The legend of Saint Christopher records two important historical facts that identify him with the historical Saint Menas. The first is that the Greek and Latin legends of Saint Christopher identify him as belonging to the Third Valerian Cohort of the Marmantae (Latin: Cohors tertia Valeria, at Marmantarum), a military unit of Northern Africa of Marmarica (between modern day Libya and Egypt), recruited by none other than the Emperor Diocletian.
The second is that Saint Christopher was martyred in Antioch…The martyrdom of Saint Menas corresponds to the details of the legend of Saint Christopher. The theory that identifies the two saints as one and the same concludes that the name “Christopher” meaning “Christ-bearer” was a title given to the name of the valiant Menas who died in Antioch. Since, he was not a native of that land, his name was not known and so he was simply revered by his generic title: “Christophoros” or “Christ-Bearer.” Saint Menas happens to be the patron of travelers in the Coptic tradition, which further supports an association with Saint Christopher who is the patron of travelers in the Greek and Latin traditions.
And while unsure if the Church considers Her Martyrology infallible, St. Christopher is recognized there, despite some arguably regrettable fog on the matter - as arguably on others - due to decisions by His Holiness Pope Paul VI.
Improbable St. Christopher existed? Definitive would seem the more accurate description.
Two notes, covering:
Why would it matter that St. Christopher probably never existed as a living human individual?
Leaving aside whether or not that question matters; & meantime expressing appreciation both for Mr. Shea’s observations, including his earlier linked piece, & such caveats they might presuppose for what follows; allow me nonetheless to contest not just the implication that St. Christopher never existed, but the facile historical approach by which Hieronymus seems unfortunately to have been influenced.
As he notes, Shea’s mythical (ha! or maybe not) grandmother exaggerates the expression, but not the essence of Herod’s malignity. In like manner certain legendary qualities might have accrued around Christopher’s life (or not - the oral traditions surrounding Terah & seed endured centuries before Phoenicians even developed the alphabet that lead to a transcription): but ignoring the centrality of water to the story & a certain want of sources for the millions nonetheless baptized in the early centuries, that a widespread & then determinative recognition of his sanctity existed before somebody bothered to transcribe details - has perhaps a firmer foundation than that Chris failed to make a Roman equivalent of Time’s Top 100 Influentials back in the day.
Meantime, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The existence of a martyr St. Christopher cannot be denied, as was sufficiently shown by the Jesuit Nicholas Serarius.
Or for manualist devotees, Wikipedia:
The legend of Saint Christopher records two important historical facts that identify him with the historical Saint Menas. The first is that the Greek and Latin legends of Saint Christopher identify him as belonging to the Third Valerian Cohort of the Marmantae (Latin: Cohors tertia Valeria, at Marmantarum), a military unit of Northern Africa of Marmarica (between modern day Libya and Egypt), recruited by none other than the Emperor Diocletian.
The second is that Saint Christopher was martyred in Antioch…The martyrdom of Saint Menas corresponds to the details of the legend of Saint Christopher. The theory that identifies the two saints as one and the same concludes that the name “Christopher” meaning “Christ-bearer” was a title given to the name of the valiant Menas who died in Antioch. Since, he was not a native of that land, his name was not known and so he was simply revered by his generic title: “Christophoros” or “Christ-Bearer.” Saint Menas happens to be the patron of travelers in the Coptic tradition, which further supports an association with Saint Christopher who is the patron of travelers in the Greek and Latin traditions.
And while unsure if the Church considers Her Martyrology infallible, St. Christopher is recognized there, despite some arguably regrettable fog on the matter - as arguably on others - due to decisions by His Holiness Pope Paul VI.
Improbable St. Christopher existed? Definitive would seem the more accurate description.
Alas, can’t quite figure why NCR rejects conclusion of the above as spam - possibly due to quotes from a famous (or infamous) online dictionary establishing Christopher’s historical reality, which the interested reader may wish to peruse.
And while unsure if the Church considers Her Martyrology infallible, St. Christopher is recognized there, despite some arguably regrettable fog on the matter - as arguably on others - due to decisions by His Holiness Pope Paul VI.
Thus improbable St. Christopher existed? Definitive would seem the more accurate description.
Second note rejected, know not why: it contained quotes from a famous (or infamous) online dictionary establishing St. Christopher’s histroical reality. As does, that despite some arguably regrettable 60’s fog, he is in the Matyrology of the Church.
But improbable that he exists? Definitive would seem the more accurate description.
Very nice, Mark- and reinforces again your description of the Church as “here comes everybody”. Our Mother is a wise old lady and knows that our poor human distractable selves need various aids to focus our attention.
Oh dear. Tried different means of conquering the spam rejection, of which each effort got eventually accepted I see. Apologies for the bombardment. And more patience promised from here in future.
The first comment was the intended one, should you wish to delete the variations that follow.
Why do Catholics need patron saints for this and that? Isn’t Christ sufficient?
@Art: As a Catholic, your comment is one I have become troubled by over the years. I find the study of saints who have gone before us worthwhile, but only to a point. Their value to my faith is insufficient in contrast to that of knowing Christ. More reading in the NT letters makes it clear that Paul understood the true value and all sufficiency of Christ. Very likely, too much concentration, prayer and devotion slanted toward saints retards the degree to which we can know the abundancy of life Christ offers.
In the Pew:
It is curious that you don’t see the contradiction in what you just said. You speak as though the saints are in in competition with Christ…and then recommend everybody go read the writings of St. Paul. If the saints are competitors with Jesus, why is St. Paul not a competitor. If St. Paul is a window onto Christ, why aren’t the rest of saints window onto Christ. Especially since St. Paul urged the Ephesians to come to know “the riches of his inheritance in the saints”? I think you’ve been imbibing a Protestant approach to the communion of saints. I’d try learning about the Catholic approach more deeply. It’s quite biblical.
Mark,
Why didn’t Paul or Peter exhort any of the Christians they wrote to to pray to them after they died? Both mention their impending deaths and yet they say nothing about praying to them after they have died.
So what? The Bible is not the Big Book of Everything. You’re trying to construct an argument from silence. Why didn’t the gospel writers record Jesus saying “Please”, “Thank you” and “Pass the bread”. There’s no mention that that apostles went to the bathroom either. Therefore these things must all be “unbiblical”.
Or perhaps it’s wiser to read Scripture in light of common sense and the way in which the early Church read it?
@Mark, I understand your point, but Paul was an evangelizer, an encourager to the church who always pointed to Christ. A study of past saints in Paul’s time did not mean praying to Moses, the Patriarchs, Isaiah and other OT prophets. I think that we (ourselves) at times create the competition you mention. I agree Paul is a window into Christ and helps us to understand the gospel better. No question. However, the intent of my comment was only that we can impair the benefits of the faith when we place an over emphasis upon various saints for whom prayer is offered for specifc needs. If we look to Jesus as sufficient in all things, why not focus on Him first? Keeping the right perspective seems the most important. We can surely learn and perhaps emulate the lives of those having gone before us in Christ. They just should not usurp our primary attention away from Jesus. We probably don’t really disagree with our intent. It’s more likely in how we are expressing the intent.
Mark,
I’m not constructing any argument from silence. Since we know that the apostles nor the Lord Jesus ever taught anyone to pray to but God alone we can conclude that the idea of praying to a saint is not a biblical or apostolic teaching or practice.
Just because something is “common sense” does not mean its true.
In the Pew:
We do focus on him first. That’s what the Mass is: the worship of God the Father, through Christ the Son by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
But since we are a communion, we asked prayer of one another and we pray for one another and death has no power to stop that. So we ask prayer of and pray for those in Christ who have died. Moses was very very dead when Jesus spoke with him on the Mount of Transfiguration. No Catholic who knows their faith exalts a saint above Christ. But likewise, no Catholic who knows their faith imagines that it’s an either/or choice between worshipping God and honoring a saint. You show love to God by showing love to your neighbor. The saint is your neighbor.
Art: You first and second sentences directly contradict each other. You are playing the game of the Protestant semi-permeable membrane in this case declaring that without an explicit command something is forbidden.
Rubbish. Moses was dead on the Mount of Transfiguration, but still in communion with Christ and the Church. Not surprisingly, the Church immediately began asking the dead for their prayer and continued the already established Jewish practice of prayer for the dead. Makes sense since we are members of one another and death cannot sever us from Christ.
To Mark Shea, you asked In the Pew, “If St. Paul is a window onto Christ, why aren’t the rest of saints window onto Christ?”
If I may share my thoughts on that with everyone -
First, St. Paul received his knowledge directly from the Holy Spirit, with Whom he spent three years in the desert, learning about Jesus, preparing to go on his journies to teach and preach. He wrote this, in his letter to the Galatians.
Secondly, Peter’s letter indicates that Paul’s writings are “Scripture”, and the other New Testament writers are primarily men that were eye-witnesses to Jesus, like John & Matthew, James & Peter.
My point is that other saints that lived during the past 2,000 years, and even as recently as the 20th century, neither had the benefit of being eye-witnesses, or were the disciples of eye-witnesses, or learned without a doubt, directly from the Holy Spirit. There is always the doubt: is this true, or not?
If we KNEW for a fact someone heard from Almighty God directly, and it was a direct quote, would the church really give us an option whether or not to believe what was claimed? That would be almost a malpractice.
So why not stay with what we KNOW is FACTUAL, and what is trustworthy, and what God wants us to know? Namely, that is the Gospel & the New Testament letters, most letters having been written by St. Paul, who learned directly from the Holy Spirit, and who was given a thumbs up, by Peter, James and John.
Mark,
It is true that Moses appeared to Christ on the mount of Transfiguration. He was not dead but alive. However, that passage is never used in the NT as a basis to pray to someone who has died. It may make sense to pray to the dead but that does not mean that the dead hear your prayers. The NT teaching on prayer is always to God and never to someone who has died. The reason is that the Lord Jesus commanded us to pray to Him and ask in His name alone. “We are members of one another and death cannot sever us from Christ.” is true but that does not mean that we are to communicate with the dead. That verse in Rom 8:38-39 does not teach communication.
Art:
As I say, you are playing the semi-permeable membrane game (read the link I gave above). It works this way:
If a thing is condemned by the Church, but permitted by the Protestant (say, gay marriage) the demand is for an explicit text forbidding it (“Show me where Jesus said one word about not allowing gay marriage! That’s just the Church imposing its purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”).
Conversely, if a thing is allowed by the Church but condemned by the Protestant, the demand is for an explicit text commanding it. So, for instance, we get demands like, “Where in the Bible do you find anyone asking us to pray to dead people? That’s just the Church imposing it’s purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.”
That’s your game. The Church doesn’t play that game because we don’t believe in sola scriptura.
Terah:
You seem to be suggesting that unless somebody is acting under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit with infallible inerrancy, they can be of absolutely no value to us as models of sanctity. Paul disagrees and recommends to us the “riches of his inheritance in the saints”. He means, by that the whole body of Christ, not simply the handful of guys who happened to be used toe write the Bible. There is more to body of Christ than the Bible.
And I bet you already know and live this. Don’t you have any Christians in your life, living or dead, who inspire you? Do these role models make it harder or easier for you to follow Christ? Easier, right? That’s what a saint does. All Catholics bring to the mix is the awareness that God is the God of the living, not the dead. So we don’t let death slow us down in asking for the prayers of our inspirational heroes, not do we mistake them for God any more than I mistake you for God when I ask your prayers. It’s really not too complicated.
As Catholic I learned from my parents that we can pray to the saints for their intercession since they are closer to God than me and specially to the Virgen Mary everything through the hands of the VirgenMary, Praying and asking the saints for a favour does not mean I will stop praying to God it is not one or the other, specially we should honor the saint that we were named after but not because of this I am going to forget to pray to God or to St. Michael the Archangel. As Catholic if I have a problem I pray and ask the help of all the Saints together with God and the Virgen Mary, not necessarily in this order. My husband is non catholic and he is always directing everything to God, I do too but he is surprise that I always ask the Virgen Mary for help or the Saints, this is the way non Catholics are.
Mark, you asked me, “Don’t you have any Christians in your life, living or dead, who inspire you? Do these role models make it harder or easier for you to follow Christ?”
Of course, there are Christians, both living and dead, that inspired me, and by whose lives, it is easier for me to trust & obey Jesus. While I remember the ones that have died, I do not communicate with them. I only have memories of them, and their good examples of living a Christian life, having “abided” in Him.
The problem I have with communicating with dead loved ones (or even saints from long ago that we never knew personally) is focusing on them takes the focus off Jesus, and the Father (who answers prayer) and the Holy Spirit within us.
Secondly, to focus on Mary as being an intercessor for us is to give her the attributes of God: namely, being omnipresent and omniscient. Even the Archangels Michael and Gabriel, that were so active in Scripture as having been messengers of God to people, were not everywhere at all times.
One of those angels is quoted as saying he tried to get to someone who was praying, but Satan thwarted his attempt to get to him. It may have been Daniel. I can’t remember. But God specifically heard the prayer immediately, & sent the archangel to answer & Satan slowed the angel down.
Here’s something to think about:
If every Catholic in the entire world were praying to Mary at the same time, expecting to be answered by her - it would give her the attributes of God. Now God *could* do anything. If He wanted Mary to have that capability, He could make it happen. I’m sure Satan’s effort to thwart that angel was given an OKAY by God (why, I don’t know!) Nothing happens without God’s approval.
But I think we must be extremely careful what we allow to enter into our minds, becoming part of our faith & teaching it to others, because the focus must remain on Jesus; on His Cross, on His Blood, and on His coming again, in victory. Everything else (no matter how well meaning) is a distraction from the Main Thing. We need to keep the Main Thing the Main Thing. That honors the Father and gives glory to Jesus. That’s my goal!
Thanks for responding -
@Mark, you wrote: “no Catholic who knows their faith imagines that it’s an either/or choice between worshipping God and honoring a saint.” Your comment goes to crux of my point. How many people in your parish (and I don’t mean to intentionally cite seniors) hang onto assorted sacramentals, holy cards of saints, and other relics praying with these articles in hand? We know sacramentals are not necessary to fellowship with the Lord. As tradition, I have no problem with sacramentals so long as if kept in the right perspective, however. One more comment regarding your statement that Moses was quite dead at the Transfiguration. Were Moses and Elijah only figments or images for Peter, James and John to recognize? I think once having entered the presence of the Lord, Moses and Elijah were more alive than they had ever been.
How many people in your parish (and I don’t mean to intentionally cite seniors) hang onto assorted sacramentals, holy cards of saints, and other relics praying with these articles in hand?
I don’t know. What difference does it make? What’s wrong with praying with those articles in hand?
We know sacramentals are not necessary to fellowship with the Lord.
Who says we are limited to only what is necessary? If it comes to it, you and I and all of creation are unnecessary.
As tradition, I have no problem with sacramentals so long as if kept in the right perspective, however.
How do you know that your neighbor is failing to keep things in the right perspective? Can you read souls? If not, then what are you talking about?
One more comment regarding your statement that Moses was quite dead at the Transfiguration. Were Moses and Elijah only figments or images for Peter, James and John to recognize?
Hard to say. But what difference does it make. The point of the vision was that they two saints in heaven were aware of what was happening on earth and were in communion with Jesus—and therefore with Peter, James, John and the rest of us. If you can ask for the prayers of those on earth, you can therefore ask the prayers of those in heaven.
I think once having entered the presence of the Lord, Moses and Elijah were more alive than they had ever been.
Exactly right. Which is why it is perfectly fine to ask for their prayers. There’s nothing special about death that divides the Church in two and cuts the two halves off from each other.
It’s amazing how protestants keep beating the drum on Jesus vs. the Saints. Can’t you see that the very nature of faith and revelation is sacramental, intercessional, and mediated? As a test: how many of your protestant buddies are levitating like St. Teresa of Jesus on mystical knowledge of God? No, my friend, our nature as incarnated beings requires mediation. Or else, why would Jesus say: “... and love your neighbor as yourself.” (Why not just love God?) Or, “he who hears you hears me.” (Why not hear the voice of God directly? Why do you even need a bible?) Anyone who fails to see this is squarely focused on the tree. Sacramental spirituality is a wildly prolific source, and accounts for all these practices which dessicated protestantism prudishly denies.
