D Mail: Rowan Williams becomes first ever Anglican leader to accept visions of Virgin Mary as fact

Let me be the first to say : good for him!

“‘papal puppet’ after he became the first leader of the Church of England to accept visions of the Virgin Mary at Lourdes as historical fact.”

This man irritates everyone!  The man needs to retire and write books, with a good editor.  History is not going to like him unless he writes it himself.

‘The archbishop’s simple presence there is a wholesale compromise, and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as “the Mother of God” is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy.’

First of all “Protestant orthodoxy” is an oxymoron of the first order.

Visions, communion of saints and Mary as Mother of God have about a 1500 year head start on the reformers.  If such things were truly heretical, the Church would have collapsed upon itself within a few generations.  Such anti-Catholic drivel is poisonous at best.

If denying Mary as Mother of God is a point of Protestant orthodoxy, then J. S. Spong, KJS and a host of other alleged TEC “theologians” could easily be categorized a orthodox protestants.

Pardon my snarkiness, but this is not helpful in uniting the faithful in TEC and the AC.

Well there were plenty of Anglican leaders who accepted visions of Mary as fact before what, the Sixteenth Century or so.  So about a thousand years worth.

Nonetheless, the current ABC does seem a tad erratic in his views.  How do you go from spurning Bob to embracing Bernadette in just a matter of days?  It’s like “Wheeeeeee, I’m making it up as I go!!!!!!!”  What was normal 10 years ago can be tossed aside, but hey, something everyone stopped being down with in 1515 is now super keen.

Oh dear, this is from the Daily Mail. Anyone from the UK want to tell us how many grains of salt we need?

‘That’s why the lives of the saints, ancient and modern, matter so much.’

What is wrong with what he said about the lives of the saints? It sounds like what my Episcopal priest taught me many years ago.

Frankly, regardless about his personal views on the Blessed Virgin, one might surmise that ++Rowan is at least partially motivated by the desire to keep some of the FiF and other Anglo Catholics in the CoE.  Given the recent vote in Synod to deny a safe haven for Anglo Catholics within the CoE, which is to them not so unlike the HoB vote to depose +Duncan, he needed to do something to demonstrate his Catholicism, or at least muddy the waters to keep Anglo Catholics guessing.  How could he really abandon them (us, really, if I include Anglo Catholics in the US as well) if he is willing to make a pilgrimage to venerate the Mother of God?  Personally, my cynicism at this point is high enough that he can make pilgrimages once a month, but until he takes definable action to repair the Communion, it doesn’t mean much.

Someone once defined an affirming (i.e. liberal) catholic as one who believes the body of Christ is truly present in the sacrament of the altar while also believing the body of Christ is truly present in a tomb in Palestine.

Those who accept a postmodern understanding of truth can believe in anything, so it is nothing special that he would accept visions of the Virgin Mary as fact. 

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”——The White Queen, from Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll.

TOTW,

Burning bushes, angels, talking donkeys and prophets are all so far-fetched fabrications the human mind.  Francis was a reaffirming catholic when he heard the voice of God in San Damiano.  Dispensationalism is heresy.  Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin.

Personally I would prefer the ABC to continue his interest in the EO rather than move Romeward. However, lest we get sidetracked by the myriad problems of things like the “immaculate conception” or the inherent difficulties within “Calvinism”... I echo frreed’s last comment “but this is not helpful in uniting the faithful in TEC and the AC.”

#3, I hope you are not espousing Nestorianism in rejecting the title Mother of God, a rough translation of Theotokos. In both the Virgin Birth and in “God-Bearer”, these matters pertain to the nature of our Lord and thus to our salvation. In destroying the perfect union between human nature and God, the fullness of the Incarnation is savaged and thus our own hope of salvation.  Not a good thing.  Confessing the Word to be united with the flesh according to the hypostasis, we worship one Son and Lord, Jesus Christ. We do not divide him into parts and separate man and God as though they were united with each other only through a unity of dignity and authority… nor do we name separately Christ the Word from God, and in similar fashion, separately, another Christ from the woman, but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own flesh… But we do not say that the Word from God dwelt as in an ordinary human born of the holy virgin… we understand that, when he became flesh, not in the same way as he is said to dwell among the saints do we distinguish the manner of the indwelling; but he was united by nature and not turned into flesh… There is, then, one Christ and Son and Lord, not with the sort of conjunction that a human being might have with God as in a unity of dignity or authority; for equality of honor does not unite natures. For Peter and John were equal to each other in honor, both of them being apostles and holy disciples, but the two were not one. Nor do we understand the manner of conjunction to be one of juxtaposition, for this is insufficient in regard to natural union…. Rather we reject the term ‘conjunction’ as being inadequate to express the union… The holy virgin gave birth in the flesh to God united with the flesh according to hypostasis, for that reason we call her Theotokos… If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is, in truth, God, and therefore that the holy virgin is Theotokos (for she bore in a fleshly manner the Word from God become flesh), let him be anathema.

I would draw this distinction regarding appearances.  I cannot say I have seen apparitions and I cannot say others have not.  I can say that holy spirits united with God do not possess people.  Possession is an evil.  So if the experience is mediumistic ... speaking through another person, I would probably reject it out of hand as either fraud or diabolical.  I’m not sure what that might mean for Joan of Arc but regarding colorful local characters who claim Mary is speaking through them, I would suggest that if we don’t have ears to hear Mary speak for herself, we probably aren’t going to hear her.

Francis of Assissi is my favorite saint….aside from David, Patron Saint of Wales.  As an Anglo Catholic, I accept that with God, anything is possible, though of course I don’t completely accept everything that Rome says about the Blessed Mother.  If she did appear to Bernadette Subiroux, then who are we to judge whether ot not she didn’t?

I cannot find fault with Rowan Cantuar’s preaching the sermon at Lourdes; if he felt called to preach, then who are we to judge him?  If this was indeed a “spiritual experience” for him, then could it not be one for others?  Who’s to say that any one of us wouldn’t have a similar experience?  God does truly work in mysterious ways….His wonders to perform!

OOPs, my apology, Freed, I see now we are on the same page.  I reacted to your first paragraph with excessive haste.  It is always distressing to me to see people throw out the Ecumenical Councils along with the baby Jesus’ bathwater.

Based on his conduct towards lesbians, gays, and progressives, I have some advice for conservative anglo-catholics:  be afraid, be very afraid!

FWIW
jimB

monologistos,

No problem,that was a pull from the article.

‘The archbishop’s simple presence there is a wholesale compromise, and his sermon which included a reference to Mary as “the Mother of God” is a complete denial of Protestant orthodoxy.’

Didn’t the original reformers accepted the title theotokos for Mary, based on the fourth ecumenical council? Which Protestant orthodoxy is this particular gentleman espousing?

monologistos,
#3 was quoting from the article itself, and his comments on the quote agree with you (and me).

Having read the full text of the sermon here the references to Mary, Elizabeth and Bernadette were by way of analogy to our own journey.  Dr Williams mainly talks of the coming of the Holy Spirit into our lives and of us being charged for mission.  Like Mary we are surprised by joy as he quotes C.S. Lewis and empowered to “recognise that our heart’s desire is met and the very depth of our being stirred into new life” as he concludes.  Well worth the read.

I’m a “conservative” Anglo Catholic….and I’m not afraid!

oscewicee [#5], I don’t think there is anything wrong with what he said about the saints, and I agree it is consistent with what many Episcopal priests say.

I agree also with tjmcmahon, that the ABC took this particular group to Lourdes for a reason.  If I had to guess, it may be because they not only have no where to exist in the CoE, but because they are arguably smaller in numbers and more beleaguered than evangelicals in the CoE, but someone in that church might be able to confirm or deny their numbers.  If these are some of his motives, it appears to me he is acting compassionately to a significant minority who have just been told they aren’t wanted in the CoE;  for many among them who want to go to Rome, this is loving, pastoral care of so many who have been unnecessarily hurt and spurned in the CoE, after finding a home within it for so many centuries.  In effect, he is leading them to the doorsteps of Rome and letting them know he will not condemn them if they stay.  I admire his care, leadership of the pilgrimage, and sympathy for them.  I believe it is inspired by the Holy Spirit and think it worthy of praise and emulation.  Would that any of us had such a loving heart or the strength to tread the path of the Holy Spirit amid so much vitriol and viturperation.  Amidst the disintegration there is real grace and this is one of them, it seems to me.

I’m not sure “Visions of Mary” are much harder to accept without qualification or reservation than “Speaking in Tounges.”

I have reservations about both.  I do not, however, have reservations about Mother of God.  Either Mary is Mother of God, or Jesus is not God.

In effect, he is leading them to the doorsteps of Rome and letting them know he will not condemn them if they stay.

This would concern me. Knowing that the RC church has several doctrines that are totally contrary to Scripture, I could not in good conscience lead anyone to their doorstep. To allow even a small part of leaven to enter the bread is to allow it to spread quickly. Please remember that.

I suspect #20 Seen-too-much and #6 TJM are on to something - leading his flock to Lourdes to spend time with our cousins [and back!] is about solidarity with our anglo-catholics who have not been having a good time recently.  I also believe that with his strong anglo-catholic upbringing the ABC would be comfortable there.  Also be interesting to know what he and Cardinal Kaspar found to chat about.

#21, I also have reservations about both. It’s hard to put into words. All I can say is to revere Mary as “Mother of God” somehow elevates her above Jesus himself to me. Yes, she was his human mother, physically. But, it stops there. Jesus was human due to his earthly mother being human. He is divine due to God the Father being the Father who begot him through the Holy Spirit. No where in Scripture does Jesus elevate Mary above anything but the fleshly mother she was for him. That’s a Roman thing, and in my opinion, is something based on paganistic beliefs.

#23, I also had a very strong Anglo-Catholic upbringing, but this whole things makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I don’t think any of the Magisterial reformers disputed the title “Theotokos”. I certainly don’t. It is true and accurate.

I do strongly object to doctrines (and I recognize not all of them are Roman dogma) such as the immaculate conception, co-mediation, co-redemption, the dormition and assumption.

What struck me in this piece was not his use of the words “Mother of God” but his apparent acceptance of the apparitions.

#25 Mugsie1
Thanks for your response.  I have had little to no experience of the Anglo-catholic tradition.  It is not my thing, but I find it interesting and there is something to learn from everyone even if it is to clarify what one believes.

Please, Mother of God is not a “Roman Catholic” thing.
It was determined as the faithful teaching of the Church in the Ecumenical Councils.  Not open for debate and nothing to be uncomfortable about or fear.

#17, the title Theotokos was affirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus and Nestorianism condemned as anathema but argumentation continued regarding the unity of the hypostasis of our Lord and was reaffirmed at Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical Council) in the formula many of us will know by rote. The title Theotokos was also reaffirmed.  The difficulty was to find a way to exclude Nestorianism and variants of monophysitism. This continued a debate from the Council of Nicea where the heretic Arius impugned the Theotokos and was slapped down by St. Nick. May the wisdom of these councils (and of St. Nicholas, archbishop of Myra) provide a kindred spirit of protection in early December that a new province be formed to God’s glory.  A summation of Chalcedon on the nature of Christ may be found in the BCP, Historical Documents section.

#28, I disagree.

I think we will see ++Rowan follow Blair to Rome in the next year.

To say Mary is the mother of God is not to suggest that she is the “originator” or generator of God. Nor is it to suggest any superiority or authority over Him. It simply recognizes that for nine months God the Son dwelt in her womb from the supernatural conception of Jesus to his birth and that she raised Jesus, the theanthropos, God-Man, as his mother, in accordance with the Law. As a descriptive term it is precise and accurate

#32, Matt, no where in Scripture are we instructed to revere Mary. That is my concern; that she is being talked about as “Mother of God” with proper noun capitalization. This officially gives her a “title” as such. She is not to be revered. Too many churches are misled by things like this very phrasing. Mary was plainly the human being God chose to use to bring Jesus (the human) into the world. He chose her due to her finding favor with Him, and she was virginal and betrothed to Joseph. She was to endure a lot of persecution, as was Joseph. That’s why an angel was sent to BOTH Mary and Joseph so they would understand what was happening. Yes, this was indeed a blessed event. Jesus was born into human form to be sacrificed on the cross so we may be given atonement for our sins. However, this does not allow us to REVERE her as the “Mother of God”. We are not instructed to raise her any higher than any other human who ever lived. That is wrong, plain and simple. The fact that such phrasing is used at all is very disturbing to me.

I agree with Matt.

I don’t think any of the Magisterial reformers disputed the title “Theotokos”. I certainly don’t. It is true and accurate.

I do strongly object to doctrines (and I recognize not all of them are Roman dogma) such as the immaculate conception, co-mediation, co-redemption, the dormition and assumption.

What struck me in this piece was not his use of the words “Mother of God” but his apparent acceptance of the apparitions.

It doesn’t concern me if he accepts the visions as “reality” . . .we have plenty of charismatics who accept all sorts of visions as “reality” too.  I consider both to be similar things, and pretty much personally accept neither as “reality”, although I’m open to being “surprised by visions” as well as all sorts of other miraculous signs and wonders, since I’m not a cessasionist.

Theotokos means “God-bearer” and more rarely “One who gives birth to God”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos

This is not the same as being “Mother of God” which suggests that Mary somehow preceeds God.

Article II in the BCP states that Christ took his divine nature from God and his human nature from Mary.

Mother of Jesus, yes. Bearer of God, yes.
Mother of God?
No.

God exists “before all things were made”. Including Mary.

Yes, God bearer is correct.

But the title Mother of God is not at all unbiblical. Mary is certainly described as Jesus’ mother in both Luke 1-2 and Matthew 1 and Jesus is certainly identified as God in John 1.

Moreover, it is good and right to “revere” Mary. For goodness sake, we revere human Queen mothers why not the mother of the King of all the Universe. As a protestant I do not think it correct to pray to her or ask for her intercession, but she is certainly to be honored above all women.