@Matt B: You’re amazed??? It’s more amazing to me how I who am Catholic cannot question any practice without being call a Protestant. Are you so weak in the faith that you have no questions or have not worked through practices which might appear conflicting? In case you’ve forgotten (or didn’t know) RCIA encourages questions. And my comments have all been polite. You seem to be highly defensive and attack people by calling them Protestants. You do not know me or my background —yet I might be seated next to you at Easter Vigil with my wife tomorrow night. I generally try to avoid people like you who are not helpful to the rest of us. Still, I will offer you the sign of peace following the Lord’s Prayer.
@Mark: Yours is a helpful comment “How do you know that your neighbor is failing to keep things in the right perspective? ” Alright, appearances then can be deceiving. I take your point. I am not clear, though, that saints in Heaven are aware of what is taking place on earth. If there are no more tears and only joy in the presence of the Lord, how saddened would those in Heaven be knowing of the all heartbreak, maladies and sin which take place upon the earth? And especially for those in families they have passed from. How do we reconcile this?
Matt,
Are you saying that St. Teresa levitated? I have never heard of this. Does the RCC say this indeed happened?
Mark,
You wrote “If you can ask for the prayers of those on earth, you can therefore ask the prayers of those in heaven.” does not mean those who you pray to are in heaven or are in any position to listen or help. For example, how do you know if a person you are praying to is in purgatory? Can souls in purgatory hear prayers and do something about them?
In the Pew:
We know the dead are aware of what’s happening on earth because the extremely dead Moses was discussing Jesus’ impending death with him. The saints are like Jesus, therefore the saint love and care about their suffering brethren. The idea that heaven means no longer having to love or care is closer to Buddhism than Christianity.
Art:
Teresa’s ecstatic levitations are not a matter of Church teaching but of eyewitness accounts from her fellow nuns. You can take the stories or leave them, but I see no particular reason to think them false. There have been various saints (St. Martin de Porres and, most notably, the rather funny accounts of St. Joseph of Cupertino (google him)) who levitated and even flew. The Church doesn’t require anybody to believe the stories, but a dispassionate look at the evidence for them strongly suggests they are on the level. God can do as he pleases.
With respect to your note: You wrote “If you can ask for the prayers of those on earth, you can therefore ask the prayers of those in heaven.” does not mean those who you pray to are in heaven or are in any position to listen or help.
This is where revelation is required and what it shows us is that the dead are not dead (“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living” says Jesus), that the dead are aware what is happening on earth (which is why the dead Moses can discuss Jesus’ impending death in Jerusalem with him on the Mount of Transfiguration, and that the dead in Christ are “like him”. Therefore, they not only are aware, but they *care* and pray for us. That’s why the early Church immediately began praying for the dead and asking prayer of the dead. Nothing unbiblical about it.
For example, how do you know if a person you are praying to is in purgatory? Can souls in purgatory hear prayers and do something about them?
I don’t see why not. I pray for people who have died. I don’t see why I can’t ask them to pray for me. If they are in purgatory, it will only do them good to talk to God. If one of the things they talk to God about is me, what’s the harm in that?
Mark,
Was there any official church pronouncements from Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome in the late 1st century or early second century that praying to people who had died was something they gave approval to? Was this official church teaching in these centuries?
How can you say that praying to the dead is biblical when their is no teaching or example of it in the NT?
Pew, I find it amazing that you can focus exclusively on my “tone,” reprimand me as being “one of those people I tend to avoid,” and ignore completely the substance of my remarks. Do you know that Jesus rebuked obtuse spirits, and remarked about his disciples, “O faithless and obtuse generation, how long must I remain with you!” I apologize for mistaking you for a protestant, but remain curious how a basic message of the faith could have eluded you in your RCIA journey? And you won’t meet me at the Easter Vigil. My obstreperous children are inapt for such lengthy, tedious and self-consiously liturgical celebrations. We opt for family rosary, praying in the Spirit, and daily Mass, when the opportunity allows. Good Morrow.
Was there any official church pronouncements from Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome in the late 1st century or early second century that praying to people who had died was something they gave approval to? Was this official church teaching in these centuries?
How can you say that praying to the dead is biblical when their is no teaching or example of it in the NT?
You are asking for an anachronism. The Church was a small, harrassed sect at that time. “Official Church pronouncements” deal with matters of controversy (like the decree in Acts 15 about circumcision). What you find is not “official pronouncements but the liturgical behavior of Christians. And in that, Christians are uniform in antiquity: they pray for the dead and ask prayers of the dead in their liturgies. Here’s a hint: When something is done all over the ancient Church and there is absolutely no controversy about it, that’s not because the whole Church went crazy in exactly the same way. It’s because the apostles taught them to do it. The very reason ancient churches are located where they are is because the early Christians met at the tombs of the apostles and their successors to say Mass and ask their intercession. Requests for prayer on the tombs of Christians are all over the place. Why? Because it was taken for granted that this was part of Christian piety. Again, that’s not because everybody all got stupid the same way despite the apostles having forbidden it. It’s because prayer to the dead was the normal practice of the apostolic Church.
Why do you believe that Ecclesiastes is biblical when there is no command in Scripture to include it in the Bible? Why do you believe God is a Trinity when the word “trinity” never appears in the Bible? Why do you believe gay marriage is wrong when there is no command from God forbidding it? Why do you believe abortion is wrong when there is no command forbidding it? Why do you believe polygamy is wrong when there is no command from God forbidding it?
And by the way, there is an example of prayer for the dead in 2 Maccabees 7. Remember: Catholics don’t believe in sola scriptura because it’s a false human tradition. Revelation comes to us in both written and unwritten tradition.
Mark,
There is no proof of any unwritten traditions. All that we can know today is what is written down. You have no way to know if something was done all over the ancient Church. Secondly, even if that were true, that would not mean its true and from God. People brought many of their superstitious beliefs into the church and in some cases the church embraced these superstitious beliefs. Just because a lot of people were doing something means that its right. This is one of the problems in the RCC is that it rejects the Scripture as the final and ultimate authority in matters of faith and allows superstitious beliefs to be taken as true.
BTW- Was Judas Maccabee a prophet? Was he not just a general and not even a priest? If this is true, why would you put weight on someone who is not a prophet or priest?
All that we can know today is what is written down.
So you are saying then that you can’t know which books belong in the Bible? Or that God is a Trinity or that gay marriage, abortion, and polygamy are wrong. After all, none of this is clearly discussed in Scripture. Also, since you claim we can’t know anything about the early Church (despite abundant documentation) how do you know that what I describe is a superstition? The people who practiced it certainly don’t say that. They say it comes from the apostles. How do you know they are wrong? And you are shiftin the goalposts, by the way. You aske for an example of prayer for the dead from Scripture. I gave one. Now you are demanding that something had to be done by a prophet or priest.
I repeat: the Church, like the apostles, has never believed in the false human tradition of sola scriptura. Embrace that nonsense tradition and you have no way of even knowing what books belong in the Bible, and therefore no way of saying Scripture is an authority at all. In fact, however, God is the ultimate authority, not the Bible. And God has established the Church of the living God, not the Bible, as the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Because the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, her sacred Scriptures are trustworthy and participate in the gift of inspiration Jesus bestowed on the Church when he breathed on the apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. Those apostles didn’t just hand down Scriptures. In fact, most of them didn’t write anything. But they *did* all appoint bishops to succeed them and “guard the deposit of faith” handed down. Pitting the Church *against* her Scriptures is one gigantic exercise in sawing off the branch you are sitting on.
Mark,
You are the one making the claim about unwritten traditions not me. Its up to you to show what these unwritten traditions were. The praying for dead by Judas Maccabee who was not even a priest or prophet only shows his belief and practice. That does not mean God approved of it. The Bible records all kinds of things done by people but that does not mean it approves of it. That’s why knowing who Judas Maccabee was is so important. He has no credentials as a prophet or priest but was a superstitious man. Why would you put any weight on what he did?
I have no problem with the apostles fulfilling what Jesus commanded. The problem is that people in the church have not done so. The RCC has a history of going far beyond what Jesus and His apostles taught. This is the result of going beyond what is written and listening to the idea of men.
Art, I guess such scriptures as “He who hears you hears me;” “I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound, whatever you release on earth will released;” and “if they reject you, take heart; they have rejected me before you” were the larcenous ideas of those crafty apostles. Also the various Pauline scriptures which show the existence and validity of oral tradtion. Or John’s famous gospel which remarks that “if everything Jesus did and said were written down, the world would not be big enough for all the books.” I suspect that the problem is not with scripture, but with accepting authority. And Faith: it’s difficult to accept or believe that Jesus could lodge such authority in mere men (as opposed to an a book which could be stolen from the temple and enslaved to all kinds of spurious agendas by anyone who thought they could read.) I guess you would have to acknowledge a Holy Spirit big enough to inscribe the law of love in men’s hearts as well as on parchment.
Mark,
One of the essential things in properly interpreting Scripture is understanding the contexts in which various verses and passages are found. Take “He who hears you hears me;” which is found in Luke 10:16. Verses 1-4 sets the context—As you can see this is specific task that He gave His disciples to prepare the places where He was going to preach-teach next. Where in this passage is this about the RCC?
Keys to the kingdom have to do with opening the way up to the kingdom as Peter did at Pentecost by preaching the good news. This is something all the apostles were to do.
No doubt there was a lot of oral teaching by the Christ and His apostles while they were alive. We don’t know specifically what these oral teachings were.
The same for Jesus doing things that are not recorded. The problem is that no one knows specifically what these things were today. Oral teachings are good for only so long and then are forgotten unless they are written down.
No one knows what these other things Jesus did that are not written down in the NT.
The leaders in the church do have authority. The also have the responsibility to teach the truths that the Jesus and His apostles taught and not to teach their own ideas as truth if it has no foundation in Scripture. This is where praying to people who have died is something the apostles never taught. These kinds of things are the teachings of men and not of Christ and the Scripture.
Mark-Matt
Mark- My last comment should have been to Matt and not you. Sorry about that.
Anyone interested in the early Christians’ take on this point should read St. Jerome’s book “Against Helvidius”, which he wrote in a white heat in a single night. (Apparently as a comment against Helvidius saying it wasn’t Christian to stay up praying in church all night, or lighting oil lamps (we’d use candles of course) as an aid to prayer and devotion.)
Jerome, who was of course a great Scripture scholar and often nitpicky about it, is appalled at the idea that this Helvidius guy, best known hanging around the scholars and saints like he wanted to be their student and then running off in a huff, would go on to say nasty things about the grannies who have ten times his perseverance in Christian belief. So Jerome unloads about the rights of the normal Christian to do normal Christian things, without her getting told she’s some kind of shameless pagan for it.
There’s more than that, of course, but it’s one of those moments that shows you why Jerome had so many female friends and students, despite being such a curmudgeon.
@In the pew: Who talked about substituting anything? You did not understand my posting.
@antigone: You missed the little word “probably” in my posting. Still, I reject your assuption that for a saint to be “acceptable”, his or her physical existence must be proven.
Art, thanks for your clarifications. I guess I would have to conclude from my reading of scripture that Jesus did set up an actual structure to his Church which included reposing significant authority on certain named individuals, and that they passed on this authority by divine sanction to specific others. Among the powers he transferred to these individuals was the charism to speak authoritatively in his name. To these individuals was given the gift of interpreting scripture authoritatively as well. When you talk about “leaders of the church” I have a feeling you mean the self-appointed type, who in fact have no such charisms.
Of course, this entire set-up would be complete madness if you were talking about a human institution (viz. the US Supreme Court). However, belief in God entails a conviction that the Holy Spirit is alive in the Church, and “guides us towards all truth.” He “reminds us of everything (Jesus) said,” whether written down or not.
And here you thought it was just a matter of magenta robes, lace and zucchetos! Happy Easter!
Matt,
I have no problem with leaders in a church having some kind of authority. That certainly follows from what the NT says. One of the issues though is that can and has your authority taught error. Did Jesus promise the church that it could not teach error? There is no verse in the NT that comes close to saying this. In fact it does warn specifically that false teachers will come into the church and deceive many. See 2 Peter 2:1 as an example.
It is true that Jesus would bring remembrance of all that He taught the apostles. That still does not mean we know other things that Jesus did but were never written down. Those that were close to Jesus would know these “other things” but we don’t. We can only know what Jesus did and said today what is only written down in the gospels and Acts 20:35.
Happy Easter to you and everyone else who claims Christ
Art, the teachings of the Church are light and life. Anyone who can’t or won’t accept them, live them, and live by them - is sleeping (all good protestants) or dead (people like pelosi who laugh at Church authority).
This forum unfortunately gives the impression that all ideas are on the same footing, depending on the force of their articulation. It’s like a movie I once saw where a renaissance courtier is running a fencing academy. The young gentlemen are parrying and thrusting all over the place, enacting the perfect dual.
I once visited Arthur Ashe stadium in Queens NY, where the main match was being held in a magnificent stadium, while all around for acres and acres, lesser-known players tested their forehands and returns in a hundred inconseequential games, leading to nothing.
I will never convince you or anyone about the truth of the statement I opened with. Only God can do that. And I pray he does.
Have a great Easter!
The love of Christ controls us, because we know that One died for all, so all have died.
Christ died for all so that those who live would not continue to live for themselves. He died for them and was raised from the dead so that they would live for him. 2 Cor 5:14-15
Don’t just believe it but live it out.
Fascinating discussion up to the Sola Scriptura debate. That is one mulberry bush I have been around many times. (Who was the monkey and who was the weasel I am not sure.) For me it was in recognizing that the early Church was Catholic in every fundamental way and that unless the Apostles got it all wrong, in which case the New Testament is untrustworthy itself, then the recent teaching (within the last 500 years) of Sola Scriptura must indeed be one of those false teachings that had crept into the Church, a teaching of men, not of God. The real issue then, for me, was authority. That is, submitting to the authority of those Christ had set in place. Tough thing that, for a non Catholic who had an issue with submitting to authority, especially in matters of faith. The authority of Scipture was easy. It meant what I said it meant and when challenged it became a question of who are you to challenge me because as a Christian I can claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit as well as you can. Unity in essentials? That can be pared down to a very short list indeed.
The difficulty that I found as a new Catholic several years ago was in distinguishing between matters of faith and morals, of the doctrine of the faith; and on the other hand the teachings of lessor weight, those simply containing no error and those that are pious practices often attached to a particular culture or place.
Mark does an excellent job in sorting these things out. There was a time for me that I struggled spiritually because I had been told various things were “what a good Catholic does” even though they were nowhere to be found in the Catechism. I later discovered their relative place in the grand scheme of salvation and found myself much more at peace in practicing the faith and leaving myself open to the leading of the Holy Spirit in these matters.
As an example of this, the Church does teach in the Creed the Communion of Saints, which I understand and whole-heartedly believe but she does not prescribe any particular practice as an application of the teaching. Personally, I have found that my upbringing leads me to prayer to God directly for the most part as an instinct. At the same time, from my youth I was formed in prayer meetings, wherein Christians knelt and interceded and pleaded for the souls of those around them. I therefore have begun a practice of holding prayer meetings myself, for the same purpose, but with groups of the saints that I invite to pray with me always including with great respect the Blessed Virgin Mary, wherein I come before the throne of God in the name of Jesus surrounded by those saints and angels that I have invited to join me there.
I don’t know if this is or has been the practice of other Catholics. I do know that it contradicts in no way the teaching of the Communion of Saints and it gives me great comfort in the presence of those great followers of Jesus, praying for the hearts and minds of those here who are here on earth wandering without Christ, a cause which I know they devote themselves to with fervor and pleasure.
LJ,
What is Sola Scriptura? How is it defined?
Art;
“The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible.”
– Catholic Encyclopedia online at: www.NewAdvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm
“As Protestants we maintain that the Scripture alone is our authority. Our Roman opponents maintain that the Scripture by itself is insufficient as the authority of the people of God, and that tradition and the teaching authority of the church must be added to the Scripture.”
- Dr. W. Robert Godfrey At: http://www.the-highway.com/Sola_Scriptura_Godfrey.html
Dr. Godfrey is (from my standpoint) a random evangelical Protestant that I found on the web by searching for Sola Scriptura. His one sentence description conforms to what I knew growing up in an evangelical home. Notice the close parallel of understanding of what the doctrine means between the Catholic source and the Protestant source. The Catholic source fleshes it out in a manner very much the way I have heard it explained sitting in the pew of a Baptist church for my formative years.