Not meaning to be insulting but not even the Catholics worship Mary as God and those who say they do lie, whether through ignorance or malice. Roman Catholics do not use the term Dormition unless they are borrowing it from the Orthodox.  The Dormition, or Falling Asleep in the Lord of Mary is observed liturgically by Eastern Orthodoxy but on principle it is not doctrine for it is both outside of Scripture and does not affect Christological theology nor our salvation.
Let’s just say Mary is like us: fully human and united to God as we are - by Baptism, by Eucharist, by sanctification by the Holy Spirit. She is fully human even as we are fully human.  To worship her as God would be idolatry, self-worship and not a good thing. And yet, by her and the Holy Spirit, our Lord became incarnate. She is also the first to participate in the body and blood of Jesus ... literally, the first Christian.  I honor her as I would my own mother ... I certainly don’t worship my mother but it is through her and my father that I have my life.  She is not the author of Life.  Also, I took Mary into the home of my heart when I heard Jesus speak from the Cross.  Has your heart never burned within you as Holy Scripture comes alive?
- John

Surely Anglicans would know the Magnificat.

“My soul doth magnify the Lord : and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded : the lowliness of his handmaiden.
For behold, from henceforth : all generations shall call me blessed.
For he that is mighty hath magnified me : and holy is his Name.”

If we REALLY want to chase rabbits we could revive the debate over whether it is appropriate to ask Saints to “pray for us”.

Or perhaps we can debate icons.

If the new Province ends up using the 1600’s version of the Book of Common Prayer, check out the language of Matrimony.  The bride and groom promise to worship one another with their bodies.  Let’s not get overly hung up on what words we are using as long as the meaning is perfectly clear.  Co-Redemptrix talk is poetic exaggeration or else error.  Let’s not damn people for over-enthusiastic hyperbole or for simply using words in a way unfamiliar to us.

I suspect I mostly agree with Sarah regarding apparitions and glossalalia.  Most often it seems to have its root in hysteria.  If the gift of tongues is given to me, it would be more helpful to have Spanish than Cherubim.  I don’t think the holy angels need me to preach to them and the darned ones aren’t listening.

#30-Disagree if you wish, but it puts you in some rather difficult company.  I will honestly pray for you in this matter.  Prayerfully read monologistos’ posts on this thread.  He has done a fine job of teaching the scriptural and historical origins of Mary as the Mother of God.

Mugsie #33,
Mary, filled with the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation, (“Hail Mary, Full of grace!  The Lord is with thee!”) states:  “From henceforth, all generations shall call me blessed.”

Mary has and always has had a special place in the Church.  Unless you do not believe in the “Communion of Saints,” you would surely state that Mary is with God and has a special place in heaven.  After all, her “yes” to God mirrors Eve’s “no” to God’s command.  Mary’s faith is what brought the Savior into the world and gave us the new creation that we share in Baptism.

While marian devotions are not normally part of my spirituality, I will not denegrate those who find comfort and solice there.  I believe that Mary has appeared to people from time to time, just as Angels have appeared from time to time. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Personally, I’d love to have a vision of Mary.  I know that to covet is a sin, but I wish I could have been at Lourdes or Fatima.

I recommend following Pageantmaster’s link (18) and reading what it was the ABC actually said.  Monologistos, thank you (again) for your posts.

Thanks, Oscewicee.  I’m feeling down for having spoken harshly to Mugsie though.  Hard to say what is better ... passing over what seems to me false witness in silence or by naming it, battering my sister with words.  I guess the format here makes it impossible to be “all things to all people” in a helpful way.  If she’s reading this, I am sorry for my harshness.

I think there is quite some difference between revering Mary (including considering her blessed) & praying to her. THAT is the issue where for protestants she is raised above being simply human. In order to prayer to her you first have to give her the status of a deity, even if not deliberately. Protestants cannot support this, as there is no biblical authority or reference to such blasphemous teaching. The only doctrinal argument catholics can give to support this is capital “T” Tradition, whereby the argument goes ‘we have always done it therefore it is correct’ or our infallible pope decreed it therefore it is correct. Both arguments fall down historically as the catholic pope has been shown to be fallible (or as Cardinal George Pell put it “obviously history shows that the holy spirit got it wrong when it led us to choose some popes in history) and there are many examples of the catholic church rescinding its own traditions or creating new ones.

What strikes me here on the west cost USA is that +++RW is a “Believer” who accepts the witness of the Gospels.  This is obvious in moments like this, and must be positively chilling in some locals.

Considering that Peter, James and John had a vision of Moses and Elijah, it doesn’t bother me that others may have had a vision of Mary. I have no reason to doubt it, especially when the fruit is millions of the people praying as they meditate on key events in the life of Christ. Surely Mary holds no less a place among the communion of saints than Moses or Elijah. We do believe in the communion of saints don’t we?

If we ask our friends across the country or across the world for their intercessions why shouldn’t we ask the Mother of our Lord for her intercessions?

If we ask our friends across the country or across the world for their intercessions why shouldn’t we ask the Mother of our Lord for her intercessions?
Well episcoanglican, because she cant hear us!!!

I believe that Matt put it very concisely: Jesus spent 9 months in Mary’s womb. Obviously, that makes him his mother. I don’t see how anyone can dispute the fact that being born of a woman means she’s your mother. I think some of you who have posted are afraid of anything that Roman Catholics believe. Not everything Romans believe is contrary to what the rest of Christianity believes. The Roman Catholics don’t teach evil things that are contrary to Scripture. Some of the things they teach are not found in Scripture, e.g. the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, and therefore many non-Catholic Christians don’t believe such things. (The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, by the way, does not refer to the way in which Mary conceived Jesus. Rather, it holds that Mary was herself conceived without the original sin which the Church teaches that we all inherit from Adam and Eve.) However, so far as I know - andf I know a great deal about the Roman Church - there is absolutely nothing in the Roman faith that contradicts Scripture. I think there is still a great deal of anti-Catholic sentiment around that is born of ignorance and fear.
I dislike Rowan Williams for his lack of leadership and willingness to comnpromise, but I don’t see anything wrong with his going to Lourdes. And I surely don’t see anything wrong with his referring to Mary as the Mother of God, which she is,if you believe that Jesus is both God and Man. Whenever you say the Nicene Creed you profess to believe this.

Oops! Should be: Obviously that makes her His mother.”

Mugsie1, I think you’re onto something.  Many Roman Catholic priests share your concern about the excesses of popular Marian devotion.  Mary is not above or greater than Christ or God, yet, if you believe that Jesus was also the incarnated second person of the Trinity, you have to recognize that she is the Mother of God.  Her identity follows his.  How her being the Mother of God is possible leads any who ask into the mystery of the Incarnation.  It appears as a puzzle which God created and through which he embraces and sustains you.  Matt Kennedy’s post at #36 is an apt description of Mary, as are many posts of monologistos and others (AndrewA reminding us of the Magnificat in the Book of Common Prayer).  If you have ever reverred your mother, grandmother, aunt, teacher, friend or another, you might consider that it is a good thing that you have been able to and that there is such goodness that elicits reverence of others.  But something that is so basically good would not be withheld from Mary and she is indeed likely to inspire a great deal of reverence, given that she has already born the Savior of the World.

Could I question the assumption being made here that since Mary bore Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the mother of God.

Nestorius was bothered by this - and I think he was on to something, even if the way he attempted to frame a solution was not adequate.

Mary bore the one person in two natures, and it was from her substance that the incarnate Word took his nature as man. That is how our Anglican Article 2 puts it. Nestorius wanted to call Mary either ‘the God-receiver’ (theodochos ) or the ‘Christ-bearer’ (Christotokos ). That second term has always seemed to me a better term to apply to Mary because it emphasises that she bore the one person in two natures, and avoids the implication that she in some sense shares in his divinity.

Joseph really doesn’t get a look in does he?

The reason many pray to Mary is to ask for her intercession with the Lord.  Is she an effective intercessor?  That she may be is at least suggested by John 2: 1-11, the account of the wedding at Cana.  It was after Mary’s request that Jesus do something that he turned the water into wine. 

Mary did not turn the water into wine.  She interceded.  It would be idolatrous to ask Mary to perform a miracle herself.  She is not divine.  If one is to pray to Mary it is only appropriate to ask her for her prayers, based on the not-so-outlandish assumption that Jesus listens to his mother.

The best known prayer to Mary is, of course, Hail Mary.  The first part is verbatim recitation of Scripture:  “Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee” [The Angel Gabriel’s words to Mary in Luke 1:28].  “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, [Jesus]” [Elizabeth’s words to Mary in Luke 1:42].  The second part is a straightforward petition for her intercession.  “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.”   
 
Whether Mary or any of the other saints can hear us temporal beings who are for the moment bound on earth is not a question that can be answered by the Scriptures as far as I am aware.  The Scriptures do, however, teach that angels visit the earth and can at least sometimes hear us.  If God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and angels can hear our prayers, why not saints resting in the bosom of the Lord?

Rick O.P., go to Mexico during the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe and see how outrageously out of control the Mariolatry has become.

She is not divine? What about her purported immaculate conception and assumption?

“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” - 1 John 2:1

[57] Rick O.P.
There is nothing intercessory about this prayer.

O Mother of Perpetual Help, grant that I may ever invoke thy most powerful name, which is the safeguard of the living and the salvation of the dying. O Purest Mary, O Sweetest Mary, let thy name henceforth be ever on my lips. Delay not, O Blessed Lady, to help me whenever I call on thee, for, in all my needs, in all my temptations I shall never cease to call on thee, ever repeating thy sacred name, Mary, Mary.
ewtn

It is true that Roman Catholics deny the deity of Mary.  It is also true that Mary has more and more assumed the functions of deity in RC theology as this prayer clearly demonstrates.  There is a formal trinity, but there is a functional quadernity.  And what is frightening is how easy and natural would be the declaration that Mary is the Incarnation of the Holy Spirit.  All the pieces are in place.

carl

Not being familiar with every RC doctrine or prayer concerning Mary, I’m not going to try a blanket defense of them, but I don’t see how the “Assumption” requires or implies that she be divine, as robroy say.  Certainly a number of Biblical figures were taken directly into Heaven without experiencing physical death.  And yes, at least one of them appeared in a what might be described as a “vision” hundereds of years latter.

Matt Kennedy:

If true…wow…my Calvinist soul shivers…

As well it should, although you and your Reform-minded friends have no one but yourselves and each other to blame.
Good King Hal left us with only 6 Articles, but you folks had to press for more.  Some people are never satisfied.
Now, even 39 may not be enough.
I knew this would end badly.  But don’t look at me.
If His Grace decides to make it an even 40 by adding the Immaculate Conception to the list, I’m joining the Protestant Truth Society.  Even I can’t find a “literal and grammatical” way around that one.
Those fussy PTS types do accept Anglo-Catholics for membership, don’t they?  And may I use you as a reference?
I’d ask Sarah Hey, but who knows what she believes, and I’m afraid to find out.
Thanks ever so much.

The excesses of the Roman Catholics with respect to Mary do not, in any way, take away her rightful place as a saint who should be honored and respected.  Just as Cromwell’s excesses do not take away from truths that the Protestant Reformation and the English Reformation taught us.

The point of the post, I believe, is that +Rowan Cantuar accepts that Mary appeared to St. Bernadette.  There is nothing heretical or unbiblical or sinful about that.  If there is, please show me where scripture says that Mary will not appear after her death.  Please show me what teachings of the undivided Church her apparitions violate.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

It is one thing to say that some people can experience a vision of St Mary (or another saint for that matter) and another for Abp Williams to say that the vision granted to Bernadette was a true one - because part of that vision was an assertion of the truth of the Immaculate Conception. That assertion moves the discussion from the possibility of Mary or other saints being sent as messengers of the Lord (which I believe to be a possibility; God has the freedom to send word to his people in a variety of ways - not to replace or “correct” Scripture, but to affirm or encourage a believer) to the question of who Mary is and what her role is to be in the life of a believer.

There is no need for Mary to be without sin—and if there were, then her mother would have needed to be sinless, and so on.  And the indications of Scripture is that Mary was a virgin prior to Jesus’ birth - but not afterwards.  Joseph was her husband, and he trusted God—but we must remember that Matt 1:25 says, “He took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son.”  Virginity is not morally superior to engaging in sexual intercourse in marriage; God did not say, “Well, these humans have to reproduce in some way; I guess there is no choice but to invent sex, even though I wish they didn’t have to use it.”

Mary can certainly be called Theotokos, the “God-bearer,”  but the title “Mother of God” carries two difficulties: 1) It can cause one to think that she is a source of Jesus’ divine nature, and 2) There seems to be an unspoken shift for the most ardent supporters of venerating Mary from “The Mother of God” to “God the Mother.”  I have never heard anyone say that, but I have had reason to think there are those who believe it.

I do not pray to Mary or any saint because the saints are human beings and so finite.  Departed, they are with the Lord.  He may send a saint on an errand, as he sends the angels - but even if he does, that saint is still finite.  Mary might appear to someone, but while she is doing that, she is not able to hear someone else a thousand miles away - or even a mile away.  I expect that the saints are less limited than any of us - but they are still finite creatures, incapable of omnipresence.  We saints are all connected through the Holy Spirit, but we are not all equally present to one another.

There is lot about Roman Catholicism that I simply do not care for - but there are some things I cannot accept because they, to the best of my understanding of Scripture, contradict the clear meaning of Scripture.

Pardon my snarkiness, but this is not helpful in uniting the faithful in TEC and the AC.

This is a very true statement, but I’m afraid that many Protestants are not very concern about uniting with anyone who does not think as they do. In my experience in seems some in the excuse of purity, end up often violating and contradicting the very Word they seek uphold in the quest. Where second order differences become first order and become hills to die on.

[64] Hosea6:6

Where second order differences become first order and become hills to die on.

Many of the differences between Catholic and Protestant are first order.  That is why Luther stood his ground.  The Reformation was not a gigantic misunderstanding.  It was a fight about the definition of the Gospel.  There is nothing more essential to defend.

carl

Yes, I realize you think Catholics are not Christians and heretics, there are some Catholics which would think the same of you.

However, your presentation of what you’ve read about Catholicism and present here on SF is often remarkably different than what I learned from talking to actual Catholics, seemingly to play the “ah ha, gotcha” game of the apologist verse seeking understanding, thus “there is nothing more essential to defend,” is what I had in mind when I wrote, “end up often violating and contradicting the very Word they seek uphold in the quest.”

Episcopalienated, I think the goal is to stop at 142 Articles. With an appendix. And footnotes….

I come from a Presbyterian background and I am very surprised at the reaction to the commonplace, Biblical designation of Mary as the Mother of God. And I am surprised by the hostility to Catholics - who have “stood firm” in the present day when our TEC is collapsing into a pile of rubble. When I joined TEC it was a perfectly acceptable practice to pray to saints, including Mary, for intercession. Members of my parish did and do.

I love Mary as my own mother and yet Marian devotion often makes me uncomfortable.  I “praise God from whom all blessings flow.”  Also, the near mandatory Protestant declarations against “worship of Mary” and of things uniquely Roman Catholic make me equally uncomfortable, as if I’m listening to Martin Luther rant against Jews as baby eaters.  It isn’t necessary to Protestant identity to be anti-Roman; this limits Protestant identity to a dialog with Rome ... or even with Medieval Rome’s excesses.As to the Communion of the Saints, I would suggest Scripture isn’t going to clarify this to everyone’s satisfaction.  However, I would add this thought.  God is capable of answering our prayers however He likes.  He is not bound to do so according to our own rules or expectations of how things work in time, within the causal chain.  We need not be concerned with chaos theory issues such that God might mess things up.  God’s ways are not our ways and prayer is not limited to a transactional model of give and take.  Therefore, it is perfectly possible to touch and be touched by God now with relational prayer and through Him, touch people in a different time.  For God, it isn’t a different time.  For God, the Final Resurrection is not waiting to happen.  Certainly, we do not converse with dead bodies.  The saints are not zombies ambulating about some holding area, mindlessly drooling else arrayed as mummies.  Why would we imagine that God would do something out of the mind of Steven King? Our God is the God of the living.  My poor words but touch upon the mystery of the Communion of the Saints.  We are baptized into this Communion and in it we have our life in Christ.

“The presence of the Archbishop of Canterbury indicates that mainstream Anglican and Catholic leaders remain committed to closer relations in spite of differences over the ordination of women and sexually-active gay men as priests and bishops.”

Sure.  That and the apparition of Our Lady of Suits from across the pond to B16 would get you a cup of coffee, if you had the legal fees payment.

As to why Williams did this, I think the suggestions above that he may be trying to make English Anglo-Catholics more comfortable may be part of it.  However, he’d be far better advised to find a way to save the Flying Bishop system, which would allow them to stay within the CofE.  Going to Lourdes is just for show as far as this is concerned.

Politics, friends!  If Anglican ethics are drifting form traditional Catholicity, need to shore up connections somewhere else.  “If Anglicans look more like Roman Catholics, maybe no one will notice or care about those sticky ‘morality’ questions!’”  Don’t forget, RW’s personal theology isn’t necessarily representative of the reality in the rest of Anglicanism.  That’s the disputed “genius” of the via media.

#50: “…she cant hear us!!!”

If a person’s conscience will not allow him or her to join their prayers with the prayers of the saints, then they should not ask Saint Mary or the other saints to pray for them.  Pure and simple. 

However, I do not think that they should trouble others who are able to do so.  The objections to asking the saints to pray for us are so recent in the history of the Church, and these objections are from such a limited number of theologians that they can hardly be normative or prescriptive for Christians.  If the Vincentian canon is useful at all, it is certainly useful here in dealing with the novelties of a few northern European theologians, and their followers from the second half of the second millennium. 

Where does the Bible say that saints do not “hear”  us? Where does the Bible say that the saints are dead?  Where does the Bible say the saints are upstairs or somewhere else?  Where is any of that made clear in the prayer book?

When I read the Bible it seems the saint are quite alive in the God of the living who is not the God of the dead. (Mark 12:27) “For to your faithful people, O Lord, life is changed, not ended.” (Book of Common Prayer, 382).

It also seems that the saints are very much with us. As in Hebrews 121:1 ”Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us.”

Certainly they are praying for us as we read in the Book of Common Prayer O God, the King of saints, we praise and glorify your holy Name for all your servants who have finished their course in your faith and fear: for the blessed Virgin Mary; for the holy patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs; and for all your other righteous servants, known to us and unknown; and we pray that, encouraged by their examples, aided by their prayers, and strengthened by their fellowship, we also may be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light; through the merits of your Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. page 504

As in Revelations 5:8  “And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”

Or,8:3-4 “And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne;
and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.”

Can blessed Mary the ever-virgin Mother of God and the other saints “hear” us?  Where does the Bible say that they cannot “hear”  us?

If we are one body, if we are living branches of one vine, if God’s “children are united one to another, and the living to the dead,” (Book of Common Prayer, 430) then it seems to me that the saints can “hear” us indeed.  Otherwise, for what or whom are they praying for before the throne?(Revelations)  What are they witnessing? (Hebrews)

As Clement of Alexandria wrote in 208:  “In this way is he always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him.”

Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin

Thank you, Father Einerson.

Many of the differences between Catholic and Protestant are first order.  That is why Luther stood his ground. 

Yet Luther believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception.  It is MODERN Protestants who have deviated from 1500 years of the teachings and traditions of the Church who have put rejection of these ideas, largely falsely, into the mouths of the Reformers.

“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.”

“Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.

Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

Many thanks to Fr. Einerson & Catholic Mom!

For what it’s worth, I am sure carl is absolutely right here.

He has not, incidentally, said that Catholics are not Christians, only that the Reformation was necessary, which as an Anglican I believe it was.

For the first three centuries of the existence of the Anglican church, the sentiments expressed on this blog would have been incomprehensible to Anglicans. It is only since the inroads of the Oxford Movement that such ideas have been given house room within Anglicanism.

Whatever modern prayer books say, you won’t find this stuff in 1662 or in the 39 Articles.

William S, welcome to the Nestorian Church, and may the anathemas of the Fathers sit lightly upon you.

Not.

The Bible does not say that the departed saints cannot hear us—but it does say that for a Christian to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord - with a focus on the Lord, and not on those yet to arrive in heaven.

The “witnesses” of Hebrews are those who can testify to the faithfulness of Christ - they aren’t watching us, rather, we should be mindful of their faith and of their example.  (I will admit that the Greek is ambiguous - they could be observing - but we cannot forget that “witness also means that they serve as a testimony.)

The “prayers of the saints” in Revelation can equally mean the prayers of believers still on earth, suffering under persecution, and pleading with God for faithfulness and for relief.  “Saints” in Scripture does not mean super-Christians who have died; it simply means those who belong to God through faith in Jesus.

I look at it this way:  We need all the help we can get, and if it means asking the saints to help us, then what harm is there in asking them for that help?  Saintly Intercession now and then sure doesn’t do any harm!

Katherine [#70], I don’t think the ABC or others on the pilgrimage to Lourdes think(s) it is “just for show.”  Lourdes is a place of healing and this group, including Rowan Williams himself, has been injured, despite his best efforts as ABC to protect them in the COE.  They are also there as guests of the Roman church, itself a simple comfort to them, undoubtedly.

“The saints are not zombies ambulating about some holding area, mindlessly drooling else arrayed as mummies.”  monologistos (where are those smilie things?)  A wonderful post [#68] for the communion of saints.  Thank you.

William S [#55], “Christ-bearer” is interesting in that it would seem to check certain misunderstandings many might associate with “God-bearer”.  Yet would it be worst to think of Christ apart from the Trinity?  I can understand our desire to hold onto Christ, to keep him in our beautiful and familiar home.  But God’s purpose is different than our reflexive instinct or perceived needs and so we must admit that a Christ bearer is also our God-bearer.  God the Trinity entrusted part of itself to Mary.  Very hard to understand, but so incredible.

PM [#56], Joseph is very intriguing.  Aside from his protection, provision, love and care, I think both he and Mary must have been of the House of David.  If so, why both?  I think it must be because it took the care of both parents to convey the human contribution to God’s plan, which would have been too great for any one alone to bear.  It suggests that God’s redeeming humanity seeks every possible avenue since it works through the Davidic line of both parents, not merely one or the other.  I am not sure how exactly, but I think it is related to Christ as the Lord of history, including the history of Israel in particular, and that redemption means that the past and people in it is/are redeemed.  Thinking about Joseph has its own difficulties, but somehow I think he has to represent God’s action in history and he also represents, implicitly, the communion of the saints as well.  What are your thoughts about Joseph?

This would concern me. Knowing that the RC church has several doctrines that are totally contrary to Scripture, I could not in good conscience lead anyone to their doorstep.

In comparison to what?  the multitude of erroneous and unscriptural teachings being promulgated by TEC? 
Compared to some of the statements made by KJS over the last five years, Roman Catholicism is a bastion of orthodoxy.

My what of can of Worms this is!  Do we need to go on a Diet?

“Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.

Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

Luther was not infallible. (Even Calvin is fallible ) 

Only Scripture is infallible.

Luther also was partially operating from a corrupt translation, the Vulgate bible.  The same error occurs in the official RC Douay Rheims Bible, though I’m told that newer RC bibles have corrected the gender error along lies similar to (KJV) (bold added for emphasis):

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity
    Between you and the woman,
    And between your seed and her Seed;
    He  shall bruise your head,
    And you shall bruise His heel.”

I agree with Matt+ that Mary is worthy of our respect, even our love, as Christ’s mother. But we should look to scripture for our understanding of Mary, not 150 years of papal embroidery.

This is where Rowan Williams has gone off the rails, and it’s every bit as troubling as PB Schori mangling Matthew 14:6

#80 Seen-too-much
“What are your thoughts about Joseph?”
I raised the question because a lot of people bang on about Mary but there is little about Joseph.  You make a useful point about them both being of the House of David in fulfilment of the prophesies and I suppose his unsung role is that he not only headed the family but organised their escape from Herod and presumably trained Christ as a carpenter - a period until Christ’s ministry described in the Gospels of which we know little.  Even during Christ’s ministry there a references to Mary; but of Joseph?

On the central issue, I have heard Roman Catholics embarrassed at the emphasis on Mary.  As a CofE Anglican I can’t go along with anything that suggests that I need intercession from anybody, Mary, Saints, priests or whoever.  Christ is the intercessor with the Father.  I think anything else runs the risk of being a sidetrack to the real Good News.  I certainly cannot go along with some views I have heard expressed [although not on this thread] that we are unworthy to pray directly to the Godhead.  We are able to do so because of Christ’s actions and we are instructed to do so directly bringing our praise and our prayers as often as we can.

Mary and Joseph are to be honored and there is a message for us in their witness, as there is in that of the Saints….but that is all.

[74] Catholic Mom,

You wrote

Yet Luther believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Assumption, and the Immaculate Conception.  It is MODERN Protestants who have deviated from 1500 years of the teachings and traditions of the Church who have put rejection of these ideas, largely falsely, into the mouths of the Reformers.

There is but one word in English that captures my reaction to you comment. It is, I am told, often heard in the Parish Hall of some Catholic Churches, not to mention in a fairly large number of non-Catholic, and even wholly secular locales. The word to which I refer is BINGO!

ISTM that every church (i.e., ecclesial community), if it is not to fall into heresies, requires an embodied mechanism the responsibility of which is to guard and teach the doctrines of that church. There is some sense in which parts of the Anglican Communion have embodied this in what I came to see just this morning in the shower as the magisterium of the individual. I have seen it expressed on this very forum (SFIF), by ardently protestant posters who insist that if they are not convinced of the rightness of a particular teaching based on their understanding of scripture, then they cannot accept it, irrespective of the source of the teaching. And some of those I have read do so because they believe that they have to be able, personally and individually, to understand and intellectually concur in the theological arguments upon which the teaching is based. And the most intriguing part is that many of them firmly believe that they do not, and will not, be mistaken in any result so determined.

Doctrine thus constrained ineluctably becomes the source of a multiplicity of faiths identifying themselves as Christians, but each one a function one, or a few, individual’s ability to translate, understand, reason, comprehend and accept. There are almost as many such combinations of abilities as there are living humans on the face of the earth. The only reasons, at least of which I can readily conceive, that there aren’t equally many Christian denominations are (1) that not all humans are Christian, (b) not all Christian humans are called and willing to devote their working lives to language, exegesis and theology, and (c) not all Christians are so unthinkingly, and in my opinion unreasonably, convinced of the capability of their own intellect to grasp everything that God teaches in Scripture in all of its excruciatingly exquisite and complete intricacy and detail.

I firmly believe that what I have referred to as as the magisterium of the individual is a principal cause of the actions that have brought most of us here to read this blog, among others, and why parts of the Christian Church, including parts of the Anglican community of churches, are in the state that they are in.

At some point, if I am going to continue to grow into the full stature of Christ, I simply must submit myself to the teachings of a church and, in establishing which church that should be, my own personal limitations would seem to dictate that I do so by obedient listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather than to the dictates of my intellect. My own experience is that, when I am willing to do so, the Holy Spirit frequently enlightens my intellect in response to my obedience, enabling me to understand after the fact, as it were, why the Spirit has led me to a particular place at a particular time in my life. The real question is not, can I, of my own intellect, determine which community is “right”, but am I willing to give my assent and obedience to God.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

I wasn’t quoting Luther because I thought he was infallible.  With all due respect, I actually don’t care what Luther thought about anything.  However, there is a tendency for the average Protestant to believe, incorrectly, that devotion to Mary was some big heresy developed by the medieval Catholic Church which the Reformers came along and, thank God, weeded out.  In fact, devotion to Mary goes back to the earliest Christian traditions as can be seen by its existence in the very oldest Christian Churches (Coptic etc.)—those traditions which are largely uninfluenced by later developments in the Western Church.  And many of the Reformers did NOT reject all (or even most) of these beliefs. 

“Sola scriptura” has simply resulted in a long historical process of throwing out the Christian baby along with the bathwater if said bathwater could not be fully documented in scripture.  Which brings us to a blog in which Christians debate things that all Christians believed up to 500 years ago (and most Christians believe today.)  But, as someone recently pointed out here, the Apostles did not go out to “all nations” carrying a Book whereby they proved their teachings.  They came with teachings, some of which were subsequently recorded in a Book.

I can just see some of the folks on this blog arguing with St. Paul:  “Excuse me:  A lot of your doctrines seem to be novel.  We can’t find explicit proof of them in the Gospels.  Oh, you’re going to write them down and THEN they’ll become infallible?  PLEEZE!  No way are we going down THAT route!: 

Only two places in Scripture does the Greek word charitoo (Strong’s 5487) occur.  One is when Gabriel told mary she was ‘charitoo’ (highly favored, accepted) by God.