Is that what you were looking for Art?
LJ,
What is the problem with Sola Scriptura that says that the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant Word of God? Even the RCC believes this.
Since this is the case, would it not mean that any teachings-pronouncements of men would not be inspired-inerrant? For example, do you considered your catechism to be inspired-inerrant Word of God?
Actually Art, the Catholic teaching is that Jesus is the Word, just as St. John the Apostle says in the first chapter of his gospel. As to Scripture you can look at the teaching of the Catholic Church in Dei Verbum;
“9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”
That is a fuller overview of the relationship of Scripture and Tradition in the Catholic Church, both as part of Divine Revelation handed down. To your specific question in #11 Of Dei Verbum the Church asserts the following;
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).”
Now, as to the Catechism, it quotes voluminously from Scripture. So I would ask you, is it divinely inspired to that extent? In other words, what are you really asking? Is the teaching in the Catechism divinely inspired? Or is it the book itself, as ordered and written, that you are asking about? We are on similar ground as asking if the table of contents of the Bible is inspired, or the chapter and verse designations which were done later, long after the human, but divinely inspired authors of those books and letters wrote them.
LJ,
The Scripture is also the Word of God. 2 Tim 3:16 would be an example. “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;”
Where did Jesus or His apostles ever teach that tradition is inspired? All that we have from them is written in the NT alone and we consider these writings to be inspired and inerrant. Are there any traditions in your church that are considered inspired?
Yes, I am asking if the teaching in the Catechism divinely inspired. Are the very words of the catechism inspired in the same way as the Scripture is?
Art, The scripture from Timothy does not prove what you propose that it proves. It does not state that ONLY scripture is “inspired by God, etc.” It also does not state that scripture in and of itself is SUFFICIENT for those purposes. You’re stretching the elastic of this verse a little too far.
Regarding the teaching authority of the Church, there are various levels of authoritative teaching, with defined dogmas being the highest. These come from ecumenical councils and specific papal pronouncements. Statements of these teachings range from the Nicene Creed, which is so ancient as to be taken for granted, and the definition of Mary’s Assumption, which was defined in 1950. Acceptance of these dogmas is required for all Christians, and yes, they represent inspired Tradition.
Other magisterial pronouncements, of which the CCC is one, represent an exercise of ordinary infallibility when promulgated formally. While these are not defined dogma, they do carry a weight of magisterial authority which deserves respect.
I would say that the reason you’re not seeing this in your version of the Bible is that you’re weighted down with an accumulated history of schism and heresy which colors your reading of scripture. You’ve been taught the Bible in a way that serves the weaknesses of men and women who abandoned the faith in the face of difficulties and challenges - and have subsequently struggled to rationalize their shame.
This is not to say that many such Christians are not admirable in their beliefs and practices. I personally consider Christians like yourself to be among the best Catholics. It’s a shame that you leave the defense of Holy Mother Church to pretenders like myself.
Art,
The question you must ask, as must I and all of us, is how do you know that the Scriptures themselves are reliable? That is not a trick question. It requires serious meditation.
This is the very heart of the issue at hand. The way that you know is that same way that I know. It has been handed down to you. There is no other way that you or I could know any of this.
That being so, how ludicrous is it then to say to those Apostles who received their authority directly from the King, we believe only that which you wrote down or certain of your disciples wrote down on parchment.
How can we accept in 2012 what we see on paper without trusting the long chain of custody that brought it to us? How can you trust the Scripture without trusting those Catholic monks that copied it faithfully before presses were invented? How can you trust that the books of the New Testament are truly Scripture without trusting the Pope in the 4th century who declared it to be so amongst all of the writings contending for the honor?
If you have faith that the Apostles and others wrote down what was true and inspired who told you that it was inspired to begin with? Where is that authority?
If you accept that the authority of the Apostles came directly from Jesus, how is it that you cannot accept that authority was passed on, and that the authority itself included the authority to pass it on? “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” That’s a broad category.
So too, if you can accept the authority of Scripture, based on the authority of those who gave it to you, how is it that you cannot accept that the same Apostolic authority also carried on the living Tradition, the practice of the faith, and the counsel of the Holy Spirit in great decisions in all of the Councils of the Church regarding the true faith from which we get our creeds, the substance of which most Protestants accept to this day without question?
LJ,
The history of the Scriptures and why we should accept them is a complex issue. The church of the 4th century did not just say—“accept these books because we are in authority and you must accept them”. Rather, the church of the 4th century applied various “tests” to the books that we have in the canon. These tests are sound and was the best way to determine the will of Christ on this matter.
Here are some reasons not accept what you say about trusting the authority of your church:
1) Jesus never promised that the church could not err.
2) He and His apostles warned that false teachers would come into the church and deceive many. There are many doctrines in the RCC that are not apostolic.
3) The history of the church in the evil that some of its leaders at the highest levels shows that this is not wise.
Here is an example of a false teaching in your church: In the catechism it says at “841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
How can it be said that the Muslim worships the same God as you do when they deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ and His death for our sins?
LJ, You quoted “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” Then you said,— “That’s a broad category.” As a Catholic, I have often been perplexed by the entirety of every tradition simply because someone (official or unofficial) calls it such. I learned about these traditions from childhood, but as an adult and in the interest of legitimacy, it is fair to ask if every tradition is a good one. Does the tradition meet an acid test? How is the standard established? For example, the “binding on earth will be bound in heaven” would surely be true—but only if God’s will allows such binding in the first place. Your “broad category” is patently true, however, one long held tradition has recently been deemed a bad tradition with respect to a 1400 year tradition of popes proclaiming there is no salvation outside the Catholic church from Gregory the Great to Innocent III, Pius V, Leo XII and more popes along the way to most recently Pius XI in 1928. This is tradition. I am not against tradition, but all tradition must be examined. You should note that John Paul II and Benedict XVI both have disagreed with this tradition long held by the earlier papacy. The idea that other Christian brothers and sisters were excluded from eternal salvation was a big problem. At one time, though, this was included as Catholic Sacred Tradition. It is now, 1400 years later, no longer considered tradition which was valid. In His infinite wisdom, we must believe the Holy Spirit inspired participants at Vatican II to make this correction within the church and remove honoring this traditon from the dogma.
Towards In the Pew’s comment re: Vatican II—
It seems like many ultra-conservative Catholics now, lay people, clergy and theologians, reject Vatican II as being inspired. So it appears to me that ideas from this council are eroding, or being redefined. Compare even the spirit of Vatican II to the spirit of the Council of Trent, and it is vastly different.
Regarding the catechism as being “inspired”, as is the Bible—
I thought there were a couple different versions of the catechism, and it was revised & updated over the years, with liberal Cardinal Schornborn of Austria having participated in the latest version of our catechism.
Thus, it would be impossible for any source (catechism, council, creed, or even Tradition, post the apostolic days) to have the same reliability as the Word of God that is found in Sacred Scripture*, that is consistent.
*By “Sacred Scripture” I refer to documented Scripture that is time-tested, one with a bishop’s imprimatur, not some new language that is gender nuetral to sound politically correct, making our Triune God more like that of the trinity in the book, The Shack. I mean the versions of Bibles that our parents and grandparents read, those keeping the meaning of the teachings intact, even if it is traditional and conservative by today’s standards.
Art,
1. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth.
2. The doctrines of the Church are all apostolic by virtue of the authority vested in the Bishops by the Apostles directly from Jesus Christ. They may not suit your interpretation of Scripture but that is because, as an adherent to Sola Scriptura, you have cut yourself off from the living transmission of the faith through the Apostles and their successors.
3. There have been evil men in the Church since before it was born on Pentecost. Jesus himself selected Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve. The distinction you fail to make, as many people do, is between the office and the moral condition of the office holder.
Now, I would ask you, how do you suppose it was that the Catholic Church through her Bishops and the Bishop of Rome were able to discern the true gospels and the truly inspired epistles? You mention certain tests. Indeed. But how did they arrive at those tests? I would submit to you that they operated under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Certain tests are obvious, ie. was this written by an Apostle? But there were many documents that were on the bubble, so to speak. Here is the real question. If they were able to be guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth, ie., selecting which books were inspired and which were not, and the monks over the years were guided and helped to faithfully copy those books, without introducing substantial error, how is it that God is then powerless to protect his Church (Jesus did start a church as he said he would) from teaching error in doctrine? What kind of God is that who promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church but cannot protect her from teaching error? What kind of God is it that gives her the authority to teach, an open-ended authority as we noted, and then will not guide her and protect her, and at least prevent bad leaders from teaching error?
Indeed, there were false teachers. A reading of the history of the Church shows clearly that there have been heresies from day one, and the Church, while sometimes being outnumbered (the Arians) held the true Apostolic faith throughout, sometimes at great personal cost to her priests and bishops. The most successful of false teachers came in the 16th century, in the form of Luther, Calvin and others. They were all Catholics from their childhood. Luther was a priest. So yes, false teachers have come into the Church over the years, in many forms. The Sola Scriptura teaching is one of those false doctrines that dates from the 16th century.
I’m no expert on Islam, but as I understand it, they do claim to be the true descendants of Abraham (as the Catechism says) and hold that the Jewish Scriptures, our Old Testament, is a corruption of the true worship of God. So in that sense they claim to be worshipping the same God and the Catechism takes them at their word. The issue is really whether a Muslim could be saved, as a Muslim.
The teaching on this and the issue of “no salvation outside the Church” as Pew points out, comes from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. There he states that even the pagans have a law unto themselves and will be judged by that. What he is talking about is their own conscience, inherited from Adam and Eve. The knowledge of good and evil.
God sends his Holy Spirit to speak to people and provides grace that is according to their understanding. He is not willing that any should perish. But the response to that grace is what determines the fate of anyone. It would be supremely difficult for a Muslim to be saved, without the ordinary means of graces, the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Even so, God knows the heart and judges each person accordingly. Likewise, pagans of any sort have the same conscience, and when offered the grace of the Holy Spirit could respond to him to the best of their knowledge. In the end, God will be their judge, as St. Paul says, by their own conscience. We don’t know if any of these will be saved and if so, who they are. We can presume nothing, but neither can we place limits on God’s power.
The only way that we know, without hesitation, as the ordinary means of salvation is faith and baptism into Jesus Christ, and the ordinary means of grace in our lives as Christians is through the ministry and sacraments of the Church. Hence the teaching, “no salvation outside the Church” which, by the way, has not been discarded, only clarified. In the case of the Protestants who have been baptized in proper form, matter and intent, they belong to the body of Christ because there is only one baptism. They are out of communion with the Church and in danger thereby, particularly those who live in a state of hatred of the Catholic Church, besides missing the sources of grace in the sacraments that Christ intended for them, but again, each and every one of them will be judged by God. We can only point out the truth, and the fullness of the faith as Christ gave it to us.
By the way Art, that Trinity doctrine that you mention? That comes from the Catholic Church.
Pew,
As I pointed out to Art, the doctrine of no salvation outside of the Church has not be abrogated or discarded, only clarified.
There is a distinction between Holy Tradition and small(t) traditions. Tradition (T) is the doctrines of the Church that bind us all to believe, the teaching authority of the Magisterium and the handed down practices from the Apostles, chiefly in the Liturgy. The teaching “no salvation outside the Church” is one of those doctrines. If you recite the Nicene Creed at mass you have covered most of the doctrines of the Catholic Church that fall into this category.
By all means, examine the teachings of the Church, capital (T) tradition and small (t) tradition, but of course it is not a democratic institution like, say the Episcopal church. Doctrine does not get voted in or out by a regular assembly of the faithful. Small (t) traditions and various and sundry devotions and practices are not part of that central core of non-negotiables. Even some things that rise to the level of Church discipline by virtue of the authority of the Church from the Apostles, may well be something that we are in personal disagreement with, such as the ordinary requirement for celebates only to be ordained to the priesthood. But we do not deliberately try to undermine the Church’s authority in these matters and we remain obedient to the authority Christ has placed over us.
As to things that come up occasionally, like people with visions, like those who claim to have prophecy from God, like those who emphasize a certain radical spirituality, like those who claim to have messages from an apparition or an angel, and a host of other similar things. Some of them catch the immagination of Catholics of a particular region or of a particular mindset and they can even create a following, a tradition, if you will. Or, there may be some theologian who teaches a “new” way to look at the faith. Or someone who claims that the Holy Spirit is doing a “new” thing in the Church. Or, there may bne some practice that you have grown up with that seems to be only peripherally related to the essentials of the faith.
There is a way that God has given each and every one of us as Catholics to help us discern these matters, whatever they are, and this gets us finally back to the original discussion in Mark’s posting. First, we can and should get to know clearly what the Church teaches as non-negotiable. The best one-stop source for that is the Catechism, in my opinion. Anything that we run across then can be held up to the test of the authority of the Church. If we find it wanting in any respect, it is prudent to set it aside, if and until we may discover that the Church has already examined it and at minimum declared that it contains no error. Even so, as Mark points out, if it is not helpful, or even makes you uneasy, or distracts you, feel free to disregard it for your own life and spiritual growth.
Some things, like the apparitions at Fatima, the Church has not only declared free from error, but recommends to the faithful. Even so, such things are not necessary for salvation.
It sounds to me that you are in some respects of a similar mind as I. Perhaps it is my Evangelical Protestant upbringing, culturally speaking, or perhaps a throwback to my Quaker farmer ancestors, or their English roots. Whatever it is, my tendency is toward simplicity, spiritually, practically and aesthetically. I am Catholic in faith, but many things that Catholics have a habit of doing cause me only to shrug. I cannot get into a state of excitement over the latest thing in apparitions or spiritualities. And although I love the structural design and architecture of the medieval and post medieval cathedrals and/or a well designed country parish Church of say, the 19th century, I find it incomprehensible that every square inch of the insides of such churches must be decorated or engraved or some such, like the Italians do in Rome. That kind of decorative overkill (my opinion) leaves me cold. Give me heavy wooden beams or high arches, plain plaster walls, the stations of the cross, a large crucifix above the high altar, an ornate tabernacle, representations (icon or statue) of the Blessed Virgin Mary and/or Joseph, an altar rail, votive candles, private confessionals, and I think you pretty much have it all.
Yet to some, multiplicity of decoration is beneficial spiritually and if it helps them to reach heaven, who am I to argue?
LJ,
You wrote—“ 1. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit who would lead them into all truth.”
It is true that Jesus promised to guide His apostles. (He was not addressing future leaders of the church). We know from Acts how the Lord Jesus interacted with His apostles the building of His church and gave them insights they would need that believers would need to grow in the knowledge of Him. These teachings are found only in the New Testament which is inspired-inerrant.
Scripture never says that traditions are inspired-inerrant.
You wrote “2. The doctrines of the Church are all apostolic by virtue of the authority vested in the Bishops by the Apostles directly from Jesus Christ. They may not suit your interpretation of Scripture but that is because, as an adherent to Sola Scriptura, you have cut yourself off from the living transmission of the faith through the Apostles and their successors.”
Where does this definition come from that the “doctrines of the Church are all apostolic by virtue of the authority vested in the Bishops by the Apostles directly from Jesus Christ”?
Bishops do not have the same authority as the apostles. One of the benefits of Sola Scriptura is that it protects the believer from the errors of men. It exposes the non-biblical foundations of error. That’s why its essential to compare teachings with the Scripture. When we do so, we can see if a teaching is supported by Scripture or not. The Marian dogmas fail this test. Mary’s supposedly sinlessness is not grounded in Scripture for example. The same goes for the Sabbatine Privilege.
“3. There have been evil men in the Church since before it was born on Pentecost. Jesus himself selected Judas Iscariot as one of the twelve. The distinction you fail to make, as many people do, is between the office and the moral condition of the office holder.”
No need to make distinctions on the moral condition on those who teach false doctrines or to say that the office holder is somehow protected from error. Again, Scripture never makes these distinctions but warns that false teachers will come from within the church itself. See an example of this warning in 2 Peter 2:1.
Again, where did Jesus promise to protect the church from error? He never promised this but warned as the other apostles that there would be false teachers in the church. If the church was to be protected from error then these warnings would have been useless. There would be no need for these warnings. One false teacher is Alfonso Ligori (saint and doctor of the church) who wrote the Glories of Mary. There are many false statements in that work that has approved by your church.