The second is Ephesians 1:6, “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us *accepted* (charitoo)in the beloved.” (KJV)

Mary is the Icon of the Church and the Magnificat is the Song or Confession of the Church, the Redeemed…the ones favored and accepted by God are also ‘Christ Bearers’, individually and corporately. 

By the power of the Holy Spirit, the seed of His Word is planted in our hearts and beings as His seed, The Living Word, was planted in Mary’s womb. 

Jesus is our vocation, our child to nurture, cherish, ponder, give birth to His Wordin our hearts.

He is the foundation of the church, our road, destination, our food and drink…our life, strength, hope, chief joy, our standard, goal, ideal…...- He is our everything, our source of life, reason for being ...He is more than a child to a mother…and loves us more than our mother and father’s ever could. (Psalm 27:10)
He has made us charitoo, acceptable to eternal and almighty God.

I firmly believe that what I have referred to as as the magisterium of the individual is a principal cause of the actions that have brought most of us here to read this blog, among others, and why parts of the Christian Church, including parts of the Anglican community of churches, are in the state that they are in.

An excellent post, Martial Artist. In America, especially, I think there is too much “have it YOUR way” about everything, especially faith. Humility and submission are harder to come by and it’s not a question of our choosing, but, as you rightly point out, of God leading.

Of course all of this talk about “private judgment” is nonsense. Romans use “private judgment” exactly as evangelicals do. They decide for themselves whether they will assent to and follow the teachings of the church and, often—depending on the Catholic—which teachings…seen any stats on contraception use lately?

An evangelical seeking to measure all things by scripture is precisely the same as a Catholic measuring all things by reference to Catholic doctrine…and often with similarly disparate results.

The “private judgment” argument is a canard. We all use it. We must. It is a necessary function of believing anything at all.

[62] Phil Snyder wrote:

The excesses of the Roman Catholics with respect to Mary do not, in any way, take away her rightful place as a saint who should be honored and respected.

The divine attributes assigned to Mary in the prayer ‘Our Lady of Perpetual Help’ do not constitute excesses.  They constitute idolatry.  This prayer is not an anachronistic unrepresentative sample.  Marian devotion is full of such sentiment, and it stands completely unrepudiated by Rome.

carl

[66] Hosea6:6

Yes, I realize you think Catholics are not Christians and heretics, there are some Catholics which would think the same of you.

I consider the Gospel of Rome as set forth in the Council of Trent to be a false gospel, and therefore consider those who hold to that gospel to be under the condemnation of Galatians 1.  Beyond this, I don’t make any pronouncement of the faith of another man.

We have for nearly three years on this weblog argued that truth is more important than unity when it comes to the apostasy of liberal Christianity.  Why does unity suddenly become paramount when that exact same standard is applied to Rome?  Cultural conservatism does not validate a religion.  Common opposition to the post-modern behemoth does not validate unity.  There must be unity in the Gospel.  Unity cannot be found between those who hold mutually exclusive gospels.

carl

In some high level sense of course you are right, Matt.  I have to use private judgement just to BE a Catholic, unless I’m living in the days of the Inquisition.  (Ah…the good old days but let’s not get distracted.)

But this is a lot different from me thinking that I have to learn Greek and Hebrew and spend four years in a seminary and puzzle out the truth of every possible Christian teaching in order to be a Catholic.

When I go to a doctor, of course I use “private judgement” if what he/she tells me seems contradictory or doesn’t make sense.  I will then try to check it out or seek another opinion.  And if the Catholic Church started spewing out what seemed to me to be patent nonsense, I’d probably question my membership in it. 

But I don’t try to be my own doctor and stay up nights scouring medical books to be sure that everything the doctor said was correct.  What would be the point of even going to the doctor if I were going to do that?  I’d just stay at home and make my own diagnoses.  And I don’t lie awake at night worrying that I need to scour 1,000 pages of the Catechism to be sure that some unsciptural heresy has not slipped in.  What would be the point of my even belong to the Church if I felt I had to do that? 

Contraception is a very interesting point you bring up, because, in fact, this is a teaching that can only very indirectly be supported by scripture.  I would say that praying to the saints has tremendously more basis in scripture and tradition than a ban on contraception does.  Nontheless, if a person with an open heart (open, because they believe that God is trying to guide them through the teachings of the Church, and not just by reading the Bible) is willing to read what the Church has to say about this, they may experience a conversion of the heart.  Or they may actually obey the Church WITHOUT an intellectual conversion, which follows later.

Of course the notion of “private judgment” has to be balanced by “submission to authority.” There are still basic and fundamental doctrines that I do not claim to understand nor have I exercised a private judgment in regard to them. Rather, they are basic to the Christian church and therefore I have accepted their truth in submission to my Lord and His Church. This is not to set thinking aside which I have not done, but rather to elevate submission to authority above “me” and “my private judgment.” Without proper balance you would have Christians “doing whatever they think is right in their own eyes/understanding.” In no time, you could get 30,000 denominations all believing they have it all right.

And when some anonymous blogger says the saints can’t hear my prayers but the creed contains the phrase “We believe in the COMMUNION of Saints” it is easy for me to know whom to trust more.—- That is the level of private judment I am most comortable with and which is most likely to keep me from grevious error.

Gospel of Rome as set forth in the Council of Trent

Well, that right there shows the root issue of your lack of charity to RC, Trent must me read through the eyes of VC2. Rome would say VC2 clarified, but if you want to say VC2 change the direction or other things, I’d agree. In Scripture that could be determined as a ‘repentance’ those I currently am in a situation where someone ‘can’t repent because they did nothing wrong, but will not do “x” again,’ well, that seems like a about-face to me ... thus the root word translated repentance, thus I’d be commanded to forgive by Scripture.

Use of one Catholic council without all the councils, then how THEY intrepid the councils but isolating a point, setting up as a straw man to knock down is not very respectful. Often, I find you in such distant disagreement from what actual Catholic say that I think you are in grave error and have very little clue what you are talking and find “Beyond this, I don’t make any pronouncement of the faith of another man,” not to be accurate statement.

I believe agape would demand we let Catholics alive today to speak for Catholics today and ask them questions and if ‘definitions’ are getting in the way to move to forcing whole concepts to be spelled out. Often I found in those three years a continue appeal to 1547, as if time froze and stood still. The Borgia popes probably typified the RCC at the time and the need for the Reformation, you will also find many RCC scholars today who will confess that they were some of the most evil men, however JPII has very little in common with Pope Alexander VI. Just maybe JPII is a better representation of what RCC believes today and Alexander Vi what it believed in 1500?

[86] Catholic Mom,

Assuming that your referenced comment was directed, at least in significant part, toward my [85], mine wasn’t really related to Luther at all, despite the fact that I didn’t exclude from my blockquote the first sentence, as I probably ought to have done. It was simply to remark on the implication in your prior comment about what you refer to in the latter comment as

throwing out the Christian baby along with the bathwater if said bathwater could not be fully documented in scripture

coupled with the concept that each individual Christian is his or her own authority on what constitutes a “proof” based on scripture.

And I fully concur with your emphasis on the importance of Sacred Tradition as an important source. My point was really intended to identify the assertion of the supremacy of individual judgment, which seems widespread in protestantism, as one of the causes of our present problems in many parts of the Body of Christ in western societies in general, and in our society in particular.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

yes and just as you set aside your own reservations to accept what you privately determine or judge to be right, the teaching of the church, so an evangelical habitually sets aside his or her own desires and longings in submission to what he or she determines to be right, the teaching of scripture.

Oh, wait, are you saying that the church speaks more clearly than scripture?

Is this Anti-Catholic Day on Stand Firm? I wish someone had told me so I could have dressed for it.

Oh, wait, are you saying that the church speaks more clearly than scripture?

To the non-theologically educated, yes, no doubt on many occasions.  Otherwise we wouldn’t have to send our kids to religious education, would we?  We’d just hand them a copy of the NT and they would no doubt have all of Christian theology worked out by the end of the week.  Well, or at least, each one of them would have their own version of it.

Martial Artist, I wasn’t referencing your post in my [85] post (I think) although I’m starting to get so tied up here that I can’t be sure.

so an evangelical habitually sets aside his or her own desires and longings in submission to what he or she determines to be right, the teaching of scripture.

Matt, your quote above is what I believe. I do set aside my own personal desires and longings in submission to what Scripture teaches. It’s Scripture that helps me determine what is right, NOT any denominational belief. I’m 53 years old. I didn’t get to this point easily. It took my having to search Scripture to help me discern what the heck was going on in the church I grew up in. It’s through this whole process that I came to the conclusion that I had to leave the Anglican Church. Some here call me a heretic due to my emphasis on Scripture to test all things. That doesn’t upset me in the least. We have been instructed in Scripture to test all things.

1 Thess 5:21     Test all things; hold fast what is good.

This Scripture is my guide in doing this.

2 Timothy 3:16     All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

This Scripture explains what I think has happened to the church I grew up in.

Zephaniah 3:2     She has not obeyed [His] voice, She has not received correction; She has not trusted in the LORD, She has not drawn near to her God.

Also, as I commented before, why was it the Apostles were sent to all nations, not to go door to door handing out copies of the NT, but to spread the teachings that they had received directly from Jesus?  If God had determined that all the truth that you ever needed to know was conveniently contained in one book and readily accessible to any reasonable person who reads it, why not have that book written BEFORE sending out the Apostles and just have them go around passing it out?  I don’t recall that Jesus established a Book, but a Church, and he embued that Church with such power and truth that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Is this Anti-Catholic Day on Stand Firm? I wish someone had told me so I could have dressed for it. wink

As an Anglican who is now Roman Catholic, I don’t think this thread is necessarily anti-Catholic, at least not in any sinister way. If Fr. Kennedy and the other Stand Firm bloggers believed as Catholics do, they would be Catholic . However, I think this and similar threads demonstrate just how evangelical and Protestant “realignment” Anglicanism is. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t most of the foreign bishops supporting the realignment evangelical? I think the shock of this post for many is just how different this vision of “conservative” Anglicanism is from what most of us thought constituted “conservative” Anglicanism. When I was an Anglican, I was conservative, but certainly on the more Catholic end of the spectrum. Honestly, I never met an Anglican that had issues with the title “Mother of God” until I started hanging out on conservative Anglican blogs.

Is this Anti-Catholic Day on Stand Firm? I wish someone had told me so I could have dressed for it.

Blessings oscewicee.  Oddly enough, I haven’t seen any “You Papists..” comments yet.  No one is bashing Catholic people (though there’s been some shots from the far side of the river) - we are arguing why Reformed Christians don’t agree with Mariology.

We express doubts over Rowan Williams swimming the Seine, like it wasn’t expected…

Martial Artist, Catholic Mom - that Luther segue was me, in counter to Cath. Mum’s playing the “Even Luther believed…” card.

Oh, well, lets not compare apples and oranges. Are you suggesting that you could hand a copy of the RC Catechism to a new convert and he would have his theology worked out in a week? I hope not.

No protestant teaches that teachers are unnecessary. We just don’t think they are infallible.

Right, which means that you have to spend a tremendous amount of intellectual energy trying to figure out which ones are right and which ones are wrong.  And, since your very salvation depends on it (well, actually salvation depending on getting your personal theology right is more of a Protestant thing than a Catholic thing—for example I don’t think YOU are going to hell ) this is a tremendous burden with no assurance that you won’t screw it up.

“Also, as I commented before, why was it the Apostles were sent to all nations, not to go door to door handing out copies of the NT…”

And then they died…leaving the NT…which has been and is being proclaimed in all nations.

“If God had determined that all the truth that you ever needed to know was conveniently contained in one book and readily accessible to any reasonable person who reads it, why not have that book written BEFORE sending out the Apostles and just have them go around passing it out?”

Hmmm. what an odd question. Are you under the impression that prots think the NT is anything OTHER than the teaching of the Apostles. Sure when they are alive they were sent to preach and teach. But then they died…making their preaching more difficult. So now, thanks to the Holy Spirit, we have the infallible teaching of the apostles with us still today in the New Testament.

“I don’t recall that Jesus established a Book, but a Church..”

No, you are right. He did not establish a book. Although he certainly used the Book available to correct the his church. He promised, however, that his infallible teachings would be carried on through the 12 and those apostles he would appoint. And so they were. Hence the New Testament.

“and he embued that Church with such power and truth that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.”

Yes, and he set it on the foundation of the apostles and prophets…and we know what happens to houses without foundations.

#100, to begin with, there were no printing presses then. All teaching was done by the Scribes “verbally”. The first 12 apostles were ordered to seek out the “lost sheep” those of the 12 tribes of Israel who had become lost to their identity due to exile with the Assyrians. The apostles were instructed to find them, to give them the Good News, and to move on. They were also told to shake the dust off their sandals and move on if they weren’t accepted in good favour.

It would have served no purpose to wait until the “book” was printed en mass before sending out the apostles. The apostles were direct witnesses to Jesus, and received their teachings DIRECTLY FROM JESUS!!! That’s the point that must not be overlooked. The Roman church at the time was very threatened by these apostles doing their job as Jesus commanded them to do. Why do you think they were martyred?

The “traditions” of the church are not reliable as sources to “test all things”. They are traditions of MEN, not God! Jesus thought very little of the traditions of men. The Scriptures are the Word of God, inspired (breathed) into the minds of the writers by God. God’s Word is TRUTH! That’s why we must check against Scripture anything that is questionable.

Some traditions may not be wrong, however, many are. These are ideas of men on how they prefer to do things. Some have been carried over from pre-Christian paganistic rituals. What matters in the end is whether the traditions of men support the TRUTH which is given to us in Scripture.

What an odd charicature?

“...which means that you have to spend a tremendous amount of intellectual energy trying to figure out which ones are right and which ones are wrong.”

As much energy as say an American Catholic might have to expend comparing the teaching at his or her local Catholic parish to that found in the Catechism…not sure if you’ve noticed but the average Catholic parish is not necessarily EWTN.

“And, since your very salvation depends on it”

Where on earth did you get this? Your salvation depends on faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Heh, I think that those who belong to the church that teaches it is a mortal sin to miss Sunday mass when it is possible to go ought not to cast stones with regard to the matter of scrupulosity and assurance of salvation
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007fea2.asp

The apostles were direct witnesses to Jesus, and received their teachings DIRECTLY FROM JESUS!!!

And the entire future of Christianity was dependent on their getting it right and being able to pass it on correctly, notwithstanding that they repeatedly got it WRONG when talking directly to Jesus himself.  So the Holy Spirit obviously gave them power beyond that which they possesed by their own nature.  But then they died and the Holy Spirit wasn’t able to give that power to anybody else?  So from then on everybody gets a book to read and may God have mercy on their souls because they’re going to hell if they get it wrong?  (You all have ONE TOUGH religion!:))

“But then they died and the Holy Spirit wasn’t able to give that power to anybody else?”

Nope, God did not promise it to anyone else.

For myself, the ABofC’s pilgrimage to Lourdes and his sermon are the most hopeful and encouraging thing to come out of Anglicanism in years. Perhaps the New Oxford Movement is a seed now planted and it may be through the intercession of Our Lady that she who said the yes that shattered the universe with the audacity of the incarnation may once again lead us back to Jesus. Christ is the Gospel and Mary leads us to the Gospel. Wherever Mary is honored and loved her Son is worshiped and adored. As at the wedding in Cana, her word’s remain “Do whatever he tells you.” May it be so.
http://societies.anglican.org/anglocatholic/som/
http://www.walsinghamanglican.org.uk/intro.htm
http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/ipsolg.htm

EWTN

</blockquote> Heh, I think that those who belong to the church that teaches it is a mortal sin to miss Sunday mass </blockquote>

Uh…I was taught that it was only a venial sin.  Oh &^%$!!  I need to get to confession FAST!  Let’s hope I don’t get in a car accident and die on the way there because of blogging when I should be watching the road.

Sorry, messed up the block quotes.  I meant to ask “What does EWTN mean?”

#110 I’d hope Anglo-Catholics in CoE are not fooled by this trip, after the decisions of the synod, Lambeth 2008, I’d say this trip maybe white-washing over the glaring movements away from the Faith Received with a ceremonial act for a day but complete undermining in the day-to-day.

Honestly, I never met an Anglican that had issues with the title “Mother of God” until I started hanging out on conservative Anglican blogs.

I didn’t realize it was a problem here until today. It wasn’t a problem in the Presbyterian church I grew up in either. So it took me by surprise.

#114, I’m another one. I was raised Anglo-Catholic, and yes, when I read the headline of this thread I was indeed shocked!!!!! Never in my 50+ years in the Angican church have I had Mary referred to me as “Mother of God”. She was just the virgin maiden who God chose to give birth to the incarnate Jesus. She was never given veneration above any other human being. Yes, the Catholics all around us talked about all these things, but we Anglicans did not. We refuted such teaching.

#114 wrote:
“Honestly, I never met an Anglican that had issues with the title “Mother of God” until I started hanging out on conservative Anglican blogs.”
I too have been shocked by how many people here find this problematic. I think this demonstrates that the Anglo-Catholics are going to have to be very careful in whatever future Orthodox Province they belong to.
I have been just as pleased by the many robust and heartfelt defences for devotion to Our Lady here too I must say. But it is obvious that the old catagories of anglo-catholic, high-church, broad-church, and low-church hold true even in postmodern Anglicanism.

But to make the point seriously, suppose a Protestant goes to his minister and asks “is an abortion [or, let’s say, use of stem cells] OK in such and such a circumstance?”  And the minister replies “it’s the teaching of this Church that it is.”  Now the word “abortion” or “stem cells” never appears in the Bible, so the person reads the Bible for themselves but can’t make up their mind as to whether the minister is right or wrong.  Would this not be a “salvation” issue that would put a tremendous burden on the individual to determine for themselves God’s will in this matter?  In fact, isn’t that why so many SFIF bloggers contend that KJS et al are imperiling souls?  Even the souls of those who have “faith in Jesus Christ” (what you state is the determinant of salvation?)

Mugsie wrote:
“I was raised Anglo-Catholic, and yes, when I read the headline of this thread I was indeed shocked!!!!! Never in my 50+ years in the Angican church have I had Mary referred to me as “Mother of God”. She was just the virgin maiden who God chose to give birth to the incarnate Jesus. She was never given veneration above any other human being. Yes, the Catholics all around us talked about all these things, but we Anglicans did not. We refuted such teaching.”
Sorry to tell you that it is quite impossible for you to have been raised Anglo-Catholic and not been exposed to any devotion to Mary. Quite Possible you were raised High Church but most certainly there is no kind of Anglo-Catholicism (and their are variances) that does not promote and hold in high esteem veneration of Mary and the saints, it’s intrinsic to the very esence of being Anglo-Catholic. Too often people think they are Anglo-Catholic when really they are High-Church or ritualist oriented.

But it is obvious that the old catagories of anglo-catholic, high-church, broad-church, and low-church hold true even in postmodern Anglicanism.

Actually, I never heard any of those “versions” of the Anglican Church used until I started to research what I believed was troubling teachings here in a TEC parish. This whole “broad” thing is totally foreign to me. The church I grew up in was actually quite narrow in what it would accept. It was very authoritarian. Our services were very catholic, but our beliefs and profession of faith were very UN-catholic. You would think you were in a Catholic church except there was no praying to Mary or any other saints. We did not light candles to pray. We did not have statues of the saints. We only had the crucifix. Believe me, I grew up with many family and friends who were RC and visited their churches. Yes, there were similarities in the way the church was set up. However, the statues, the praying with candles, and many of the things they said in their liturgy were VASTLY different from what I was raised with.

Mugsie, we’re shocked from opposite sides of the fence. I appreciate folks explaining why it bothers them, but I don’t share that perspective.

I was taught about high church, broad church and low church before I joined TEC. (Sometimes I think there are real advantages to coming to a faith as a convert.) And I agree, archangelica that they are still with us, but it looks like the via media will be a victim of splintering.

But to make the point seriously, suppose a Protestant goes to his minister and asks “is an abortion [or, let’s say, use of stem cells] OK in such and such a circumstance?” And the minister replies “it’s the teaching of this Church that it is.” Now the word “abortion” or “stem cells” never appears in the Bible, so the person reads the Bible for themselves but can’t make up their mind as to whether the minister is right or wrong.

Actually what you ask here goes to the very core of Christianity. No, the word “abortion” is not in Scripture, BUT the 6th Commandment is. “Thou Shalt Not Murder.” That’s all I need to know to discern that abortion is wrong. It’s killing a human life, created by God.

As to “stem cells”, again the Scriptures make it clear that God The Father Almighty is the Creator of all things, including human life. There is no evidence in the Bible to support “stem cell” research. There’s lots about how God created us in “HIS OWN IMAGE”. God made us and he made us Holy. Man was created good. The creation of Man is sacred. I don’t want to even think of such things as “stem-cell” research. It goes against everything I believe. It was Adam and Eve who removed the Holiness from man through their sins and being cast out of the Garden of Eden. Due to their sinful acts all of mankind is now separated from God.

This is a very deep area which I could never address well in this blog. However, I hope what I’ve said here helps some.

I didn’t realize it was a problem here until today. It wasn’t a problem in the Presbyterian church I grew up in either. So it took me by surprise.

That’s probably because you grew up Presbyterian. RC Sproul does a wonderful informative lecture on Maryology that RC would probably enjoy listening to without reservation. Anglicans have been under the “Elizabethan Settlement” and the truth is that we often can’t stand each other and have made the enemy be those in the other camp. I personally think the Liberal takeover is in part because we spent so much time “shooting” those in other camp to not see what was happening. So in a sense it’s funny that RC didn’t say “Calvinist soul shivers” but a Calvinist in the Anglican tradition did.

But my question was not whether or not anyone could discern from the scriptures that abortion was wrong.  It was that there could be (and are) various teachings on the subject, and how, (outside of a magesterial Church) except by individual study of the scriptures and discernment, could one be sure what the truth was?  Matt says that you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, thereby suggesting that selecting a “teacher” who teaches the truth is not a matter of salvation, provided one has faith in Jesus.  I’m asking if he would hold that to be true, even in the case of a teacher teaching that abortion (or homosexuality) was OK, and, if all that is needed for salation is “faith in Jesus Christ” why do bloggers on SFIF say that TEC leaders are imperiling souls by promoting homosexuality?

#124 Actually Catholic Mom, yes, in fact Reformed types do not have a lock on systematic theology and spend several hours last spring having a great conversation with a Catholic PhD student who is specializing in Catholic systematic theology, which does have a remarkable resemblance to Protestant systematic theology. A difference is in RCC there is a final decision, so Catholics Against Capital Punishment are making very good theological arguments which Pat Buchanan could disagree and everyone still be a good Catholic, on Abortion, well, there really is no theological basis for it but even it one could be made, the has been an official position taken.

CM, souls capable of being damned are not justified souls. False teachers cannot lead justified sinners to hell. They can very well lead everyone else. So a church with a false teacher is a church bereft of the gospel and one in which the lost in the congregation are being led further from Christ and toward damnation.

The teacher of course is hell bound

I haven’t really got anything new to add, but since I want to Subscribe to this post, I’ll say it anyway.

The `excessive’ idolatry of Mary (in particular, though to a lesser extent the other saints) I see in the Roman Church is one of the principle reasons why I cannot swim the Tiber. By idolatry I don’t so much mean the theory, which I believe is mistaken but have yet to be convinced that it would be a bar to salvation (unless it degenerates further, as it may well do), but how the veneration is practised. Assumption, visitations: I don’t really care about, but though I don’t believe in one and question the other I see nothing to say that they could not have happened; Supplications: if you really insist, but I think you’ll be better off praying directly to the Father. I’m reminded of St Antony’s comment

48. When therefore he had retired and determined to fix a time, after which neither to go forth himself nor admit anybody, Martinian, a military officer, came and disturbed Antony. For he had a daughter afflicted with an evil spirit. But when he continued for a long while knocking at the door, and asking him to come out and pray to God for his child, Antony, not bearing to open, looked out from above and said, ‘Man, why do you call on me? I also am a man even as you. But if you believe in Christ whom I serve, go, and according as you believe, pray to God, and it shall come to pass.’

Perpetual virginity, immaculate conception: now you are starting to bend the natural reading of scripture a little too much for my taste, though perhaps not enough to prevent salvation; co-redemptress, co-mediator, sorry but that is idolatry, putting Mary in the place of Christ, but not yet official doctrine I suppose; making such trivialities an essential matter of Catholic doctrine: that I cannot abide. But my greatest concern is how easily the practice can and has led the uneducated astray, or put the uninitiated off the church. I’m fairly simple minded about these things: If it looks like idolatry, smells like idolatry, sounds like idolatry, feels like idolatry, and has a big neon sign flashing overhead saying ``This is idolatry” (and it is unnecessary: most early Christian liturgies only mentioned Mary in the creed and when quoting the Magnificat. If the author of the apostolic constitutions could omit the sort of prayers that Romans offer, then so can I) - then there is at least a small chance that some of those people looking in who don’t know better (and possibly also some of those who do) are going to assume that it is actually idolatry.

Nonetheless, I was shocked to see the Baptist minister quoted in the article declare that calling Mary ``Mother of God’’ was against Protestant Orthodoxy. It’s not a term I use myself, but only because I see the term as ambiguous, and I hate ambiguity (when one of the interpretations is misleading). I prefer the Greek theotokos, which to my mind has less of the implication (a gross misinterpretation of the use of the term, but still a possible implication for somebody who does not know better) that Mary is the source of Jesus’s divine nature, or perhaps a sharer of the divine substance. But nonetheless, the term is part of the deposit of faith, given in the ecumenical councils, and, in its correct interpretation, essential to Christian belief. But, I thought that was only a Baptist. Can’t expect him to be too much of an expert on the fourth and fifth centuries Christiological controversies.

Then I saw this thread, and orthodox Anglicans condemning the term; and my shock was too much to express.

Denounce Rowan Williams if you like (and a lot of people seem to like it), but not over this.

EWTN:

http://www.ewtn.com/

This discussion underscores once again why no thoughtful and serious Anglo-Catholic will find any home in the brave new world envisioned by Fr. Kennedy and all too-many Anglican “evangelicals”. As for me, I have no trouble “venerating” one who is described in Scripture as “full of grace” and “blessed among women” because her obedience to God made possible the birth of my savior. And it is tragic that so many of us have to “defend” her - even insist that she was not tossed out of the church on Halloween 1517.

Is a TV station in Irondale, Ala., taken as the authoritative voice of Rome?

#130 Probably about as much as Carl, Matt Kennedy or David Ould are authoritative voices of Reformed Theology.

oscewicee,

uh, no, and neither did I suggest such a thing. It might help to re-read what I did say. Responding to CM’s suggestion that evangelicals must spend so much energy to find a right teaching church, I wrote…“sure..

“As much energy as say an American Catholic might have to expend comparing the teaching at his or her local Catholic parish to that found in the Catechism…not sure if you’ve noticed but the average Catholic parish is not necessarily EWTN.”

The point…as is fairly obvious…is that the Catholic orthodoxy exhibited on EWTN is not necessarily representative of the nature of your local Catholic parish and Catholics in some regions have to look long hard to find a catholic parish faithful to the catechism and teachings of the church…just like protestants.

Sorry, Fr. Matt - I missed the reference to EWTN in the earlier post. And I did wonder why it was being linked so much today. But you do seem to be offering it up as the gold standard by which catholicity would be measured?

not sure if you’ve noticed but the average Catholic parish is not necessarily EWTN.

Do you see any place in the hoped-for new province of North America for AngloCatholics?

Where can I found the treatment on Mary by R.C. Sproul? I am familiar with him (best treatment on worship/liturgy I’ve ever heard) and his website but can’t find this item. Please help. R.C. is my favorite contemporary Protestant theologian I reccomend his teachings to everyone here who wants to experience Reformed Theology in all it’s majesty.
http://www.ligonier.org/

oscewicee,

Yes, I do so long as both consciences are accorded respect. Does “respect” mean that we never argue and debate important theological issues. I certainly hope not.