The issue is not “really whether a Muslim could be saved, as a Muslim” but what are the doctrines of Islam. It denies the Trinity and Christ. These are foundational doctrines Christianity that it denies. There is no way a Christian and a Muslim are worshiping the same God. It is impossible to make that claim and say we are worshiping the same God.
The Trinity comes from the Scripture. It is based on various passages of Scripture. Remember: God is the ultimate author of Scripture not man. God has revealed His Trinitarian nature to us via the Scripture. What the leaders of the church have done in this case is to properly interpret this by the Scripture. How I wish this was always the case.
Art -
How do you know which writings constitute Scripture? The Scriptures do not tell you. (And even if they claimed to, this would be an obvious begging of the question.)
There must be another authority that decides what writings constitute the Scriptures. This authority must be infallible, otherwise writings which are not inspired could be accepted as such, and others which might be inspired might not be accepted.
You mention “tests” that were applied in the 4th century to determine which writings were part of the Scriptures. But where are these tests to be found in the Bible? Sounds to me like thy’re just “teachings of men” and unbiblical.
“One of the benefits of Sola Scriptura is that it protects the believer from the errors of men. It exposes the non-biblical foundations of error. That’s why its essential to compare teachings with the Scripture.”
If only the interpretation of Scripture was as clear and obvious as you seem to believe! But this is precisely what is at issue: different groups interpret the Scriptures differently. So it simply begs the question to say that all we have to do is see if a doctrine is “biblical” or not.
“The Marian dogmas fail this test. Mary’s supposedly sinlessness is not grounded in Scripture for example. The same goes for the Sabbatine Privilege.”
Many Church Fathers thought that Mary sinlessness was grounded in Scripture. Once again, it’s one interpretation against another. Who’s to decide?
“What the leaders of the church have done in this case [of the Trinity] is to properly interpret this by the Scripture.”
How do you know? Unitarians and Mormons would disagree with you. You say that the Trinity is correct because it is a proper interpretation of Scripture. I say that the teaching about the Catholic priesthood is correct because it is a proper interpretation of Scripture. Again, who’s to say?
The test of whether a teaching is “biblical” or not is simplistic and begs the question. The real issue is one of authority.
Sam,
It is not necessary for an authority to be infallible for us to know the truth. We don’t operate like this in other matters of life and yet we can know the truth even when a person is not infallible.
I don’t accept the authority of the Scripture based on what men say it is but rather because there are good reasons that God is the author of Scripture. God used men to discover and tell us what the canon of Scripture is. The tests that the 4th century church used are adequate tests for determining what the canon of the NT was. It was not necessary for these “tests” to be found in Scripture itself.
Most teachings in the Scripture are quite clear. For those that are not, there will be some debate and differences of opinion. Usually this happens because there is not enough information about it to know it with certainty. Another reason is that certain doctrines prohibit it. Take the doctrine of Mary being sinless. There is not one verse that even alludes to this. The Lord Jesus never said she was nor did the apostles teach that she was. Luke 1:28 when exegeted correctly does not support her being without sin.
I know Roman Catholics won’t agree with this but their disagreement is not based on the facts of Scripture. Rather they go by what the church tells them to believe. For example, there is not one example of an apostle teaching that Mary was without sin. Not even a church father can change this. BTW, there were fathers and popes who did believe she sinned.
Where in the NT is there an office of priest in the NT church? Where is the office of pope mentioned as an office in the NT church?
Art, you said,
“Most teachings in the Scripture are quite clear. For those that are not, there will be some debate and differences of opinion. Usually this happens because there is not enough information about it to know it with certainty.”
Here we get to the nub of it, don’t we? We Catholics have a difference of opinion with you regarding what “full of grace” means with respect to Mary. You mention that yourself. Who’s interpretation of Scripture is correct? On what basis would you make that assertion?
With respect to various Protestant denominations, some of the disagreements are quite fundamental.
For example, is baptism necessary for salvation? I have known in my youth groups of Protestants that would argue both ways, from Scripture. But salvation is on the line here, so the truth is critical is it not?
Or the doctrine of Once-saved-always-saved is another example. I was raised with that teaching but had an uncle who was a travelling evangelist for another evangelical type group who belived the opposite, similar to Catholics. Is that not critical to know the truth for those people in particular?
These are not just small disagreements, and they all base their theology on the authority of Scripture. There are a myriad of other differences as well among Protestants, all drawing on Scripture as the guide for their doctrine.
It would seem self-evident that Sola Scriptura is insufficient to know the truth, without an Apostolic authority that traces its ordination and theology back to the Apostles themselves.
But let us suppose for a moment that we set aside the Church and Tradition. If we are to go beyond just referring to Scripture and making it up as we go along; if we are to establish the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ie. that Scripture is the sole rule of faith, by definition, Scripture would tell us that. Otherwise it is just a man-made doctrine out of the 16th century, 1500 hundred years removed from Christ.
Bottom line? Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura. Ergo it is a false doctrine by its own standard. Furthermore Scripture teaches that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. So you see why we can say that we refer to the Church as the authentic interpreter of Scripture? It is, in fact, Scriptural to do so. We believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, absolutely. I gave you the quotes from Dei Verbum.
Those who reject the Church have only the Scripture left, and perhaps that was the origin of the man-made false doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but sadly they are left with only their interpretation of Scripture which by their own standard can not claim any more authority to validity than anyone else, including the Catholic interpretation.
Sola Scriptura itself is un-Scriptural.
So then, as I refer to your identifications of doctrines you disagree with, Art, your argument is always the same. It is not Scriptural (at least by your interpretation). But that begs the question. It assumes Sola Scriptura which is not in evidence.
LJ,
You wrote-“We Catholics have a difference of opinion with you regarding what “full of grace” means with respect to Mary. You mention that yourself. Who’s interpretation of Scripture is correct? On what basis would you make that assertion?”
We can easily find out what the phrase “full of grace” or the more modern translation by the NAB- “hail favored one” by looking at what these words mean in Greek lexicon of the NT. These are dictionaries that will tell us what these words mean in the original language of the NT Greek which is the language the NT was written. The meaning of “full of grace or highly favored one” has nothing to do with sin or being sinless. The term speaks of divine favor.
The interpretation with the facts to support the interpretation is the right one. What facts can you bring forth to show that “full of grace” means without sin their entire life?
In your multiple theological examples there will be differences of opinion. There always has been. We can apply sound exegesis principles to these questions and see which one is correct. Having an infallible interpreted as the RCC claims to have does not solve all problems for you. There are still many and varied beliefs among RC’s. This article in fact shows this.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not mandate it would be believed throughout church history. The reason is that man is fallen and does not want to be under the authority of Scripture. The Scripture warns there will be false teachers and teachings in the church. Just read church history to see how men in the church have perverted the message of Christ. Read the history of the popes where we find many in it for the power. They in no way represented Christ.
Again, I ask you, where did Jesus or His apostles teach that the traditions of your church are inspired-inerrant? Where is anything outside the Scripture outside the Scripture considered inspired?
If you can demonstrate this then you can claim that your church teachings are on equal footing as the Scripture.
Art - I’ve forgotten what “Sabbantine Priviledge” means. I remember having read it, for the first time in this blog, but it’s like finding a needle in a haystack now. Will you please refresh my memory? Thank you, in advance.
Art, you are the one coming to a Catholic website asserting Catholic error and Sola Scriptura. With all due respect, you must demonstrate Sola Scriptura first from Scripture itself (or it is invalid), and only then you have footing to demand that all doctrine be found explicitly in Scripture, when you have demonstrated that in order to be valid it must be found in Scripture. If you want to know Catholic teaching about the weight of Tradition I already gave that to you from Dei Verbum, expressed much better than I could.
Regarding the differences that this posting talks about, if you had noticed, these were about non-essentials to the faith, some cultural, some spiritual, and knowing the difference. In fact, you might be amazed at the great variety within the Church. But that doesn’t obviate any of the core essentials respecting salvation or any of the Catholic doctrines you raised, as did however, the particular disagreements I raised to you among Protestants regarding that most important of doctrines, “what must I do to be saved?” See the difference there?
As to reading Church history, I have found that the one thing that was never perverted, even by immoral men in charge, was the message of Jesus Christ. That fact in itself is astonishing over the span of 2000 years, and re-affirms to me that Jesus kept his promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.
With respect to exegesis, stop and think about that for a moment. Are you seriously saying that today’s Protestant exegetes have it all together and are superior to those Church leaders of the centuries when the language of the Church was still Greek for the most part and those leaders themselves were within centuries of the Apostles themselves? That was when the doctrines regarding Mary which you object to were discussed and confirmed by the Church, particularly as they were combatting heresies with respect to the exact nature and person of Jesus himself. The doctrines have been around formally for a long time, long before those immoral Popes of the middle ages, and informally before that.
Sorry, Art, if you want to say that the Church perverted the gospel, which I remember my own father asserting at one point, so I am long familiar with the accusation, you must go back a long ways. In fact, if you want to avoid Catholic doctrine you must believe and assert that the Apostles themselves got it all wrong shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven, because their teaching and that of their disciples and ordained priests and bishops was quite distinctly Catholic. That we know as historical fact. And, as promised by Jesus, the Holy Spirit led them into all truth.
Terah,
Here are the official statements for “The Sabbatine Privilege which is connected to the Brown scapular:
“The Blessed Virgin of Mount Carmel has promised to save those who wear the scapular from the fires of hell; She will also shorten their stay in purgatory if they should pass from this world still owing some debt of punishment.
This promise is found in a Bull of Pope John XXII. The Blessed Virgin appeared to him and, speaking of those who wear the Brown Scapular, said, “I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in purgatory I shall free so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.”
The Blessed Virgin assigned certain conditions which must be fulfilled:
Wear the Brown Scapular continuously.
Observe chastity according to one’s state in life (married/single).
Recite daily the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin OR Observe the fasts of the Church together with abstaining from meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays OR With permission of a priest, say five decades of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary OR With permission of a priest, substitute some other good work.
Pope Benedict XV, the celebrated World War I Pontiff, granted 500 days indulgence for devoutly kissing your scapular.”
http://www.sistersofcarmel.com/brown-scapular-information.php
LJ,
Sola Scriptura is grounded on the fact that the Scripture alone are inspired-inerrant. That is their nature. This being the case, they are a sufficient foundation for all doctrines that Christians are to believe and held accountable. Even your church agrees with this principle and desires to base its doctrines on Scripture whenever possible. Traditions are not inspired or inerrant.
How can you say the The Sabbatine Privilege for example is a non-essential when it says that those who wear the Brown scapular are promised on the Saturday after their death they will go to heaven? Since the Roman Catholic church officially endorses this promise (which means they believe it to be true) I’m surprised that this is not promoted throughout your church.
Have you heard of the prayer of St Gertrude? This was a prayer that was given by Mary to St Gertrude that when prayed 1000 souls would be released from purgatory. This prayer also is officially endorsed by your church. Again, why is this not promoted since it could empty out purgatory within a month?
There is a long long history of commentaries on the Scripture in church history. In the early centuries there we but a few that exegeted the Scripture by various methods. Not all conclusions were the same. Today, we have more advantages over those who lived closer to the apostles. Today, we can glean from their works but we also have the advantage of more manuscripts to work with and more people who are better trained. Take the Latin Vulgate that was produced by Jerome. It is an outstanding work by Jerome who had a few manuscripts to work with. Today’s translations are superior because we have more manuscripts to work with and more people who are qualified to do so.
The Marian doctrines were unknown to the apostles but also unknown by the church for centuries. The church of the New Testament was not Roman Catholic. It was not structured like your church nor did it have many of the doctrines and practices that are part and parcel of the Roman Catholic church.
What is the gospel message in the Roman Catholic church? What must a Catholic do to be saved?
Art: Really? I am Catholic and I know enough of the gospel to reject all notions of the Sabbatine Privilege. I learned these things in childhood but then grew up and into spiritual maturity in the faith. How can you even remotely accept this? The ONLY one who saves anyone is Christ the Lord. Wearing the Scapular, reciting the “Little Office,” observing feasts or saying the Rosary are fine but should not be considered alternative choices. What you are describing is salvation by works. What John XXII describles is salvation by multiple choice. What happens if I only observe the Scapular condition ***BUT*** I remove it to go swimming or take a shower and have a heart attack? Then what happens? This is all nonsense and is contrary to the gospel. Mary does not set conditions of salvation. Moreover, it is only the shed blood of Jesus on Calvary by which men can be saved. Peter and Paul both preached the same. You would have us now believe that modern day people can be saved by other means as well—(including works). What you describe is what Jesus condemned,—an emphasis on legalism.
In the pew,
Please don’t shoot the messenger:) I only posted what the RCC endorses. If i was a RC I would have serious problems with this to.
Art, My apologies. I thought you were in support. LJ should be the one to comment.
I’m surprised to know the definition of the Sabbantine Priviledge & am in agreement with what Pew wrote about it. Thank you, Art, for taking the time to explain what that term meant. It’s no where in the Bible, and in fact, it negates almost all of what Peter & Paul wrote, reminding me of something the Judaizers would have come up with.
This afternoon, while driving in my car, I turned on Catholic radio, as I ofen do, to a call-in program where the host was telling a caller how to get closer to Mary through prayer.
Then I flipped to a Christian radio channel, and heard a program for the first time, doing “Man on the Street” interviews of people at random. Their goal was twofold: 1) to share the Gospel and 2) to plant the seeds in non-believers about Jesus, about His gift of salvation to us, encouraging them to be a part of a Church, to be further taught by a caring and educated Church family.
What a difference between those two stations. My local Catholic radio channel has audio Bible aired in half-hour segments now. But it’s almost as if there is an overall disdane for Scripture among Catholics (and even Rome says it’s the inspired word of God) while everything else is pushed, even little known pious legends & obscure devotions to people, like for hermits from the year 500, and about which little is known.
So I ask: why would Catholics, overall, go out of their way to shelve the Bible, yet replace its truths with a host of other practices that are not considered officially inspired by God, and that are, in many cases, such as with the Sabbantine Priviledge, in direct contradiction to the Bible?
Why can’t Catholics talk about Jesus the way the Christian radio program hosts did, showing enthusiasm in fulfilling the Great Commission & zeal for seeing that non-believers are brought to Christ? I don’t get it. One would think Catholics would be farther along in the process, by now.
After having come from Holy Thursday services, remembering when Jesus washed His disciple’s feet, the Sabbantine Priviledge seems both self-serving and superstitious to me, and nothing like what would be taught by Jesus, let alone written about by Peter or Paul.
To find that information, I think one would have to go to the Gnostic gospels, like that of Judas, and Mary Magdalene, none of which are considered “authentic” Scripture, and accepted by the universal Church.
Catholics and non-Catholics (“Protestants”) reject the Gnostic gospels.
Too much like the Judaizers, and their extra-biblical information.
I mentioned the mulberry bush way back there. Here we go around again. Let’s look at it this way.
“Sola Scriptura is grounded on the fact that the Scripture alone are inspired-inerrant.” - Art
How do you know that?
“But it’s almost as if there is an overall disdane for Scripture among Catholics (and even Rome says it’s the inspired word of God) while everything else is pushed…” - Terah James
You have been mass I presume? A reading from the Old Testament, one from the epistles, a psalm and a reading from one of the Gospels. The Gloria, right out of Scripture, The priest’s homily is supposed to be about the Scripture readings in most cases (not every priest follows this unfortunately) Holy, Holy, Holy… right out of Scripture, The consecration of the bread and wine, right out of Scripture, The Our Father, right out of Scripture, Lamb of God, right out of Scripture.
I suppose you may want to say that those Catholics who don’t go to mass have a disdain for Scripture, but they are displaying a disdain for the Church as well. Anyone who has read the Catechism and taken a look at the footnotes will see that it is full from end to end with Scriptural references and quotations.
As to radio programs, you have to ask the question, what was the purpose of the particular program? To educate Catholics, to answer specific questions (the content then being determined at any time by the particular question) or was it specifically designed to evangelize.
“What must a Catholic do to be saved?” - Art
(“Do” Art? Isn’t that talking about works?)
Short answer, the Catholic must die in the state of grace.
To quote Jesus on this point;
“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” Matthew 24:13
“And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” Mark 13:13
Is that what you had in mind Art?