#129,
<blockquote4> Exodus 3 You shall have no other gods before Me.  4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. </blockquote>
I think this says pretty clearly that we are not to bow down to “venerate” ANY graven (carved) image of ANYTHING on earth, beneath the earth, or in the water under the earth. That pretty much covers ALL carved images for me. To bow down to ANY image is to put it before God. I believe that. That’s why I find this “reverence” to Mary and her “image” so disturbing and cannot condone it.

What are they putting in the water there?

#137, who knows. I wouldn’t want to chance it myself. Ruth Gledhill said it made her sick. I guess that says something. This whole thing just reeks of satanic worship to me.

Archangelica - You may have to write them, I heard it some time ago, I was at this current job, so it’s been since 2001. Terms I remember RC using were, “Mary miniumus” and “Mary Maximus” in defining the different range of views of Mary’s role in the salvation plan, he took a minimum view but frame all in a second order debate. [He had a video that I saw this spring about Tent, in which he explained how it became Scripture and Tradition which was also eye opening (he presented as respectful to those arguing for Scripture alone at Trent (maybe like history looking at those who argued in favor of orthodoxy at GC03) which I’d also recommend checking out if you write].

Geisler & MacKenzie’s book <u>Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences</u> also has a chapter as a second order framed debate on the subject.

#135, Fr. Matt, no it doesn’t mean not arguing. But ... it’s hard sometimes to see that there is intended to be a space for Anglocatholics.

oscewicee,

Its interesting to look at the bishops in CCP at this point. You’ll notice that many if not most are AC or charismatic. There are a few straight up evangelicals but many that, say, an Anglo Catholic would categorize as evangelical lean more fully to the charismatic side of things than the evangelical. So I think the AC’s will have more pull than you expect. Note especially the 5 American CCP bishops who were last year all in TEC (now only 3 remain): +Duncan, +Iker, +Ackerman, +Beckwith, and +San Joaquin…nary a straight up evangelical in the bunch.

Salutary reminder, Fr. Matt.

While I love Our Lady dearly, and as a child dreamed about her and visits we had—- I’m being serious here—-I don’t think it is appropriate to worship her as a goddess, nor would she want to be in competition with her son. I think it appropriate to ask for intercession from the Saints, but not worship them. This all has an ick factor to me, but I don’t know why. There is Walsingham after all…

Frances Scott # 10 is really good.

AH, NO, Frances Scott #10 and Fr. Van, #144 - Rowan Williams has earned the contempt he receives the good old fashioned way, by his words and obstructive, subversive, covert and overt actions.

At least we manage to have a more or less civil discussion here on the matters at hand.  I think a thorough lesson in church history using scholarly material, other than from some evangelical bible school, should be mandatory for serious Christians.  Perhaps the work of Jarislav Pelikan.  Or even Roland Bainton, who, even as a Quaker, was a respectable scholar of the Reformation.  I do miss seeing him at his beach cabin and popping popcorn over the fire.  Between these times, when my mother and I went to hear T.S. Eliot speak and Bainton was Dean and more recent days when a certain Welsh canon with wild eyebrows was expounding on the Trinitarian Way and the Via Positiva of Teresa of Avila, the world has turned upside down for Yale Div.  What a mess.  Forgive me the nostalgia of memories.

Mugsie and many, many others,

If you want to see an Orthodox understanding of the Second Commandment, read http://www.waysha.com/faq.htm

Father Dean+

You got to hear Eliot speak, monologistos? I was thinking when I read the words of the Hail Mary in a post above of his “Ash Wednesday.” And, too, of:

Teach us to care and not to care
Teach us to sit still
Even among these rocks,
Our peace in His will

C’mon GA/FL, #145, what do you really think of ++++++ROWAN the visionary…

Here’s what I would like to happen to Rowan Williams…“A sword should pierce [his] soul…” (the Word)

Its interesting to look at the bishops in CCP at this point. You’ll notice that many if not most are AC or charismatic. There are a few straight up evangelicals but many that, say, an Anglo Catholic would categorize as evangelical lean more fully to the charismatic side of things than the evangelical. So I think the AC’s will have more pull than you expect. Note especially the 5 American CCP bishops who were last year all in TEC (now only 3 remain): +Duncan, +Iker, +Ackerman, +Beckwith, and +San Joaquin…nary a straight up evangelical in the bunch.

REALLY? I’d put +Duncan with the Evangelicals (more generic evangelical than Reformed though), who is that charismatic? I was actually concern more for them than the Anglo-Catholics, maybe because everything is framed “Evangelical/Catholic” but never drawing out the ‘flavor’ of evangelical so I thought they were poorly represented.

I think it’s time we put the labels away and stopped harping about the differences between us.  It DIVIDES us, and we don’t NEED this!

#147. I don’t really care what the “orthodox” understanding of the second commandment is. The bottom line is that it says what it says. It’s pretty clearly and simply written. Even a child would have no problem understanding what it says.

#152 Cennydd - Matt+ started it

Seriously—I’d disagree in the same way Matt+ did with:

Yes, I do so long as both consciences are accorded respect. Does “respect” mean that we never argue and debate important theological issues. I certainly hope not.

I do here you when we ALL too easily move over into “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos” anther “I follow Cephas,” type of behavior and ALL sides can be seen doing that.

If a handle helps communicate many logical constructs, then I think they are helpful, but only if we love and respect those different from us.

My favorite IGE’s Principles of Engagement is #1:

1. Know your maker - seek to understand God’s heart and make God’s passions yours. Know your faith at its deepest and richest best, and enough about your neighbor’s faith in order to respect it.

Not that I’ve seen too much “enough about your neighbor’s faith in order to respect it,” but then often we do forget that Scripture tells that we see only a mere reflection from a dim mirror but one day we will know as we are fully known (boy, won’t all us us be surprised).

#153:  Sorry;  I didn’t realize that you were dealing with this same issue on the neighboring blog.

Father Dean A. Einerson+
Rhinelander, Wisconsin

Hosea,

+Duncan identifies himself with the Catholic stream more than the evangelical stream. He, in fact, is the one who pointed me to the “Catholic” character of the CCP Bishops.

As for the charismatic stream…more than well represented in both the AMiA and CANA. Again, straight up non charismatic evangelical bishops are few and far between.

#153, Regarding you not caring what the Orthodox understanding of the Second Commandment is: The bottom line is that you refuse understanding because you are a child in the faith.  But you are welcome to milk ... nobody is forcing you to your knees before icons or saints or Mary.  And frankly, I doubt all creation, the Cherubim and Seraphim, the apostles, prophets and martyrs and all the company of heaven are greatly distraught at your concern.  We worship that which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life.  To Him, we bow the knee of the heart and we do not forget that the second commandment is like unto the first.  You also are created in the image of God and I reverence God in your image as the Spirit empowers me.  Nobody writing here is forcing you to grow older or making demands upon you but those Jesus calls friends are those who are able to eat solid food that they may cooperate with His working.Yes, Oscwicee, somewhere, probably in The Complete Poems, I have a newspaper clipping of him with myself and my mom visible in the gathering.  Eliot was a bit strange but a great deal of intellectual excitement accompanied his visit.

FWIW, I remember as a child, resenting having to say, “Lord, have mercy on me” or some such thing from the ‘28 BCP every day in chapel. I didn’t feel I needed mercy in Fourth Grade.    I remember resenting kneeling although I liked to kick up the kneelers so they banged when we stood.  I remember citing George Washington’s example of standing rather than kneeling. You might say I was a bit precocious and in fact I only behaved when serving at the altar so I was assured of many years of service from grateful adults.  No doubt I was a cause of many turning to prayer.  Lord have mercy!

In the discussion of +Duncan (151, 156, others upstream), there have been some really confusing reports in both MSM and blogs lately in which +Duncan is being commonly referred to as an “Evangelical” or even “the leader of Evangelical Christians in TEC”.  I also recall remarks from Bishop Duncan referring to himself as being in the Catholic tradition.  I had always assumed that he was of the early “affirming Catholic” mold- which is to say generally Catholic in matters other than WO (although accepting WO, of course, undermines one’s reliance on ecumenical councils in forming one’s ecclesiology).  I wouldn’t want that confused with the modern TEC “affirming catholic”- who is a graduate of the KJS school of theology with a minor in high church.

The message of the Virgin at Lourdes “I am the Immaculate Conception”  means the Virgin Mary was concieved by her parents without sin.  Does the ABC now accept this Roman Catholic dogma being TRUTH?  If he does he is not Protestant meaning protesting against the errors of Rome’s teaching that are not Biblical.

Josip, I think the best clues to what the archbishop meant are in his speech not the tabloid-ish newspaper. If you scroll up, Pageantmaster has kindly posted a link to the text of the speech.

#156 Thank you for your reply, Matt+,

I guess Anglo-Catholic is a vague as Evangelical in terms of meaning anything. I’d say not because of his support of WO is not in line with the priest “representing (as in reminding)” Christ and breaking from Tradition. Then we have no court to test if any Reformed are TR and thus none if any are TC either. I guess we’re mutts.

The CANA & AMiA thing is strange from the inside of both. Except for a tambourine, I’ve +Minns is more Evangelical than Charismatic in my opinion (apparently Truro was much more Charismatic when Howe was there from conferences given and other people’s remarks), once when I was offended by a Anglo-Catholic remark, a vestry member hinted that ++Akinola may be more Catholic than I think, so not to worry about it. I’ve only met +Thad Barnum, if preaching style is an indication, combine Evangelical exegesis with Charismatic zeal, climbing on pews, got that finger action going (I think a mass with +Thad preaching and +Martyn as celebrant might be either a dream-team to some or sensory overload to others), but the Rwandan bishops I’ve met have been more straight Evangelical which might taint my thinking.

+John Guernsey is certainly more Charismatic than +Minns in my opinion, shamefully¹ I do not know much about the other ICON bishops (such as in yours), REC ones I’d think would be “straight up non charismatic evangelical bishops,” but again, shamefully¹ I’m still learning about this partner (hey, I’ve visited a parish at least).

¹ See above about the first principle of engagement.

Eastern Orthodoxy repudiates the dogma of Immaculate Conception although most believe the Holy Spirit made her perfect in some spiritual sense of being full of grace ... which doesn’t mean she had everything figured out.  If Mary was born with a special opt out of Original Sin, it puts her outside of humanity which has implications for Jesus’ humanity.  Mary’s specialness was not that she was born without sin but that she became sinless by grace, as we are all called to be made perfect by sanctification by the Holy Spirit even as our Father in heaven is perfect.  Frankly, I don’t expect to make it in this life as I am a bit backwards.The rules for iconography are much like the rules for exegesis.  When the icon of Mary is written with red and blue clothing, blue is always on the inside garment with red put on over that.  This is because red represents divinity, blue, humanity.  Jesus is written oppositely.  I say ‘written’ because Icons are not supposed to be art projects but similar to scripture, portraying either subjecs from the canon of Holy Scripture else canonized saints.

After spending 4 years saluting a monument to fallen soldiers, 26 years pledging aledgence to a flag, years visting the monuments and preserved houses of presidents, battle fields where men have fallen in defense of our country, and the graveyards where they lay, it finally occured to me, celebrating as holidays significent events in the life of our nation… 

If one can give so much respect to the heroes and symbols of one’s nation, why not the heroes and symbols of one’s faith?  I hope the iconoclasts are at least consistent in their faith and sit during the National Anthem, turn their backs during the Pledge, and spit on the Lincoln Memorial.

Sorry, I suppose I phrased that too strongly and in an uncharitable way. 

To quote from the page linked earlier
Orthodox Christians do not worship Icons in the sense that the word “worship” is commonly used in modern English.  In older translations (and in some more recent translations in which the translators insist on using this word in its original sense), one finds the word “worship” used to translate the Greek word proskyneo (literally, “to bow”). Nevertheless, one must understand that the older use of “worship” in English was much broader than it is generally used today, and was often used to refer simply to the act of honoring, venerating, or reverencing.  For example, in the old book of common prayer, one of the wedding vows was “with my body I thee worship,” but this was never intended to imply that the bride would worship her husband in the sense in which “worship” is commonly used now.(For more on the use of the English word “worship” as it relates to Icons, see:  http://www.orthodox.co.uk/worship.htm)

Orthodox Christians do venerate Icons, which is to say, we pay respect to them because they are holy objects, and because we reverence what the Icons depict.  We do not worship Icons any more than Americans worship the American flag.  Saluting the flag is not exactly the same type of veneration as we pay to Icons, but it is indeed a type of veneration.  And just as we do not venerate wood and paint, but rather the persons depicted in the Icon, patriotic Americans do not venerate cloth and dye, but rather the country which the flag represents.

5. Doesn’t the 2nd Commandment forbid Icons?

The issue with respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated “graven images” mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment.  Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews—and when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as “eidoloi”, i.e. “idols.” Furthermore the Hebrew word pesel is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general.Let’s look at the Scriptural passage in question more closely:

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them…” (Exodus 20:4-5a).

Now, if we take this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the Temple violate this command.  If we limit this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies to all images—then even the picture on a driver’s license violates it, and is an idol.  So either every Protestant with a driver’s license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of “graven images” lets simply look at what this text actually says about them.  You shall not make x,  you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x.  If x = image, then the Temple itself violates this Commandment.  If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons.

8. If Icons are so important, why do we not find them in the Scriptures?

Ah, but we do find them in the Scriptures—plenty of them! Consider how prevalent they were in the Tabernacle and then later in the Temple. There were images of cherubim:

On the Ark—Ex. 25:18
On the Curtains of the Tabernacle—Ex. 26:1
On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31
Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1st Kings 6:23
On the Walls—1st Kings 6:29
On the Doors—1st Kings 6:32
And on the furnishings—1st Kings 7:29,36

12. Weren’t there Iconoclasts in the Church, long before Protestants came along?

It is important to keep in mind, when considering the question of Icons (and thus also Iconoclasm), that there are two separate questions that are often confused:

1).  Is it permissible to make or to have Icons?
2).  Is it permissible to venerate them?

It is clear from the Old Testament that the answer to both questions is, Yes. While Protestants, however, object to the veneration of Icons, they typically do not object to the making or possession of images.  If they did, they would not have illustrated Gospel tracts, TV’s, or pictures… but aside from the Amish, one would be hard pressed to find another group of Protestants that consistently eschews images.  Protestants do typically object to the veneration of images, but interestingly the arguments and evidence that they use almost always argues against any images of any kind, if the logic of their line of argumentation were consistently followed.The Iconoclasts, who are often cited by Protestants as supporting their position on this question, in fact actually argue against Protestants. On the one hand, the Iconoclasts anathematized all those who “venture to represent…with material colours…” Christ or the Saints—something almost all Protestants do themselves.