LJ,
Again, I ask you: what else is inspired-inerrant? Do you claim that your traditions are? If so, which ones?
Even if a person didn’t know how or why the Scripture is inspired-inerrant it would not change that fact that they are. That’s why I want to know what else is supposedly inspired-inerrant. Since the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant, then they are a sufficient foundation to know God and to grow in the knowledge of Christ.
What must a Catholic do to die in a state of grace?
“Too much like the Judaizers, and their extra-biblical information.” - Terah James
This deserves its own response. Extra biblical? Mmmm… They didn’t have the New Testament at the time that they were the issue. The only Scriptures as such were the books of the Old Testament (the law and the prophets) and they would say that they were just following the Old Covenant, requiring converts to become Jews in order to become Christians. So in that sense they were being Biblical. This was settled in the first Council of the Church, in Jerusalem, in fact, later recorded in the Book of Acts, which eventually became part of our New Testament.
Judaizers did crop occasionally after that but the issue had been long settled by Peter the first Pope (without reference to Scripture in this case, if you read the account in Acts 15) and entered into the record and implemented by the host Bishop of Jerusalem, James.
Art,
the onus is still on you to show Sola Scriptura from Scripture, and you declare the Scriptures to be “inspired-inerrant” but won’t tell me how you know that. I know how I know it, how do you know it?
LJ,
I know the Scripture is inspired-inerrant because God is the ultimate author. It was the HS Who superintendent the writers of the Scripture.
How do you know they are inspired-inerrant?
Are you going to answer my question about any traditions being inspired-inerrant? Do you claim your leaders are inspired-inerrant or do you just assume it?
LJ,
You are mistaken about Acts 15. It was not Peter who made the final decision but James. See v19. As for Peter being the supreme leader of the church is not supported by the facts of Scripture. He is never said to be by anyone nor do he himself make such a claim.
BTW- the leaders of the church in Acts 15 did indeed appeal to the OT in verses 15-18.
“What must a Catholic do to die in a state of grace?” - Art
Very simple, Art, not easy, but simple. Commit no mortal sin after being baptized. Refer to 1 John 5:16-17
Art, you should re-read that passage in Acts. They debated and when Peter spoke the debate was over. Then Paul and Barnabas were called to give witness to what God was doing ammong the Gentiles. And finally James got up (the host Bishop of Jerusalem), he quoted Scripture and offered the method of implementing Peter’s decision. Essentially he called for the vote of the Bishops as the councils still do, confirming the Apostle who was head of the Church, and doing the practical matters of drafting a letter to be sent out, much the way documents are determined and promulagated in every council of the Church.
It looks to me to have the very rudiments of any council since that first one. I am not sure how you picture the Pope’s presence and participation in any such council, Art. If you read Church history there were many councils where the Pope was not present but sent legates. In this case, the Pope was present and when he spoke there was no further debate.
“I know the Scripture is inspired-inerrant because God is the ultimate author. It was the HS Who superintendent the writers of the Scripture.”
You are simple making the assertion Art. By what authority to make that assertion? The authority of Art?
I know the same way that St. Augustine knew.
My grammar and spelling is starting to slip. Time to hit the sack.
LJ, is not a saved person already in the state of grace? Mortal sin is deliberate, willful. A denial of Christ. Cold and callous. Willful disregard for the Lord and His statutes. Pre-meditated sin of disobedience. But then such a person would never be in Christ and saved anyway. LJ, you can only be referring to the unbeliever. Such a person who is in Christ would never commit such heinous sin before the Lord.
LJ,
Does a human authority make something true or is it the facts of a matter that makes it possible for us to know the truth? RC’ tell me I could not know the Scripture is inspired-inerrant unless the RCC tells me its true. If you read up on how the NT canon was determined it was not based on the authority of the men who worked to determine what the NT canon would be. They used a variety of tests to determine what it should be.
If this is the case, then how did the Jews of the OT know that the OT was the Word of God before the RCC even existed?
In regards to Peter’s role in Acts, it was not him who had the final say it was James. In fact, Peter’s name is not specifically mentioned as carrying any more weight than the other apostles. See verse 23.
Art, if you can’t get from reading scripture the overwhelmingly primary place of the Apostle Peter in the NT scripts, is there anything more to be said? Your statement confirms that Scripture is not at issue here, but idle words and empty arguments. There’s a scriptural proscription against engaging in that, no? It’s like two men who happen on an elephant. One says, “Wow, what is that elephant doing in the NYC subway?” The other calmly replies: “That’s not an elephant, it’s a rat with a runny nose.” With God, everything is possible. With protestant cyncism, even miracles are gratuitous. BTW, don’t you find it the greatest miracle that God entrusted his Scripure to be acted, and written down, and transmitted, and received by mere men and women?
@Matt B: I think I see where you are going with Art, but may I raise two points. First, your assertion is correct that it can be dangerous for men to become overly doubtful and suspicious in matters of the faith. Men can easily be deceived in their unbelief (as were the Pharisees concerning Jesus). Jesus was breaking accepted practices of the law when performing healings so He needed to point out “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The Pharisees were too rooted in and deceived by their legalism Noted deceased and famous astronomer Carl Sagan is one modern day example in his denial of God’s existence which he could never prove due to his blindness of God’s creation alone. If we are unable to find biblical documentation and support—it doesn’t mean such understanding, teachings, doctrine, etc. should be rejected as false.
If that’s the case you are making with Art, then I “get it.” On the other hand, Art and Terrah (it seems to me) have legitimate concerns that it is equally important men not merely accept what the church calls “Sacred Tradition” in an ad hoc way. Every tradition should stand the test of examination. Some tradition is strong while other tradition (for tradition sake) may be nothing more than someone’s interpretation later enhanced beyond the pale over centuries. Mormonism is a recent example which cannot be validated through testing of archeological and geographical proof unlike the way OT, the gospel and NT writings can be. As for the teaching authority of the church, we do need learned men. I reject, however, the idea the Holy Spirit only works through a finite few in Rome. You and I both can read the Scripture and He, too, can reveal wisdom and knowledge concerning the Scriptures to anyone who believes. There remain many items in the faith which we will never know with certainty this side of Heaven. Sometimes I think Catholics are over-indulgent to accept anything purported “as truth” under the Catholic catch all of “mysteries” while likewise some Protestants are overly skeptical.
I have questions about three verses from Peter’s two NT letters:
1 Peter 4:11 “Whoever preaches, let it be with the words of God.”
A) Ought the above not eliminate a possibility for anyone to preach anything other than what’s in the Bible? Be they Catholic Christian or non-Catholic Christian. We are to preach the words of God, inspired. Period.
2 Peter 1:1 “Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ.”
B) Why didn’t Peter use his two letters as an opportunity to call himself a ‘pope’,‘supreme leader’ or ‘boss’ of the other apostles? Why did Peter go out of his way to call himself just another apostle? He documents he was an eye-witness with the others to the Transfiguration; that would give him more “clout”. But Peter never mentions his own authority. Paul mentions having been given “authority” directly by the Holy Spirit. But not Peter. Why?
2 Peter 3:15-16 “And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters.”
C) Peter calls Paul’s letters, “wisdom” that was GIVEN to him. What does that mean to everyone? If the wisdom is indeed from the Holy Spirit Himself, why is it so often overlooked, and replaced with legends and devotions that may (or may not be) from God?
Lastly, MattB- no woman ever wrote a book of the Bible. There are two books about women: Esther and Ruth. But NO WOMAN ever wrote an Old Testament or a New Testament book.
I mention this because news today from Seattle is that a female pastoral minister of a Catholic parish (aka, a “pastor”) told her bishop “NO”, she did not want to honor his request to have a signature drive to repeal same-sex marriage there. She said she “prayed about it”, and chose to not have the large parish she oversees participate.
But women are not to lead men. This woman is, for lack of better words, a pastor, a no-no, according to the word of God. We ought to know it, and obey it.
In the pew,
You have a very good grasp of the gravity of mortal sin, much better than a lot of folks. I don’t know what would qualify, in your mind, as mortal sin, but let is mention a couple of examples that clearly would be mortal sin as the Catholic Church understands it.
Murder for one, adultery is another. It is interesting that Jesus mentions them both and in both cases goes back to the heart. Those he says, who lust after a woman have committed adultery already in their heart. Those who are angry with their brother are liable to judgment, not only those who kill. Therefore, we may want to re-think how rare a mortal sin might be when we examine our conscience.
You suggest that the person who commits mortal sin was never saved to begin with. I have heard this before as a way to explain once-saved-always-saved, because otherwise, knowing that Christians have sinned and sinned gravely, the doctrine would seem to be a license to sin boldly (to quote Luther).
It does cause one to wonder just what being “saved” actually means and could anyone actually have that “assurance of salvation” much proclaimed, for we have seen the occasional high-profile evangelist of that stripe fall into sin.
The classic case to the point was Jimmy Swaggart. He was caught in adultery and went before the congegation weeping and begging forgiveness. Unfortunately, he was caught again not long thereafter.
To tell you the truth, for me, by then drifted a long way from the faith of my youth, there was never any doubt in my mind that he believed with all of his heart what he preached, and had a love for Christ. But he had a weakness and succumbed to temptation. He sinned, but with a true repentance and a firm purpose of amendment he could be forgiven. I was sad for him, even while not accepting his theology.
We get into a great entanglement of pretzel theology when we simply cannot accept the fact that while Christ’s love for us is constant and unwavering, “who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Romans 8:35) he never removes our free will from us. If we are estranged from God and in need of reconciliation, through repentance, confession of sin, conversion of heart and firm purpose of amendment; it is through our fault, not his. Through our fault, through our fault, through our most grievous fault. If we confess our sins he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins, whether or not someone else decides we were never Christian to begin with. Praise God.
“1 Peter 4:11 “Whoever preaches, let it be with the words of God.”
A) Ought the above not eliminate a possibility for anyone to preach anything other than what’s in the Bible? Be they Catholic Christian or non-Catholic Christian. We are to preach the words of God, inspired. Period.” -Terah James
Go back to the Gospel of John chapter one. “I the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.” We preach Christ, the Word, and him crucified. He is the Word from whom all revelation comes, written in Scripture or passed to his Apostles and on in Tradition.
Then go to to 1 Timothy 3:15 and realize that the Church has the authority given by Christ and Scripture confirms it.
“2 Peter 1:1 “Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ.”
B) Why didn’t Peter use his two letters as an opportunity to call himself a ‘pope’,‘supreme leader’ or ‘boss’ of the other apostles? Why did Peter go out of his way to call himself just another apostle? He documents he was an eye-witness with the others to the Transfiguration; that would give him more “clout”. But Peter never mentions his own authority. Paul mentions having been given “authority” directly by the Holy Spirit. But not Peter. Why?” -Terah James
Because he was a very humble man, Terah. Much like our current Pope I might add. In a recent example he was chastising a group of dissident priests in Europe for disobedience, all in the context of a sermon on conformity to Christ, who was our supreme example of an obedient servant. He never once mentioned his own authority as Pope or brought himself into it. The Pope’s highest title is “the servant of the servants of God.” I think that Peter took to heart the message of Jesus when he washed his feet in the upper room, and he was humbled by his own inconstancy when he denied Christ, and was later forgiven and commissioned to shepherd Christ’s sheep.
“2 Peter 3:15-16 “And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters.”
C) Peter calls Paul’s letters, “wisdom” that was GIVEN to him. What does that mean to everyone? If the wisdom is indeed from the Holy Spirit Himself, why is it so often overlooked, and replaced with legends and devotions that may (or may not be) from God?
Lastly, MattB- no woman ever wrote a book of the Bible. There are two books about women: Esther and Ruth. But NO WOMAN ever wrote an Old Testament or a New Testament book.
I mention this because news today from Seattle is that a female pastoral minister of a Catholic parish (aka, a “pastor”) told her bishop “NO”, she did not want to honor his request to have a signature drive to repeal same-sex marriage there. She said she “prayed about it”, and chose to not have the large parish she oversees participate.
But women are not to lead men. This woman is, for lack of better words, a pastor, a no-no, according to the word of God. We ought to know it, and obey it.” -Terah James
If the Word is ever replaced by legends and devotions of any kind, it is not of God and not Catholic. Period. End of story. That I think has been Mark Shea’s point, among others.
Do we have dissidents in the Catholic Church? Do we have dissidents in the Catholic Church! In Seattle? Why am I not surprised.
Good thing then that the Church is not a democracy or she may blow around with the winds of the times. Here’s a good example for you. Prior to 1930 every Christian Church in America believed that artificial contraception was wrong. Today, the Catholic Church is the last one standing, and she will not bend, even when vast numbers (the stats vary according to the political persuasion of the one reporting) of Catholics are disobedient. A moral truth is not changed by technology, or by political or social pressure.
terah, if God gives me grace, I will respond to you.
The “word of God” talked about by Peter in the verse you quote does not mean the Holy Scripture per se. In apostolic times, many “prophets” spoke the word of God, in a less formal or formally recorded way. Viz. the group that commissioned Paul to preach to the Gentiles, or the prophet who spoke about the world famine, and inspired Paul’s collection for Jerusalem. In the same way, the Spirit of God is speaking prophetically today. Certainly this “word of God” is conformable to Holy Writ, as originating from the same source. It may even be considered a “jot or tittle” of the same. But Peter could not have had in mind a collected canon when he spoke the words you mention.
In your struggle to conform creation between the covers of a book, you have really missed the significance of the book. Most of scripture records the words and actions of men and women, such as patriarchs, judges, kings, prophets, apostles. Didn’t God have anything to do with these actions? Or were the passages about them contrived by the “inspired writers” in a wholly separate process. If so, then scripture is indeed fictitious, and unrelated to lives and actions.
We say that the writers are inspired, but what about the transmitters? Was there any “divine intervention” in the fact that, although scripture was written in antiquity, we can still read them authentically today? To my mind this is certainly a miracle, when so much of antiquity is lost to us now.
And do you consider it less a miracle that we are able to receive scripture in our minds and our hearts? This seems to me the greatest miracle, as evidenced by the profligate disparity of opinions concerning scripture’s content and place. Truly, that seed has been scattered widely abroad. And it has landed on all sorts of soil.
There is so much “stuff” in scripture that your view of it seems to border on simple-mindedness.
As to Peter’s humility, have you not read the account of the washing of the feet in John’s gospel?
As to women, scripture is full of them. I only wish the officious busybodies of the type you mention would take a good hint from Mary, who certainly had reason to boast, but didn’t.
Finally, it’s been my experience that the pious incidentals you so roundly reject tend indubitably to steer the fleshy patrimony of our human nature back to thoughts divine. As such they are valuable adjuncts to a faith that is completely incarnational. Maybe you exist in world of pure spirit, but I don’t pretend to. Moreover, I don’t pretend to reject the accumulated wisdom of past generations based on my own twenty-minutes meditation on Ecclesiastes.
I hope this goes through, but in any event - good day to you!
Terah James, Matt, and LJ,
Why would a mortal sin have the power totally destroy a person’ union in Christ? See Rom 8:1, 9.
If a person is truly united to Christ but stumbles in committing adultery why would that person be condemned if he died in that state? It seems to me in light of Col 2:13-14 that Christ paid the price in full for all our sins including the ones we either commit in ignorance or unconfessed.
“Does a human authority make something true or is it the facts of a matter that makes it possible for us to know the truth?” - Art
Do you remember what Jesus said to Thomas? ‘Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”’ -John 20:29
This is something that I was trying to point out to you before, Art, perhaps ineptly. Everything that we know of Jesus, we owe to the witness of others, right back to the Apostles.
Stop and think about this. Why did Christ ascend and leave the great commission to his chosen Apostles and the disciples? Could he not have stayed for several thousand years and told everyone himself directly with each succeeding generation? I suppose he could have. But he chose not to, and he chose to leave it to men to be his witnesses to all the world. Weak, willful, selfish, foolish, prideful, sinful men. Even those like St. Paul who wrote many of the epistles that we have included as inspired in our New Testament tells us of his own sinfulness and St. Paul was one who knew that it was a journey to salvation, hoping that even he who had preached to others would remain faithful to the end.
It seems to me that Jesus wanted us to pass on the gospel because it would teach us to follow those two commandments that he gave us, to love God with all of our hearts and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. In starting a Church he knew that it would be filled up with those same sinful human beings, yet he did it anyway. We would have to learn to obey and cooperate.
He gave his authority to Peter and to the other Apostles, (so that we might learn obedience?). “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And he sent the Holy Spirit to be with them and guide them, inspired some to write what they had seen (the Gospels), and inspired others (St. Paul) to write letters of correction to deal with specific issues as they came up. Before he ascended he taught them and promised that when the Holy Spirit would come he would help them to remember all that he had taught.
Those Apostles did what he had told them and appointed others to take their place of authority when they were gone, filling their office sacramentally, teaching the faith to each successive generation.
As the gospels and letters of Paul became available they were read in the liturgy. Eventually, because there were heretics and dissenters already in those earliest days, it became necessary to distinguish between writings that were without error and those that should not be read in the liturgy. That became the process of discernment that eventually determined the Canon of the New Testament. It took a long time to complete.
But here is what they had to compare each writing to: the teaching of the Apostles. How could they have that, you ask, without the Scriptures? It had been faithfully handed down. This was the same standard they used at the councils and this is the importance of authority.
I mentioned St. Augustine. Some followers of Luther have tried to make light of Augustine’s remarks as remote and out of the mainstream of his thought, an aberration if you will.
However, if you read in context what he was talking about, he was responding to Manichaeus who declared himself an apostle of Christ in his epistle. This was right to the point we have been making about the authority that determined the Canon of Scripture. In chapter five of “Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus” Augustine says, “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Again, those men were given the authority of Christ, and this episode took place well after the last of the Apostles was long dead. Anything Manichaeus wrote, or anyone else was held to that standard, did it conform to the teaching of the Apostles? If not, it was discarded out of hand.
So now, it seems rather audacious to me, having seen the history of the Church, that anyone could lift out just that which was written and confirmed by the authority of the Catholic Church, the authority of Christ from the Apostles, and then deny, rebel against, and disdain the very authority that gave them what they hold in their hands, the written part of divine revelation to men, the very men they owe everything to for what they know of Jesus to begin with.
LJ,
Who or what is cause for the Scripture? Did those who put the NT canon together in the 4th century do it by their own authority or were they led by the Holy Spirit to discover what the canon of the NT was?
If you want to talk about authority we need to start here so have a complete picture.
Keep in mind that we are not to blindly follow any human authority even if that authority is an apostle. Paul himself warns of this in Gal 1:8-9—
“8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”
If you read further in this letter you will find Paul rebuking Peter. This also goes against your claim that no one should resist or not follow the RCC in everything it teaches. Just because a church can get some things right does not mean it gets all things right. The claim that your church cannot error has no basis in fact because it has erred. Are you willing to admit to this?
“Why would a mortal sin have the power totally destroy a person’ union in Christ? See Rom 8:1, 9.
If a person is truly united to Christ but stumbles in committing adultery why would that person be condemned if he died in that state? It seems to me in light of Col 2:13-14 that Christ paid the price in full for all our sins including the ones we either commit in ignorance or unconfessed.” - Art
Excellent question Art. Christ did pay the price and as soon as we repent and confess any sin we have committed, we avail ourselves of that forgiveness. Quite simple really. He did not give us a license to sin and he did not take away our free will which would make us less than human.
The Holy Spirit dwells in us by our invitation to him. When we with knowledge of the gravity of the act and the free exercise of our will commit mortal sin, then we not only grieve the Holy Spirit, but we in essence tell him that he is not welcome anymore, and drive him out.
We always condemn ourselves. Anyone who ends up in hell has chosen it. The good news is that God is always there next to us, waiting, speaking to us in our conscience by the Holy Spirit, until we repent and fall on our knees and ask him for that forgiveness and avail ourselves of that sacrifice of Jesus.
And really Art, no Christian accidentally commits adultery.
As John points out in one of his epistles, there is sin that is not mortal. It does wound our relationship with Christ without totally destroying it, although over time it can accumulate into willful disobedience, and indifference to Christ, again, dis-inviting Christ from our lives, the Holy Spirit from hearts and taking us down that road to damnation by our own choice.
Remember, as John tells us in the 6th chapter of his gospel, there were many who walked away from Christ because they couldn’t handle his teaching. Judas himself was one of the chosen twelve and finally chose to walk away and betray the very Son of God. If anyone had the greatest advantage, the greatest privilege it was Judas Iscariot.
Even Satan himself was an angel before the throne of God, Lucifer, the shining burning one, yet he turned away from God. How is that possible?
Well, we know it is possible and that is why our walk with Christ is day to day, not a one shot, done deal insurance policy, a pre-punched ticket on heaven’s train as it were.
Even St. Paul didn’t have that presumption.
“Did those who put the NT canon together in the 4th century do it by their own authority or were they led by the Holy Spirit to discover what the canon of the NT was?
If you want to talk about authority we need to start here so have a complete picture.” - Art
They had the authority given by Jesus Christ, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the teaching of the Apostles.
“If you read further in this letter you will find Paul rebuking Peter” - Art
Absolutely. Peter was not following his own teaching, his own vision from Christ when he was told not to call unclean what God had made clean, in reference to the Gentiles. And Peter was the first but not the last Pope to be rebuked for their personal failures.
If you are looking for a Church that teaches impeccability in its leaders, you have the wrong one. Some have been holier than others, some have been smarter than others.
You will notice in verse 8 of your quote from Galations a couple of interesting things. He says first that if “we” should preach a gospel contrary… In other words, he leaves open his own possibility of falling away. Interesting in light of our other conversation regarding mortal sin, etc.
And he then says “...a gospel contrary to…” what? To “what we have preached to you.” Mmmm. Interesting. So let’s look up that sermon to the Church at Galatia. What? We don’t have it written down? Could that have been one of those “oral” things from the apostles that we Catholics are always speaking about? Could it be that he taught them how to celebrate the liturgy, the Eucharistic celebration as well? Twice in 2 Thessalonians he speaks of the “tradition” that he had passed on to them. Again, we haven’t got a copy of that. What we do have is the living tradition of the Apostles, and their authority, passed down from them to today.
And, by the way, another word interchangeable with “accursed” in that passage is “anethema.” “...may they be anathema.” Or, as we see in the Council of Trent, for example, “let them be anathema.” And for the exact same reason St. Paul speaks of, for preaching a different gospel. Powerful stuff, I know. Gets right down to the nub of it.
Bottom line, Art, the Church in the 4th century had both the authority of the Apostles and the teaching of the Apostles to determine the Canon and make it so. That came directly from Jesus Christ. “Even as the Father has sent me, so I send you. Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” “Whosever’s sins you forgive,they are forgiven, whosoever’s sins you retain, they are retained.” Scripture is all that you accept, well it doesn’t get any plainer than that.
LJ,
People can commit adultery in a number of ways such not recognizing it as such because they may justify it if their relationship with their spouse is not good. We can also commit adultery by lusting in our hearts. Does your church consider this to be a mortal sin?
How do you understand such passages as John 10:28-29 which speaks that no one can snatch one of His out of His hand? Consider also Rom 8:37-39 which speaks of the idea that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. These and other passages do point to the idea that nothing is greater than the power of Christ to save.
Do you believe that your salvation i.e. eternal life in anyway depends on you? Is there anything of your fallen nature that contributes to eternal life?
“How do you understand such passages as John 10:28-29 which speaks that no one can snatch one of His out of His hand? Consider also Rom 8:37-39 which speaks of the idea that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ.” -Art
I quoted you already from Romans 8 and thanks for reminding me of the passage from John’s Gospel. I knew it was there but couldn’t quite recall it.
Those passages are quite clear. Christ is constant, always loving us, no matter what we do. He has the power to save us and no one can take that away. Nothing can interfere with his plan of salvation. The devil is already defeated. I have experienced this in my own life, drifting far away from Christ but when I called on him, he was right there, had always been there.
Think again of Christ’s two commandments. Both command us to love. How is that possible? Can anyone be forced to love? Is it love if someone is coerced or have lost their free will? That is impossible. By definition, love is love only out of free will. Jesus clarifies this in another place. “If you love me you will keep my commandments.”
When we sin gravely, and draw ourselevs away from God, it is really a diminishing of that love on our part, not his. We have found something we love more, even if it is simply having our own way, thinking we are smarter than God, or refusing to listen to the teaching of those he has put over us in authority. But Jesus says to us gently, “If you love ME, you will keep my commandments.”
What would you be if God took away your free will once you said to him, “I believe in you?” A robot, Art. Certainly not responsible for anything you did from that point on, but no longer a human being made in the image and likeness of God. We cannot have it both ways.
We do not have the power to save ourselves. That is clear from Scripture and from the teaching of the Church from Christ to today. The Council of Trent even says that if anyone teach otherwise, let him be anathema.
Grace is freely given for us to even be brought to the point of recognizing our need for Jesus Christ. It is all grace, as some have pointed out. But Art, what we do have, contrary to such as Calvin, is the free will to refuse him. We can turn our back on Christ at any time. He has all the power to save us and nobody can interfere with that, as we noted above. But we can still turn our back on him and he will not save us against our will. Why? Because he loves us that much.
LJ,
I get the impression from RC’s that the will is supreme. Not even the Lord God will violate a man’s will. If this is this is true, then salvation depends on the will of man. In such a case, a person will never have any assurance of salvation or even be guaranteed that the Lord Jesus could save a man. I think God the Scripture does not teach this kind of thing. Eph 2:8-10 refutes the idea of our salvation depends on ourselves.
Do you believe in election? See Eph 1:3-6.
LJ,
Romans 8:1 says: “Therefore, there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.” If one is “in Christ” today how can such a man be out of Christ and lost tomorrow? As a Catholic I had to realize my salvation had nothing to do with me. I no longer accept the you can saved today but lost tomorrow theology the church teaches. It’s no wonder that most of my life I have never had eternal security—which Jesus promises. It’s a choice to believe what men say or what the gospel of Jesus Christ says. The gospel has too many promises of assurance for the believer for me to NOT have assurance. I know this goes against church teaching, but the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts us of truth—not my local Bishop.
Art - All sin was in advance of Calvary, when Christ died for the many that accept His sacrifice on our behalf. While we are guilty, He paid the price. The wages of sin is death: and not just physical death, but spiritual death too.
But we are alive *in* Christ.
We are either alive in Him, or we are in the world, and are of the father of the world: the devil. We are not in Christ today, and of the devil tomorrow. It’s either or. Eternal life is here and now - that’s what “born again” means. We are born physically alive, and spiritually dead, and when we are re-born spiritually, then while our bodies die, our spirits are alive forever, in Jesus.
Nothing can separate us from Jesus, after we are *in* Him. “MORTAL” sin means to be separated from the Father. Jesus paid that awful price for us, and as we are in Him, we are always mindful of the huge price He paid for us - and we remain close to Him, and for lack of better words, “on a short leash”.
We can lose communication with God, if we willingly choose to disobey Him (like when Jesus just washed the apostle’s feet, saying they are clean, they just need a footwashing). But we will never need to be washed completely, because that (rebirth) is a one-time event, just like our physical birth was a one-time event. When we confess our sin, He is faithful to forgive, and forgive, and forgive….... as we are called upon to do with others, during our lives.
Sin is sin to a holy God. Jesus raised the bar for Christians. So to look at someone with lust, or to be in an adulterous relationship for 20 years is the same thing. It’s sin. But a child of God would need only a footwashing, because we have already had the bath. (Changed hearts that are drawn to Him, and that abide in Him.)
People without commonsense or an understanding of Scripture in light of apostolic teaching like to push the ridiculous and anti-scriptural notion of “once saved, always saved” despite Jesus’ abundantly clear warning (given to believers, not unbelievers) that “If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.” (John 15:6). People with commonsense and a grasp of Scripture in light of apostolic teaching pay attention to what the Church has always said, both about mortal and venial sin and about the need to “remain in Christ” by *obeying* him rather than trusting in the purely human (and false) tradition of “once saved, always saved”. For a quick rundown on the actual teaching of scripture, as distinct from the cherry-picked rubbish of the extreme recent invention of “once saved, always saved” go here.
terah, do you mean footwashing, or whitewashing?
Mark, I think you are a bit harsh in your tone. I doubt anyone misunderstands the seriousness of a man who has committed sin or one who continues to reside in sin. Even Peter sinned by his denial of Christ, yet his salvation was already assured. The gospel tells of his weeping because he had a repentant heart. He could not live with his grave sin, but surely Jesus knew Peter loved Him. Your view, then, is that salvation can be never be assured for those who do indeed abide in Christ ***BECAUSE*** they can always sin. Sin is sin regardless of the degree. All men are fallible from the laity to the clergy to the Pope. Everyone sins, and most likely everyday. There is too much in the gospel, ACTS and that written by Peter and Paul which gives assurance to the believer. You call it rubbish, but it is intellectual dishonesty and to assert that those who accept salvation is assured view this gift as now a license to freely sin to your heart’s delight. Once having received the Holy Spirit, for a man to think he is now free that sin can abound in his life is likewise intellectually dishonest.
There is assurance of forgiveness if a person repents. There is grave warning to those who refuse to repent: and Christians are as capable of refusing to repent as anybody. Jesus would not warn of something that could never happen, and he warns of the possibility of refusing to abide in him, and of being burned in the fire. And I can point you to any number of Christians who console themselves that they are free to sin due to this doctrine. It’s a very comforting lie.
I believe in the face value of doctrinal statements. If protestants say that there’s such a thing as “blessed assurance,” it must mean that they have a need to find such a thing in the divine provenance.
The convential christian view is that sin involves repentance and conversion. However the idea of blessed assurance conveys the possibility that a “saved” person might commit serious sins on a continual and repetitive basis, and still merit salvation.
If you zoom in from the theoretical to the specific you see that this in fact characterizes the very basis of protestantism. The serious sin which they commit on a continual and repetitive basis, and which they refuse to repent of or even acknowledge, is apostasy and rebellion from God’s legitimate authority.
In the face of this foundational, or aboriginal sin, they have a need to establish a doctrine of “blessed assurance.” It keeps them from going completely insane.
“Sin is sin regardless of the degree.” - In the pew.
You ought to read Mark’s article that he linked to. Chances are you may find that you don’t really practice that idea. Nevermind that it is not Scriptural, see 1 John where he distinguishes between sins that are mortal and those that are not.
“There is too much in the gospel, ACTS and that written by Peter and Paul which gives assurance to the believer.” - In the pew.
There is also a great deal in the Scriptures which contradicts that view. 1Timothy 4:[1] “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,”
Hebrews 4: “[1] Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it.
[11] Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.”
Colossians 1:[21] And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, [22] he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.”
1 Corinthians 9: “[26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; [27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”
Matthew 10: “[22] and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.”
Hebrews 10: “[26] For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. [28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?;”
John 15: “[6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.”
Romans 11: “[22] Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”
And in Revelation 20 we find: “[15] and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” BUt if we go back to chapter 3 we have the chilling possibility that one’s name could be blotted out of that book; “[5] He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” The one who avoids that is he who conquers.
For me, one of the most frightening words that Jesus ever spoke, in Matthew 7: 21]“Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’”
I think it is critical to know the true faith and live it.
Mark, we are probably not in disagreement. I was glad go see your further comments, including Matt’s. I would support your view that many probably console themselves regarding sin with a total misunderstanding concerning “assurance.” Adopting such a view probably is due to poor teaching (or naivete). That sin —whether frequent and/or unrepented would persist in the life of any Catholic or Christian simply makes no sense and is clearly deception. There are plenty of Catholics and Christians who go to church. We are talking, though, about a man or woman wholly committed to Christ. To sin and fail to immediately repent—I would then question that person’s Christianity—or at least their understanding of the gospel. If Christ is your savior, you know you have damaged your relationship and need to come running, yes running to repent seeking reconciliation. The man or woman who loves Christ intimately could stand to live with his or herself until the issue has been dealt with.
BTW, as a person who’s committed a wild variety of mortal sins during the course of his lifetime, you won’t find me arguing too strenously against the omnipotence of God’s mercy.
As usual Roman Catholics misunderstand “once saved, always saved” also known as the eternal security doctrine.
To deny OSAS:
Is to deny that Christ paid the price for sin completely and fully (Colossians 2:13-14).
It is a denial of the new birth by claiming that the new birth is not permanent but can be destroyed by sin (John 3:5-8).