[152] Cennydd wrote:

I think it’s time we put the labels away and stopped harping about the differences between us.  It DIVIDES us, and we don’t NEED this!

But this statement assumes that which is not yet in evidence - the answer to the question that has remained unanswered throughout this thread: “What is the basis of unity?”  Upon what foundation can a conservative Catholic and a conservative Protestant co-exist?  I fear the basis is simply the common enemy   of the post-modern world.  But that is no true basis.  The traditional Mormon and I both have a common enemy in the post-modern world.  But there is no spiritual union between Mormonism and Christianity because there is no common faith between them.  What other basis exists besides common faith?  Do I have a common faith with a Roman Catholic? Is the conflict between Sola Fide and Faith plus Works truly adiaphora?  Is a conflict that exists at the very heart of the Gospel really a second order difference?

carl

Carl, have you read any of Pope Benedict’s writing?

Carl ... wow ... how completely TR of you ...

Hosea6:6, mind defining TR for the rest of us?

Teddy Rosevelt, perhaps?

Roosevelt, I mean.

TR means ‘Truly Reformed.’  It was actually a compliment. 

carl

Lets bring in some insight from Nashotah House
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RHrjE8RhU3I 

[169] oscewicee

Unless Benedict infallibly repudiates Trent, I am not sure why his other writings matter. 

To find common ground with Protestants he must get around Trent’s infallible anathemas placed upon the Reformation and by extension all Protestants.  (OK, technically Trent only anathematized Catholics who might believe those doctrines because Protestants were already under anathema for being outside the One True Church.) Trent is the official infallible teaching of the Church.  To be a Roman Catholic is to believe Trent.  He can’t ignore it.  He can’t successfully twist Trent to mean other than what it says.  There is too much evidence to the contrary.  A re-interpreted Trent would be a de facto admission that Rome was wrong.  Would he then have to repudiate Trent?  But how does Benedict repudiate Trent without repudiating Vatican I?  And if he repudiates Vatican I, how does he salvage the authority of the Magisterium?  It is a conundrum for which there is no answer. This is the price that comes with declaring an authority over Scripture.  One must live with the infallible consequences.

Of course, the RCC might try to do what did with the doctrine of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus.  It might just change the teaching and then deny a change was made.  But the only purpose that would serve is to protect the authority of the Magisterium.  And I see no reason why a Protestant should play that game.  If Rome is wrong, then Rome should admit it is wrong.

carl

Well, of course Rome is wrong.    OK, now that we have settled that… time for prayers.

Regarding Pope Ratzinger’s view of the Reformation and the Council of Trent, allow me to recommend his “Principles of Catholic Theology” (Ignatius 1987), especially the chapter entitled “The Key Question in the Catholic-Protestant Dispute:  Tradition and Successio Apostolica.” Needless to say, Ratzinger therein upholds both what is of value in the Reformation critique and the integrity of the Tridentine decrees.  Without making any vain attempt to summarize his thought, let me just quote one provocative sentence:  “I am convinced that we will make progress today, not by turning away from Trent, but only by a radicalization of what is to be found there.”  (Pp. 265-66.)

carl, you seem to be saying that Rome is wrong because Trent says the Protestants are wrong.  That requires an a priori assumption that the (take your pick)-  39 Articles, Book of Concord, Confession of Augsburg, Westminster Confession, etc etc etc got it right.

Yes, Truly Reformed is what presbyterian apparently fight about, the Big Evangelicals which the Truly Reformed think are polluting the faith, but there are the presbyteries to actually hold court and make judgment calls, almost like a local magisterium.

I’m not sure how much it’d be a complement if a basterized Anglo-Cath declared any one TR, but this is beginning to read like a “one theological hammer and everything looking like a nail” of a different ilk.

Since Dr. RC Sproul+, professor and pastor in the Reformed Tradition seems to treat Rome more like Sarah Hey, (disagrees but does not think their heretic. My pastor graduated from RTS, Orlando, was a dean at a RTS campus, but studying for PhD at CUA, another has his MDiv from Westminster Theological Seminary, not only is in a PhD program but teaches at Catholic University (neither weirded me out, the guy from Moody to CUA did stretch my comprehension a little). While I don’t think CRI is a Reformed think tank, they certainly are Evangelical and I’ve read several of their papers which seem to completely disagree with Carl’s presentation of Rome (directly addressing is Rome is the worlds largest cult, they conclude that they disagree with Rome, but no they are Christians and not the world’s largest cult).

So either Carl is really and truly more Reformed than all these other people, who then must be in grave error and polluting the faith or maybe he has an inferiority complex and needs to prove himself TR. Hey, not that I’d have much creditability but sure if it’s a TR stamp you desire, I’ll give it.

WOW ... such complete Truly Reformed thinking, boy, that sticks it to the 1550 Catholics!!

[FYI - Vatican Council II did effectively infallibly repudiates Trent in may ways, but Catholics would term it differently. If you want proof, watched the reaction of the Ultra-Traditionalist to VC2, or even search on the Anti-CCC folks, they are all up in arms and hate it. Historians will probably mark a new category from that point because it was such a sea change, though it’s effects still have not been completely felt as this is more like turning an aircraft carrier than a destroyer].

Jesus built His Church step by step, layer by layer, from the foundation up in its essential form before He left the earth and when the Paraklete came at Pentecost.

The first step/layer is The Foundation of the Revelation that Jesus is Lord, Christ, Messiah (Peter on Mt. of Transfiguration).  This is the gift of faith, and it is an act of God.  No one can believe unless it is given to him/her from above.  No one can say the creeds without crossing their fingers unless they have received the revelation and faith that Jesus is Lord.

Second comes first love devotion for God, Father, Son, Holy Spirit (symbolized by Christ on the Cross giving Mary, Icon of the Church, to John, the disciple who loved Him)

Third after the first two are settled, comes Shepherding, the care, protection, teaching, doctrine, discipline and governance of the flock/Church (symbolized by the interaction and mandate given to the unschooled fisherman, Peter, emphasizing that the Word and Kingdom, God’s ways are higher, spiritual, supernatural, transcendent, antithetical to human knowledge and reason)

Third, mission and fruit of the first three (ironically, Paul, rabid, zealous against the Church was tapped to be the messenger, missionary to the gentiles, to the unclean world)

The RCC has added a multitude of embellishments, curliques, gildings, to the essential Church form and structure and made it Baroque at best and at times a bit Rococo.
The RCC and the Protestants have been both too man-centered - too centered on personalities of popes and saints, evangelists, reformers…

There have been many divergences and distractions from the heart of God’s intentions just as the Jews had done to the law and practice of worshipping and living in God’s will by the time Jesus confronted them - but still the problems and superfluities are enough to separate the Body and diminish its unity.

[179] Hosea6:6 wrote:

Since Dr. RC Sproul+, professor and pastor in the Reformed Tradition seems to treat Rome more like Sarah Hey, (disagrees but does not think their heretic.

This assertion is incorrect.  R C Sproul considers the RCC to be a false church containing significant truth.  That’s why Sproul wrote “Getting the Gospel Right.”  It was a repudiation of ECT, and a defense of the essential nature of Sola Fide. 

If Rome is not a visible valid church, is it possible that within her membership there are Christians, members of the invisible church?  Surely the answer must be “Yes!”  It is not only possible, but highly likely, especially in light of the cross-communication between Protestants and Catholics   in our day, that there are multitudes of people within the Roman Catholic Communion who belong to Christ and are part of the mystical body, the church, if only in its invisible incorporation.

RC Sproul
Getting the Gospel Right
Page 22

And if Vatican II effectively infallibly repudiated Trent, someone should really notify the writers of the Catholic Catechism.

carl

I’m coming very late to this thread, but I’ll just venture a few quick comments, which I won’t try to argue but simply assert for now.

1.  There is a wide spectrum of opinion and practice when it comes to Marian devotion within Anglicanism as well as Roman Catholicism.  Walsingham is a Marian shrine to which many Anglicans go on pilgrimage.  I haven’t been there myself (yet), but I hope to pay a visit there someday.  At Nashotah House (Dean Munday or others can correct me if I’m wrong), they regularly say “the Angelus,” another form of Marian devotion.  On the other hand, there are certainly plenty of Anglicans outside Sydney who are utterly opposed to any such Marian piety as virtually (if not actually) idolatrous.

2.  As someone who describes himself as a “3-D” Christian (evangelical, catholic, and charismatic), I am proud to be both a loyal alumnus of that bastion of evangelical Protestantism, Wheatonh College (where a much-loved faculty member in the Philosphy department who converted to Roman Catholicism was summarily fired several years ago), and a loyal son of the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Albany.  So I’m sympathetic to both sides.  All I’ll say here is that I myself sometimes pray the rosary (with all those endless Hail Mary’s), but I reject the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception as tending to undermine Our Lady’s need for salvation, like all the rest of us.

3.  Even though I am passionately committed to the New Reformation, I am FAR from being anti-Catholic.  After all, there was a Catholic Reformation too, and I consider Ignatius of Loyola and Theresa of Avila to be great saints (along with many others, including Cardinal Bellarmine and Frances de Sales, among other leaders of the Catholic Reformation).  I want to reassure some of the earlier posters on this thread that although this New Reformation is indeed being led by low-church evangelical like ++Akinola, ++Orombi, and ++Kolini etc., GAFCON was not anti-catholic, as the presence and support of Anglo-Catholic leaders like +Jack Iker the Valiant shows.

4.  I agree with many of those who commented above that IF this visit to Lourdes is intended to reassure conservative Anglo-Catholics in the UK that there is still a valued place for them in the C of E, this little jaunt to France won’t suffice.  Far too little, too late.

5.  To the list of 16th century Protestant leaders with a very lofty view of Our Lady, the Second Eve (a title used since Irenaeus in the late second century, “Ave, Eva”), let me add a great 20th century one, C. S. Lewis.  For those of you unfamiliar with the life and piety of the great lay apologist, let me call attention to the significant fact that C. S. Lewis did NOT attend St. Aldate’s in Oxford (the main evangelical bastion) but instead chose to worship in a rather Anglo-Catholic parish, where the illustrious Fr. Austin Farrer was priest.  Lewis was most definitely not a James Packer or Sydney style Anglican.

6.  Let us take note of the fact that today is the Feast of Lancelot Andrewes, who died on this day in 1826.  As one of the early Caroline Divines, he helped reassert the catholic side of Anglicanism after it had been (understandably) downplayed by the English Reformers.  I find myself FAR closer to Andrewes in theology and spirit than to John Jewel or Nicholas Ridley or Hugh Latimer, who were FAR too Calvinist for my liking.

7.  Finally, if I may allow me to offer a conciliatory gesture regarding Marian devotion.  Being faithful Bible readers all, I’m sure, the readers of this thread will doubtless recall what the Theotokos said at Cana in speaking to the servants at the wedding:  “Do whatever he (Jesus) tells you.”  We should all heed Mary’s words.

David Handy+
Devoted to Mary as the greatest saint of all time, but even more devoted to Jesus Christ.

AMEN, David+!

A second amen, Fr. David Handy.

5.  To the list of 16th century Protestant leaders with a very lofty view of Our Lady, the Second Eve (a title used since Irenaeus in the late second century, “Ave, Eva”), let me add a great 20th century one, C. S. Lewis.  For those of you unfamiliar with the life and piety of the great lay apologist, let me call attention to the significant fact that C. S. Lewis did NOT attend St. Aldate’s in Oxford (the main evangelical bastion) but instead chose to worship in a rather Anglo-Catholic parish, where the illustrious Fr. Austin Farrer was priest.  Lewis was most definitely not a James Packer or Sydney style Anglican.

A couple of comments; Things might have been different in the 40s and 50s than when I was in Oxford, but although St Aldate’s is the largest church in Oxford, I think it a little unfair to St Ebbes and St Andrews (which also have large congregations and are just as evangelical, perhaps more so, than Aldates) to call it the main evangelical bastion. Just a minor niggle - Lewis didn’t attend those churches either. Secondly, Lewis might have attended his local church faithfully, but from what I recall he attended as a necessary duty and not because he particularly liked the preaching, singing or the service in general; it cannot be used as a guide to his own beliefs. Thirdly, while I agree that Lewis was more Catholic minded than Packer, Stott or Jensen (his views on purgatory being the example that comes to mind), but he was very far from being a Roman. He didn’t mention Mary in most of his writings (apart from the facts that both Protestant and Catholic agree on), because (as I understand it) he wanted to keep his work applicable to all denominations. But I believe that privately he disagreed with much that the Romans taught, as works such as `Letters to Malcolm’ and his personal letters demonstrate. I can’t recall off hand his private attitude to Marian devotion (so no doubt you will now produce a direct quote to challenge this); but I would be very surprised if you could claim him on your side.

What an interesting thread this is.

False teachers cannot lead justified sinners to hell. They can very well lead everyone else. So a church with a false teacher is a church bereft of the gospel and one in which the lost in the congregation are being led further from Christ and toward damnation.

The teacher of course is hell bound

This is a rather strong statement, which leads one to ask…

Does this apply to any false doctrine or only false teaching on certain specific doctrines?

If the former…
-Among the following, who is right with the rest being hell bound?  +Gomez, +Jensen, +Duncan, +Iker, Kennedy+
-Is belief in transubstantion damnable?  What about memorialism?  Are the Roman Catholics a church bereft of the gospel?  What about the Southern Baptists?

If the latter, where is the list of acceptable, non-damnable variation on doctrines and where is the list of non-acceptable, damnable variation?  The Epistle of Elizebeth I?

By “church” are we refering to a single congregation, or a denominational enitity?

Is the false teacher going to hell because he is a false teacher, or because he is not elect?  Is the false believer okay as long as he is elect?  Or can we automatically tell anyone that is not elect because they belief or teach something false, going full circle to the first question.