It denies that the body of sin has not been done away with (Romans 6:6).
It’s a denial that Christ’ function as our High Priest fails (Hebrews 4:14-16).
It denies that Christ is not able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him (Hebrews 7:25).
It denies the doctrine of the elect and our adoption in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-6).
It denies that a Christian has not been predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:28-30).
It denies that grace is greater than the power of sin (Romans 5:20-21).
It denies that Christ gives eternal life and has greater power than sin (John 10:28-29).
It denies that His life saves us forever and that we are still in danger from the wrath of God (Romans 5:9-10).
It denies that Christ has not perfected for all time those who are His (Hebrews 10:14).
It denies that Christ has set us free from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2).
It denies that Christ can be separated from those who are His (Romans 8:35-39).
It denies that God’s verdict on the believer is irreversible and we can be condemned (Romans 8:33-34).
It is a denial of the Holy Spirits power to keep and to help the believer persevere. (Romans 8:26-27).
It is a denial that to believe in Christ leads to eternal life and we are judged (John 3:16-18, 5:24).
It is to deny that whom the Father has given the Son can lose their salvation (John 6:37-40).
It denies that Christ cannot bring your eternal salvation to pass (I Thessalonians 5:23-24).
It is to deny that the work of God can succeed in us (Philippians 2:13).
Wow, I denied all those holy scriptures with just a single act of willfull misunderstanding? What an amazing power the Lord God put into my hand.
Matt,
You no longer need to be in a willful misunderstanding. Study the Scriptures i gave and come to a correct understanding of what Christ has done for those who put their faith in Him.
Hey Art, thanks for your many references. Claiming “willful misunderstanding” is aka deliberate and intentional sin after already *knowing* what sin is. Any man or woman having a performance-based view of eternal security will never be sure he has achieved enough. A man’s life will always be uncertain because he has cast doubt upon God’s word as being fully trustworthy. It is not ironic that Jesus declared the man with the greatest faith in Israel was not a Jew, but a Gentile Roman Centurion. “He who has an ear, let him hear.”
1Timothy 4:” [1] Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, [2] through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared”
But that is impossible, isn’t it?
Revelation 3: “[5] He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.”
How could someone’s name be “blotted out” in the first place if it was never in the Lamb’s Book of Life? Mmmmm….
Hebrews 4: “[1] Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it.” and further down; “[11] Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.”
How is that possible?
OSAS says it isn’t so.
Colossians 1: “[21] And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, [22] he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, [23] provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.”
Provided that you continue in the faith? Did Paul say that? But I guess he was concerned about his own salvation too;
1 Corinthians 9: “[26] Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; [27] but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.”
Peter 1:3 “[15] And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
[16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. [17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.”
We need to be careful not to become unstable by misapplying the Scriptures, as in, for example, OSAS, a very recent innovation.
Romans 11: “[22] Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”
John 6: “[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”
John 15: “[6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.”
Quite straightforward I think.
“I get the impression from RC’s that the will is supreme. Not even the Lord God will violate a man’s will. If this is this is true, then salvation depends on the will of man. In such a case, a person will never have any assurance of salvation or even be guaranteed that the Lord Jesus could save a man.”
Do you think that God will save you against your will? Then think of the implications. There is no need to accept Jesus Christ into your life. Evangelism is just a waste of time, if God is going to save those people anyway, why do you need to invite them to be “saved?” They are saved already! They are the elect are they not? Could they be Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.? Why not? If God has chosen them to be saved, what difference is it that their will be involved in any kind of “decision for Christ?”
And Christians need to relax and forget about spending time at Church listening to the exhortations of Scripture against all manner of wickedness. That’s for those who are not saved. But since their will is not involved, no choice in the matter is allowed, why would they even listen?
Like the beatles song, “She’s got a ticket to ride, and she don’t care!”
Doesn’t sound a whole lot like what Jesus taught, my friend. He has the power to save you and I alright, but if we go to hell it is because we chose it, not because we didn’t happen to have the winning ticket in the “election” lottery.
“I know this goes against church teaching, but the Holy Spirit is the one who convicts us of truth—not my local Bishop.”
Yes, and how is it that the Holy Spirit has convicted those in the Catholic Church in the past and present that the authority of the Bishop to teach in faith and morals comes directly from Christ through the Apostles?
Do we have conflicting Holy Spirits?
And how is it that for almost every doctrine taught by Christians outside of the Catholic faith there are other Christians who teach the opposite, all of them guided by the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit therefore contradict himself?
Or is it simply that we don’t happen to like particular teachings,(as is the case with many dissenting Catholics today regarding contraception, for example) so that we suddenly find that the Bishop has lost his authority and Holy Church has lost her authority from whom the Bishop gets his teaching?
I can truly say that it was the convicting of the Holy Spirit that brought me into the Catholic Church and under her teaching authority, despite some doctrines that I had difficulty with at first, until I prayed and meditated on them.
Who is right? We cannot both be right, you and I. One of us has misunderstood the Holy Spirit, because God does not conflict with himself.
LJ,
I get the impression you don’t like the idea that it is God who chooses to be be saved and who is not. Would that be correct?
BTW- there is only one way to be saved and that is belief in Christ. The Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc would have to reject their beliefs and believe on Christ to be saved. That’s what the NT tells us.
Art,
What I like or don’t like is irrelevant, as well as what you like or dislike. We are talking about the truth.
2 Peter 3; “[9] The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
But look at what Jesus says in Matthew 7;
‘[13]“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. [14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.’
Is Peter then saying that God is powerless to save those people who enter the wide gate? He is not “willing” that any should perish. But as you have amply demonstrated from Scripture, God has the power, and the Catholic Church totally agrees. Amen. If he has the power then that can only mean that he has left the “choice” up to men. Otherwise, nobody would be lost. Incidentally, there are some who preach just that particular heresy of universal salvation.
LJ, No the Holy Spirit does not conflict with Himself. All your references to Scripture are correct but only further underscore and support Art’s references as well. The problem is that we are talking about the believer versus the unbeliever. Someone who has heard the gospel and rejected the gospel is among the lost. “But you (as Paul says in Romans 1) are without excuse.” (Because having heard the word). Somehow, you are missing the point that a follower of Christ (Catholic or Protestant) does not have license to sin. And when we fall, we are quick to confess (agree we have violated God’s law) and repent (to change one’s behavior). All the warnings you cite in Scripture are correct. The warnings are for the unbeliever having heard, but rejected the gospel. LJ, you seem to be staunch and convicted in your faith in Christ. Can you ever imagine turning from your faith —faith granted only by the most precious gift of God? Of course you can’t. You may “think” you chose Christ, but you’d be incorrect. Remember what Jesus said: “YOU DID NOT CHOOSE ME. It was I who chose you.” He also said: “All whom the Father has given to me —will come to me.”
LJ,
It is true that God desires all men to be saved. However that is not the same thing as saying all men will be saved. Scripture does point to a lot of people being condemned as we see in Matt 25:41-46. This passage alone refutes the idea of universalism.
What we are limited to is what the Scripture clearly says that there is no salvation outside of Christ. Acts 4:12 is clear about this: “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” There is no verse in Scripture that God will save those on the broad way of Matt 7:13-14. Jesus is warning those that such a path exist and that those who walk it will perish. We see this same kind of warning throughout the NT. 2 Peter 2 is an example of this kind of thing. I Cor 6:9-10 is another.
There is no passage in Scripture where a man is saved by anything or anyone than by Christ alone. We should never give hope to anyone who thinks they can be saved by other ways than in faith alone in Christ alone.
No man can choose Christ and be saved except by the Holy Spirit. John 6:44; I Cor 12:3. Without the work of the HS no man will believe.
“It is true that God desires all men to be saved. However that is not the same thing as saying all men will be saved. Scripture does point to a lot of people being condemned as we see in Matt 25:41-46. This passage alone refutes the idea of universalism.
What we are limited to is what the Scripture clearly says that there is no salvation outside of Christ. Acts 4:12 is clear about this: “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” There is no verse in Scripture that God will save those on the broad way of Matt 7:13-14. Jesus is warning those that such a path exist and that those who walk it will perish. We see this same kind of warning throughout the NT. 2 Peter 2 is an example of this kind of thing. I Cor 6:9-10 is another.
There is no passage in Scripture where a man is saved by anything or anyone than by Christ alone. We should never give hope to anyone who thinks they can be saved by other ways than in faith [alone] in Christ alone.
No man can choose Christ and be saved except by the Holy Spirit. John 6:44; I Cor 12:3. Without the work of the HS no man will believe.” -Art
Take out the one word that I have bracketted and you have Catholic doctrine, Art.
And the difference between God wanting all men to be saved and them actually being saved is the decision that they themselves make. God gives his grace and makes his offer to all men. Here’s what the Council of Trent says,
“CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.”
“CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.”
Those two Canons tell you why, despite the fact that God wants all of us to be saved and how far he goes to save us, that some men will not be saved.
LJ, are you able to make a decision *for* Christ absent of the Holy Spirit? You cannot. Many are in church, fewer are in Christ. The parable of the sower and seed testifies to that. “Many are called, but few are chosen.”
Art, I sincerely thank you for probing holy scripture for the vast and wide-ranging array of citations you use to support “once saved always saved.” I’m always astounded by people who study scripture systematically, and adduce all kinds of things in the process. Your willingness to share this erudition says a lot about your level of christian charity. And your helpful suggestion about my personal salvation is duly acknowledged - thanks! I must admit that OSAS goes against my limited knowledge of scripture, but in such a pervasive way that I find it impossible to believe. However, your kindness and generosity lead me to believe that there’s a way to be mistaken that transcends particular disagreements, and forms a kind of meta-spirituality that is at times more important and significant than being doctrinally correct. If your salvation is assured, I entrust you to it. And if I’m working mine out “with fear and trembling,” I’m guessing it will be of little note or concern once “all my tears are wiped away.” Hasta la vista.
In the pew,
You are very close. But you need to look closely at those passages I cited and read the context as well, which is why I usually avoid slinging Scripture verses because the context is critical. In every case Scripture is speaking of someone who has fallen away. In Romans 11 in particular, St. Paul is talking about the Jews who are the original branch of the vine, and that in rejecting Christ they have been cut off, and he later states that even they can be brought back through faith in Christ should they repent. He points out then that the Gentiles have been grafted in. They have no prior claim. But through faith and baptism they have been grafted into the vine. And then comes the warning. He is speaking to Christians here, do not forget. “provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”
That is not ambiguous at all. And he is not talking about those who have yet to become Christians.
Yes, it is difficult to imagine someone truly in Christ who then walks away from him. But you are talking about likelihood here, odds shall we say. And you are quite right to believe that God, through the Holy Spirit will be speaking to that Christian, urging them to repent and be reconciled. Moreover, those who live in the grace of God through prayer and the sacraments are drawing on the grace of God and he gives them strength to resist temptation in the first place. All of this is true. There is no need to twist Scripture into some sort of guarantee, of an insurance policy against future sin, the so-called OSAS recent innovation. In fact, that is the entire point of the sacraments that Christ gave us. He set up the Church to be a constant means and conduit of grace, for that very reason, to make it as easy as possible for the faithful to remain so, and be reconciled when they fall into sin. He gave us everything we need without removing our free will.
“LJ, are you able to make a decision *for* Christ absent of the Holy Spirit? You cannot. Many are in church, fewer are in Christ. The parable of the sower and seed testifies to that. “Many are called, but few are chosen.”” - In the pew
See Canon III above. Read it carefully. It says what you and Art have said, that nobody can even be able to receive the grace of justifaction without the work of the Holy Spirit.
And then read Canon IV, which points out that man has the free will to refuse his consent.
As to those who have experienced conversion of heart within the realm of the baptized, Benedict XVI has pointed out that the number may well be much lower than we would hope, especially in times past when nations were entirely Catholic and virtually everyone was baptized in the Church. Many refer to the parable of the wheat and the tares to explain this fact. Nevertheless, it is the motivation behind what John Paul II termed the New Evangelization, for it seems by times that the tares are overtaking the wheat, numerically speaking. God alone knows the heart, so we cannot make judgments about which persons will be saved and which will not. We can only proclaim the truth, as the Church has done for 2000 years.
Just to conclude: the doctrine of “once saved always saved” is not a doctrine as such, but a religious practice, like washing pots and kettles, or sprinkling water on beds. It amounts to saying, as one crosses on a tightrope over the abyss: “I’m not allowed to look down;” or: “they say there’s a net down there.”
This pious practice affords a level of confidence, and may indeed produce the desired result: safe passage to the other side. The existence of actual risk is unabated (and everybody knows it). However, by assiduous repetition of the magical words, a level of confidence ensues that may in fact be self-fulfilling.
On the flip side, failures of faith are characterized by bad faith. Moral shipwreck entails a complete destruction of whatever faith was present, perfect or imperfect. Distinctions about a condemned person’s former level of belief are therefore moot.
So, OSAS amounts to a religious practice, like eating kosher food. St. Paul jealously guards believers’ freedom in Christ, but admonishes us not to scandalize those weak in faith, who must adhere to childish and unrealistic practices as a concession to the flesh.
As a final note, OSAS does not respect God’s omnipotence as you infer, but rather binds him. We conform him to our (safety and security) needs rather than respecting his desires. As a general principal I find that God plays with live ammunition. He is really, really great, and invites us to be, like himslf, truly holy. He lives in a world where decisions really do have consequences. This is not a little girl’s pretend tea party or a high school football game.
“Can you ever imagine turning from your faith —faith granted only by the most precious gift of God? Of course you can’t.” - In the pew
This is a serious question, one which we must all ask ourselves. I understand how you find it incomprehensible and it deserves some consideration. I could give you the mechanics of this, again from the Canons of the Council of Trent but it may be better to see this in practical everyday terms.
I am not a pastor or ordained to the priesthood or diaconate. Like Mark Shea I am just a layman. What I have to say is pastoral, so take it for what it is worth.
In my own experience and that I have heard from others, a fall into mortal sin does not usually happen suddenly for someone who has been a committed Christian. It is much more subtle and gradual. It may start with the smallest of venial sins (as St. John describes, sin that is not mortal). If it is left as seeming little importance it gains a slight hold and first thing you know it is repeated. From there it can become a habit, if left unchecked. And suppose we are in a situation of great stress in our lives, things get chaotic, we are scrambling around and other small things slip a bit and we don’t take the time to examine our conscience and so other venial sins take root as well and become habits. At any time all of this could be corrected but we have been dulled in our conscience by bad habits and all goes on. Eventually we will likely come to a fork in the road where a mortal sin is presented to us, likely in connection with those bad habits we have picked up already. By then it is not such a great stretch to step over that line.
Here we are at a critical point. The Holy Spirit is speaking to our conscience about the gravity of what we have just done. As you suggest, we should be struck in our conscience, fall on our knees in repentance, and seek reconciliation with God. But if our conscience has been sufficiently seared and the habits of prayer and examination of conscience have been long enough avoided or forgotten, we may then try to justify to ourselves that mortal sin itself, pretending that, well, it’s not really that bad, after all, not a whole lot worse than what we had been already doing. We multiply the grey and push it out of our minds, and of course, we had this or that extenuating circumstances.
What we have done there is push out the Holy Spirit, saying no to him, telling him we really don’t need his grace, we are alright Jack. In that state, we can very well compound the sin. Occasionally God with throw something harsh into our lives to wake us up and shake us up. Sometimes that doesn’t help, it only hardens our hearts. We can then get into a habit of mortal sin, organize our lives around it, and whenever we feel a slight twinge in our conscience we rationalize and finally say, well, what can I do about it now anyway? My whole life is organized around this.
You see how it can happen?
LJ, you know how you make little self-justifying statements when you speak with someone you respect. Well, I had just that type of experience with a Deacon friend a few decades ago.
I had just emerged from a stuporous lapse into idiocy and excess, and I was giving him a rundown. I was about to utter something like, “but at least I didn’t commit any mortal sins” when half-way through that sentence the Holy Spirit convicted me and the words just stuck in my throat.
Yes, I had committed mortal sins; not one, but a whole series of them. My soul was in a desparate condition. And yes, I had escaped spiritual death only by the narrowest of margins. I turned around like when Dante emerges from the “sea of sin,” to take one last look. It was a frightening scenario indeed.
My wife uses a very apt comparison: each venial sin is like a grain of sand, or a drop of water. Individually they don’t amount to much. But taken together, they can drown you or bury you if left unattended.
I don’t recommend mortal sin, despite the fact that the Lord saved me from it. There’s something to be said about “the glamour of sin” overmastering someone. It leaves you feeling used and dejected. If there’s anything I can add to the millions of words spoken about that story from Lk Ch. 15 it’s this: those pigs really do stink.
BTW, I gave Art a tip of the hat for his assiduous use of scripture in a really misguided attempt to contravene orthodox belief. If that was appropriate, how much more so to you for your tireless defense of moral truth and catholic belief. Felicitations.
Matt,
The Scripture is clear that when God saves a man that man is changed at the core of his being. That is the power of the gospel that changes men (Romans 1:16). When the Holy Spirit is in a man, that man will be changed by the working of the Spirit to conform him to Christ. This is a life-long process where not only is the Spirit doing His work in us but we to are to work out our salvation by understanding what Christ has done for us and living out what He taught. Understanding Scripture is essential. We are to have the Scripture dwell in us richly (Colossians 3:16). We are to hunger for the Scripture as newborn babes (I Peter 2:2) so that we may grow in Christ.
Christ did not save us completely so we could go on sinning. (Paul refutes that idea in Romans 6). Rather we are no longer to live for ourselves but for Him (2 Corinthians 5:15). Salvation is a free gift but the demands of it on our part requires everything we have. Christ demands to be Lord of our entire life. If we refuse this, we will be disciplined (Hebrews 12:4-11) and if we are not disciplined then we were never His to begin with (Matthew 7:21-23).
OSAS is based on what Christ has done for us. That is what those Scriptures I posted tell us. We cannot add nor take away what He has done. He commands us to be holy and does His work in us by renewing our minds and giving us the power to overcome sin in our lives. This is what discipleship in Christ is all about.
LJ, Your comments as a layman are equally valid as any pastor if they speak to the truth of the gospel. A believer falling into gradual sin and declining further is always a challenge. However, depending upon one’s level of relationship with Christ, we should have greater sensitity to such pitfalls and attacks by Satan. The natural man will be oblivious but the spiritual man walking daily with Christ daily has that armor which Paul tells us wear for protection. It is the spiritual man who possesses a hightened awareness by virtue of the power of the Holy Spirit. The “seared” conscience you mention is discussed by Paul in Romans 1 since God has already given that person over to themselves. He further states that the natural man is hostile to God’s word. And as for God (as you say) “throwing something harsh into our lives to shake us up”—indeed He will do that for the wayward (who do, in fact, belong to Him). For their name was already written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. The parable of the Prodigal Son underscores that principle. The son was never out of relationship with the Father even though he was in the far country. The father was only waiting for the son to come to the end of himself. The father “knew” the son would return because the position of the son had already been established from the beginning. The son left home saying “Give me” but upon returning home he said “Make me”—in humility. On a personal note, I was the “one” of whom Jesus said of the shepherd who left the 99 to go out and find. Until that point I never understood how there could possibly be (as Jesus says) “more joy in heaven over the one who repents versus 99 who have no need to repent.” I was born to new life on that day. Your reference to Benedict pointing out the eventual saved number will likely be far lower than we think due to times when whole nations were baptized as a formality I suspect is very true. I am pleased to hear that Benedict has no illusions concerning what some people in church see as nothing more than a type of magic wand approach. Sometimes even the most godliest of parents who have raised sons and daughter in admonishion of the Lord are fraught with sorrow over children baptized as infants reject the gospel and follow their own worldly inclinations. One last comment as well for you and Art. Thank you for your continuing conversation and comments. Typically these blog topics become so sabatoged by atheists, those of limited intelligence or by those legalistic partisans intent on continually sowing discord among the brethren. It is rare to have such a reasonable and “sane” discussion like this anywhere.
@Matt who wrote: “BTW, I gave Art a tip of the hat for his assiduous use of scripture in a really misguided attempt to contravene orthodox belief. If that was appropriate, how much more so to you for your tireless defense of moral truth and catholic belief.” —-Matt, if only we could get Catholic clergy and Evangelical learned pastors to meet often on these issues there might be a breakthrough in at least some areas of doctrinal difference.
LJ: You wrote that this is the most frightening of passages for you: “On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ [23] And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.” LJ, were not the Pharisees (local synagogue church leaders at the time such people according to Jesus?). Then as well as now, such a person was never “in Christ” to begin with. You DO the works because of your relationship. There is no humility in meritorious works. Too much pride there to say “Look at me !!” It’s not about the “we did” but rather what “He did.” Jesus was speaking of those having a perspective stained with pride.
Thank you sincerely Art and In for the time you have taken to explain your views to me. I’m coming around to thinking that, at this point we’re talking about a difference without a distinction. And I hate to argue pointlessly.
The main differences between authentic christianity as expressed and lived in the protestant traditions, and Catholicism per se, are increasingly being shown to be specious arguments over words which have developed over historical quarrels, and meaningless distinctions kept up just for the sake of arguing. I can find no reason to argue with Art’s explanation.
Moreover, I have no stomach to insist even on principle that particular people or classes of people have landed in hell. I continue to hope that God’s indomitable good will is sufficient for everybody. Perhaps at that synapse we can meet and kind of agree.
LJ and MattB - thank you both for taking the time to respond to my verses and to share your reflections about what they mean. I really appreciate the effort you both took to think about it; I’ve been gone for a few days, so it will take me some time to read & absorb what you had to say.
One thing I was thinking, as I scanned the conversation here is this:
If Jesus is the Vine, and there are branches abiding in that Vine, would not all branches be believers, and as such, “children of God”?
Things may happen with them in life, they may even die as a result of sin (being cut off) but would it not be more reasonable to think of a tree apart from and standing next to the Vine, as “the world”? The tree would not abide in the Vine, ever, as it’s separate & apart. Just thinking.
This is an amazingly good conversation. Lots of food for thought - I’ll bet we’re surprising many of our priests that may be reading this, to think that lay people can be so deep! We’re like Jesuits on this blog.
<grin>
TJ, no matter how I may have ameliorated Art, I still think there’s a point of divergence between his views and mine. That’s radical freedom.
Even card-carrying evangelicals hold to the belief that non-christians must make an act of faith in order to br saved. That is, accept Jesus as his/her Lord and Savior. Before that, a person - son of Adam though he may be, is outside the Kingdom, and therefore removed from salvation. The choice belongs to that person. God invites, he does not command belief. Otherwise, everyone would believe on the power of God.
My take on this is that the act of faith has to be confirmed in practice. It’s very easy to say “Yes, I believe!” with no intention of carrying it out. Maybe that’s the reason Jesus asked Peter three times “do you love me;” or why the Apostle talks about faith as being “more precious than fire-tried gold.”
I believe that this test is ongoing and constant, and determines not just the salvation-status of an individual, but their degree of merit, or responsiveness to grace. The more responsive to grace you are, the more God is able to bless you. The potter is always spinning and smoothing. Some vessels are fit for a noble use, while other serve only menial purposes.
I hope to find your name written in the book. You’ll be a jar for perfumed oil, or for carrying the water of ablutions.
Thank you, MattB! Sometimes, I think of the prophet that was told to preach to the dry bones, and I think of myself, or anyone, as those dry bones, prior to listening to, and really *hearing* God’s word, that which “quickens” us, giving us the heart to hear Him, and to grow in Him, abiding in His grace, His mercy, and under His care and guidance. Like a sheep, I’m prone to wander, distracted. But the Good Shepherd, calls me back to Him. He is faithful, even when we may not be, and Jesus, our Advocate, knows what it is like to be with humans, so He is sympathetic.
Like Peter, who finally got it!! After all those chances and tries!! There is hope for us all - and hope, in God, never fails.
“If Jesus is the Vine, and there are branches abiding in that Vine, would not all branches be believers, and as such, “children of God”?
Things may happen with them in life, they may even die as a result of sin (being cut off) but would it not be more reasonable to think of a tree apart from and standing next to the Vine, as “the world”? The tree would not abide in the Vine, ever, as it’s separate & apart. Just thinking.”
Absolutely right. That is definitely what St. Paul was talking about in Romans 11. Being a Jew himself, one of the best educated of the Pharisees, he nevertheless talks about the original branches of the vine as being cut off. There he is speaking of the people of God, the chosen ones from whom the Messiah came, yet who would not accept him when he did arrive. How much more then, could those who have been grafted in, the Gentiles, be cut off if they did not abide in him.
“For their name was already written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.” - In the pew
What I was attempting to point out in the references to Revelation was the fact that it was possible for someone’s name to be blotted out from the Lamb’s Book of Live. If that was not so he would not have assured the few at Sardis who had not “soiled their garments” that their names would not be blotted out.
There are enough places in the New Testament like this to thoroughly put to rest the doctrine of OSAS. Having said that, I agree that falling into mortal sin is not a light thing for the Christian and as I suggested, it doesn’t just one day happen out of the blue.
Your analogy of the Prodigal Son is excellent. That is precisely in contradiction to OSAS. The father was patiently waiting for the son to return, a son who had once had the full run of his house, and had a share in the inheritance of his father. And notice it was the son who went away, and his father let him go. The son repented in time, when he was thoroughly disgusted with his life, and we always pray for the wayward who have left the faith of their youth, that they too will return. Perhaps they may never have had the conversion experience that Benedict XVI talks so often about, and maybe that is the very thing that will bring them back, sometimes in a roundabout way, by way of an Evangelical communion at first. That is actually relatively common. Marcus Grodi can attest to that.
Last Christmas, a friend gave me a copy of a book called, “Surprised by Truth”, about the stories of non-Catholic converts to Catholicism. I was surprised to read many of them had similar faith walks. Two things seemed most common: 1) their own churches were in turmoil, causing them to look around at other denominations and 2) it did not seem as if they were very well grounded in the Christian faith, in the first place.
No where in the book did the most obvious questions get answered.
Frankly, we have been discussing more theology in this blog, politely and yet in a detailed fashion, than it seems is taught in non-Catholic (and maybe even Catholic) seminaries during the past 50 years.
When I read the name Marcus Grodi, it reminded me of this book. I think he’s the person who was a pastor of a church, when he had never even been a member of any organized church in his life. (I may be wrong about the name, but one of the converts said that of himself.)
Further, many said they were previously vehemently opposed to the Catholic church, not just mildly against what Rome taught, but bonified anti-Catholic is how they described themselves.
So it seemed to me as if the pendalum swung, from anti-Catholic, to embracing Catholicism to a point of almost idolizing the system, and it all came about simply because their own churches were apostate, with women being ordained as priests and bishops, and homosexuality being embraced as okay, for church leaders as well as among the church body.
I think the key is to be in the word of God, found in the Bible, so that we won’t get taken off track by anything. It’s written that in the last days, even the faithful could be fooled! So to all of us - heads up!
I’ve come to love reading the Bible - & I love the New Testament letters.
No matter what’s going on around us (in or outside of the institutional church) we’ll be grounded, when we stay focused on Scripture - even Peter’s two letters makes a super study!!
“LJ, were not the Pharisees (local synagogue church leaders at the time such people according to Jesus?). Then as well as now, such a person was never “in Christ” to begin with. You DO the works because of your relationship. There is no humility in meritorious works. Too much pride there to say “Look at me !!” It’s not about the “we did” but rather what “He did.” Jesus was speaking of those having a perspective stained with pride.” - In the pew
Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by the passage being frightening. Before I became Catholic I spent about a year in study, essentially starting from where I was raised and working backward, looking for roots you may say. But one of the motivators was that very verse. I did not want to be wrong. I did not want to be in a communion that claimed the name of Jesus but was not of his fold. It was critical that where I landed had to be authentic, ie. have the authority of Jesus to use his name.
That is where I was. I am not saying that anyone who is not Catholic is automatically of this category, yet when I surveyed the cornucopia of preachers and evangelists and so-called prophets and charismatic leaders, and on and on, I had to wonder about their strange doctrines and increasingly wild tangents, and health and wealth doctrines, whether or not they might be those people that Jesus will rebuke at the judgement. They certainly use his name. Often they perform signs and wonders. To be in the wrong place in that malaise is certainly a frightening idea.
It points as well, to the great power in the name of Jesus, if Jesus himself says there will be signs and wonders performed in his name, yet not of him.
That perhaps is analogous to the power of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments. In the case of baptism, Richard Dawkins himself could perform a valid sacrament if, despite his own disbelief he were to do that for a friend providing his intention was to do what the Church does by baptism and he used the proper matter and form.
So you see, when I say that the Catholic Church is the one that Jesus founded, it is not just a throw-away line for me. I fought against the idea at first, until my studies made it impossible to avoid. I believe it with my whole heart, and I believe I have found that authentic Church, authorized by Christ to use his name.
In the pew,
As to meritorious works I have found an analogy that helped me to understand it. The first thing we have to understand is that, just as the Council of Trent made clear, man’s initial grace of justification can never be merited, nor can he even come to the point of recognizing his need for salvation without grace.
Once in the state of grace, that same state of grace that we forfeit through mortal sin, it is only then that we can speak of meritorious works.
Picture the little five year old boy who loves his father, looks up to him as his real life hero, his protector, his example of manhood. And picture the father who loves his son so much he would make any sacrifice for him.
It is the father’s birthday coming up and the son, out of his love for his father wants very badly to get him something, a gift. But being five years old he has no money.
This is critical at this point to remember that the son is totally dependent on his father for everything, his home, his food, his clothes. His very life is dependent on his father.
So he goes to his father and asks him for five dollars to buy a gift. The father gives him the money, the boy buys the gift and presents it to his father in love.
Let’s stop there. Let’s ask a question or two. First, did the boy have anything to give the father that didn’t already belong to the father? No. So any gift he gave was not adding anything to the father materially that he didn’t already have.
But did the father appreciate the gift? Absolutely. It was precious in his eyes, even though he had already paid for it. Why? Very simply, because it was done out of the love of the son for the father. It was love he was expressing for his father. That came from the son. That was the gift.
So, was the gift then meritorious? Absolutely. Not because it was anything that the father didn’t already have but because it was given purely out of love.
So too, those of us in the love of the father, who make acts of giving of ourselves, of our time, of our resources, when we do it for love of the father and/or love of those others that he loves, he gives us credit for that. Not because we have given him anything that was not already his. All we are and have belongs to him. It is his grace to begin with that sustains us, his grace that brings us into his house in the first place. He gives us credit for it because we did it from our hearts for love of him.
LJ: No problem. Thanks for your further comments. The gospel is clear both now and in the end times many will have a distorted view of the gospel and what it means to actually follow Christ in true worship. Do we follow Him personally or merely submit to church legalism through an exercise of works? Using the spiritual gift of discernment—“When you seek me with all your heart you will find me” (Jeremiah 29:13) is really more the result of the Lord already having HIS hand upon you in grace to start with. Discernment enables the believer to recognize apostate churches which deviate from doctrine established in the gospel, ACTS and in Paul’s letters. Likewise, those who advocate works, preach a prosperity gospel or maintain doctrine indicating Christ’s shed blood at Calvary are insufficient are also distortions. As you do, I accept that Catholicism is the legacy of the apostolic church established by Jesus. At the same time men are imperfect so we are told to always be vigiliant. Jesus said: “You shall know them by their fruit.” We pray the Holy Spirit will always make corrections when His people (or leaders) have gone off course. So it is not surprising mainline traditional Protestant churches are rapidly declining in membership due to false teaching, and unbiblical, even shameful practices such as performing gay marriage and ordaining lesbians to the ministry. In the Catholic church one can also point to the continual and on-going discoveries of sexual abuse by clergy the last ten years and financial embezzelment just occurring recently in diocese of Philadelphia and Las Vegas. We pray the Holy Spirit is exposing and ridding His house from the unrighteous and those with sin behaviour. For His people, it is quite easy to become disillusioned and frustrated by such events. Many indeed leave church never to return. On the other hand, those who truly follow Christ know we do not follow “men”—since they are imperfect due to our sin nature. Peter speaks to this in ACTS. We always pray for discernment in all things. And be one Catholic or Protestant, we pray the Holy Spirit (as Jesus claimed) will lead us into all “truth.” This is why the spiritual gift of discernment is so critical in our lives,—to know truth from error.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.