AndrewA, #187, it is teaching that departs from Jesus IS Lord and Christ and the Gospel that puts a teacher in line for harsher judgment.  Paul didn’t depart from Christ and Him Crucified.  John’s teaching was Love one Another, but also I John 5:11-12 - ‘God has given us eternal life and this life is in his Son…he that does NOT have the Son does not have life.’

#181 - RC Sproul uses the Invisible Church model, but he NEVER has compared RCC to Mormons as you did, he also NEVER has attacked the RCC as complete heretics as you have. Actually I found him to respectfully disagree, of course he think he is right, else he’d not in that tradition, but uses a different tone between RCC and JW or Mormons, where you used the same.

BTW the author of the CCC did understand VC2, that’s why ultra-traditional Catholics HATE it with a passion and written very verbosely how the CCC is NOT infallible and why Catholics should not use it, rather use the one post-Trent.

NRA+—I’d fully concur with #1 & #3

I’d like to see a more thorough answering of Andrew’s questions, which I think are good questions to ask.

But there is no spiritual union between Mormonism and Christianity because there is no common faith between them.  What other basis exists besides common faith?  Do I have a common faith with a Roman Catholic? Is the conflict between Sola Fide and Faith plus Works truly adiaphora?  Is a conflict that exists at the very heart of the Gospel really a second order difference?

Yeah.  It might be an idea to actually go down the Apostle’s or Nicene Creeds, point by point, comparing how Mormons and the RCC score against a Reformed interpretation of the Creeds.  After that, you might do the same exercise using the Westminister Confession of Faith.  Of course, you could extend the exercises to include Baptists, Wesleyans, Lutherans, Arminians etc. 

Comparing the RCC with Mormonism is just plain imbecilic.

[189] Hosea6:6

RC Sproul goes considerably beyond using an invisible church model.  His book asserts that an essential mark of a true chruch is that it preaches the true gospel.  He asserts that the RCC is not a true church precisely because it does not preach the true gospel.  What is the essental flaw in the RC gospel?  It denies Sola Fide.  Sproul is saying that there are Christians in the RCC, but that they are saved despite and not because of the teachings of the RCC.  That is all I have ever said.

I referred to Mormons only to demonstrate that a common cultural interest does not form a basis for spiritual unity.  A Mormon is a polytheistic pagan.  RCs are Trinitarian.  That is a profound difference.  But that was not my point.  If I were to base spiritual union between Protestant and Catholic upon opposition to a common cultural enemy, then I would likewise have to include Mormons in that unity.  And that cannot be for the reasons stated.

This demonstrates that <u>spiritual unity must have doctrinal content.</u>  And what remains unanswered in this thread of 200 comments is an answer to this question.  What is the doctrinal content which can form the basis for spiritual union between Catholic and Protestant?  The answer has to be discriminating enough to exclude liberal Christianinty.  And it has to deal with the essental nature of Sola Fide.  No union is possible if Sola Fide must be set aside as a consequence.

carl

Friends, if sola fide, sola scriptura, solus Christus were second order issues then I would be Roman Catholic. They are first order issues. Does this mean that the RC Church is not a Christian body…not necessarily. I won’t say that. There is a huge chasm between Rome and Salt Lake City…their errors are not even comparable. But I do think that Rome is in error or I would not be a protestant. IF you do not think Rome is in error, then I see very little choice but to hie thee hence

I agree with Carl in 193

#181—BTW, Carl, I don’t think you have the Invisible Church model correct when you wrote: “R C Sproul considers the RCC to be a false church containing significant truth.”

I don’t want to put words into R.C. Sproul’s mouth, but I’d be he’d say the exact same thing about the PCA in which he is ordained, though with the caveat that he believes the PCA to contain MORE truth than the RCC. The Invisible Church position necessitates opposition to any Visible Church, verses the Eastern Orthodox who can argue Visible Church verses Visible Church, who got it right.

What I’ve read from your post here are more the latter style than an Invisible Church presentation, or why Presbyterians and Methodist will fight like cat and dogs, but mostly don’t declare the other a heretic. Both actually could confess that while they believe the other in complete error that, “that there are multitudes of people within the [____] who belong to Christ and are part of the mystical body, the church, if only in its invisible incorporation. “

This sentence ever contradicts what you’ve written in #65, #91 & #168.

Now I know Matt+ thinks I have “charicature of a Calvinist you seem to have in your head,” but honestly after Catholics, the second largest group of people to have a beer and good theological discussion with are Reformed type, from many different backgrounds. I find there explanation to be very attractive.

I believe you have misapplied the understanding, at least as I understand from OPC, PCA & EPC type, but I’d urge you to investigate more than trusting some VTS graduate to be a guide in Reformed doctrine.

Does this mean that the RC Church is not a Christian body…not necessarily. I won’t say that.

Oh, that’s good the hear ...

Hosea,

I’m glad I can please you. I will say that Carl has a far better grasp than you on the matter of Reformed thought, but then again, what does this apparently ignorant VTS grad know. Maybe we should hear from Calvin on the matter?

How much the ministry of the word and sacraments should weigh with us, and how far reverence for it should extend, so as to be a perpetual badge for distinguishing the Church, has been explained; for we have shown, first, that wherever it exists entire and unimpaired no errors of conduct, no defects should prevent us from giving the name of Church; and, secondly, that trivial errors in this ministry ought not to make us regard it as illegitimate. Moreover, we have shown that the errors to which such pardon is due, are those by which the fundamental doctrine of religion is not injured, and by which those articles of religion, in which all believers should agree, are not suppressed, while, in regard to the sacraments, the defects are such as neither destroy nor impair the legitimate institution of their Author. But as soon as falsehood has forced its way into the citadel of religion, as soon as the sum of necessary doctrine is inverted, and the use of the sacraments is destroyed, the death of the Church undoubtedly ensues, just as the life of man is destroyed when his throat is pierced, or his vitals mortally wounded. This is clearly evinced by the words of Paul when he says, that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,” (Eph. 2: 20.) If the Church is founded on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, by which believers are enjoined to place their salvation in Christ alone, then if that doctrine is destroyed, how can the Church continue to stand? The Church must necessarily fall whenever that sum of religion which alone can sustain it has given way. Again, if the true Church is the pillar and ground of the truth,” (1 Tim. 3: 15,) it is certain that there is no Church where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy.

2. The Roman Church and its claim

Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. In place of the Lord’s Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ. The communion of the Church was not instituted to be a chain to bind us in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other kinds of evil, but rather to retain us in the fear of God and obedience of the truth.

They, indeed, vaunt loudly of their Church, as if there was not another in the world; and then, as if the matter were ended, they make out that all are schismatic who withdraw from obedience to that Church which they thus depicts that all are heretics who presume to whisper against its doctrine, (see sec. 5.) But by what arguments do they prove their possession of the true Church? They appeal to ancient records which formerly existed in Italy, France, and Spain, pretending to derive their origin from those holy men, who, by sound doctrine, founded and raised up churches, confirmed the doctrine, and reared the edifice of the Church with their blood; they pretend that the Church thus consecrated by spiritual gifts and the blood of martyrs was preserved from destruction by a perpetual succession of bishops. They dwell on the importance which Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origin, Augustine, and others, attached to this succession, (see sec. 3.)

How frivolous and plainly ludicrous these allegations are, I will enable any, who will for a little consider the matter with me, to understand without any difficulty. I would also exhort our opponents to give their serious attention, if I had any hope of being able to benefit them by instruction; but since they have laid aside all regard to truth, and make it their only aim to prosecute their own ends in whatever way they can, I will only make a few observations by which good men and lovers of truth may disentangle themselves from their quibbles.

(Inst 4.2.1-2)

Calvin was quite clear about Rome and Carl echoes his position more gently but clearly and faithfully. Not sure which OPC types to whom you refer but Calvin and Carl seem to be on the same page with regard to Rome.

Methodists and Presbys disagree on a secondary matter…the nature of election…and agree on the salvific matter of Sola Fide…so it is quite reasonable to see an closer affinity between the two

Yes, I’d read as the Church Visible verse Church Invisible, at least by today, back when this was written, there was the Council of Dort, so you’d be VERY much in error on “Methodists and Presbys disagree on a secondary matter.” Either Reform theology is stuck five hundred years ago or maybe it is semper reforma?

So Matt, what exactly would you consider 1st versus 2nd order?

Furthermore, if doctrines of the Mass and Apostolic Succession are, according to Calvin, a 1st order issue (and a damnable false gospel) then why exactly are you willing to work with Anglo-Catholics?

I think Sola Fide is a second order issue that reveals first-order problems.  If we’re interested in the dangers of denying it, we should also consider the dangers of affirming it.  I know of one woman e.g., who sleeps in Sunday morning, citing that she has “already been saved.”  I guess I don’t feel more in danger of coming closer to Liberals if I don’t cling to Sola Fide hard enough, vs clinging too tightly.  Then again, TEC itself is a case study in the danger of de-emphasizing the role of works within soteriology. 

I regret that the controversy has been abandoned and then quarantined (by both sides) with anathemas;  but that doesn’t mean that we have no spiritual unity with Rome.  What is our spiritual unity with Rome?  That itself is expressed by Sola Fide. 

If the doctrine is true, then it is true;  and applies to Elect Christians who reject it as much as it does to Elect Christians who affirm it…

…And the same applies to Rome. 

Moot:

“If we’re interested in the dangers of denying it, we should also consider the dangers of affirming it.  I know of one woman e.g., who sleeps in Sunday morning, citing that she has “already been saved.”

Please do not blame this sort of attitude on Sola Fide since it has nothing to do with the doctrine but with an utterly contemptable misunderstanding of the same. We are justified by faith alone but not a faith that is alone. Faith that does not produce works is not justifying faith at all.

Hosea…not sure what you are talking about…Dort was long after Calvin published his last version of the Institutes…not at the same time?? Yes the lines between Arminians and Calvinists have softened since then in the sense that many if not most Calvinists, including RC Sproul (see his debate with Geisler) are willing to except that Arminians are in error but part of the Church.

Andrew: I don’t think you read my post. You are inferring far more than I have stated. I was quoting Calvin not to make a point about Rome but to support my contention that Carl was closer to the Reformed position that Hosea was willing to admit…

About secondary issues, the model is Romans 14. The measure is the clarity of scripture. Those matters about which scripture is clear are essential, those matters about which the bible is apparently ambiguous are open for debate but there is no reason to divide over them. A Baptist and an evangelical Anglican, for example, can fight over Baptism all day long and at the end of the day recognize that both churches lie within the pale of orthodoxy, or within the bounds of the Church, despite the fact that both interlocutors hold firmly to their positions and think one another in error.

Protestants might like to look at Revelation Ch 12 where the woman is clearly Mary in an exalted position.  It is interesting also that just before her description the ark of the covenant is mentioned, the ark being the container of the OT law, a type of Mary the “container” of the NT fulfillment of the law.  There are also scriptural references to Mary in the Psalms.  Once you start to look then you find.

Neill:

According to this catholic site:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705chap.asp

The woman is Rev 12 seems to be at times Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.  I don’t think it is as clear as you make it out to be.

As a good Lutheran, I would lean towards the Church - both Old and New Testament (i.e. Israel in the O.T., the Christian Church in the N.T.).  But I would agree with anyone who said it is an open question.

Matt+,

You can’t take Calvin out of context, he is NOT infallible and he it NOT Scripture, thus he does lack Paul’s transcendence. However, it does seem odd, as if the Calvinist on SF use him like a Church Father and very much like the Catholics, this is VERY different than the way I’ve experienced those who graduation from Reformed Seminaries and grew up in Reformed traditions. Then I have “charicature of a Calvinist you seem to have in your head.”

Reading the stuff here, it reminds me of those I’ve met down South who are still fighting the Civil War. The nation has moved on and both North and South have radically changed, not to mention the Northwest, Alaska, but there are still some who fight.

I know that the Roman Catholic Church has dramatically changed since 1547. The different Reformed people, who graduation from Reformed Seminaries do not seem to try to battle Rome of 1600 or even 1700, but interested in engaging the world today. Korea in one sense may be a better hot bed of Reformed thought than anywhere else these days, they certainly have been sending the most missionaries and many Reformed seminaries I’ve heard about are in Bangladesh and Indonesia, and using Reformed theology to engage those cultures.

So I actually have the utmost respect for those claiming to be from the Reformed tradition (oddly they use Calvinist is a secondary role and state reformed first). So when I read five hundred year old argument, refuting five hundred year old argument, while ignoring that both sides in my experience have moved on, changed, engage differently and are contemporary ... well ... either those here are the only real TR’s and need to set up their own denomination to recapture the True essence of Calvinism, or maybe they’re just fighting the Civil War after the rest of the nation moved on.

I’ll soften my tone a bit (sorry, I’m prone to rhetorical excess), but I still would be interested in exactly what you mean when you say false teachers are hell bound.  I’m not necessarly denying that such a view has some Biblical truth to it, but with specifics, what would you personally consider a damnable false teaching versus a non-damnable false teaching, and where would you say that, to pick three groups of strong interest to me, namely Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, Anglo-Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

Make that four.  I added one but forgot to go back and change the number.

PS - most Tractarians suffer from the same thing and don’t relies that RCC has moved dramatically since the English Reformation. So the problem is not unique.

Hosea:

“You can’t take Calvin out of context, he is NOT infallible and he it NOT Scripture…”

You cannot make my words up whole cloth. I did not and NEVER have argued the above…to suggest that I have is misleading at best. The ONLY reason I quoted Calvin above was to show that Carl was, contrary to your suggestions above, fully consistent with Reformed thought, in so far as Calvin can be considered Reformed regarding Rome.

“However, it does seem odd, as if the Calvinist on SF use him like a Church Father and very much like the Catholics, this is VERY different than the way I’ve experienced those who graduation from Reformed Seminaries and grew up in Reformed traditions. Then I have “charicature of a Calvinist you seem to have in your head.””

Have No Idea what on earth you are talking about…you seem to be arguing with someone else because the positions against which rail are not at all consistent with what I have written above.

“Reading the stuff here, it reminds me of those I’ve met down South who are still fighting the Civil War. The nation has moved on and both North and South have radically changed, not to mention the Northwest, Alaska, but there are still some who fight.”

heh…are you suggestion that Rome has changed its view on Sola Fide, Sola scriptura etc… or are you suggesting that the OPC, RCA, EPC etc. have? I am sure they would be interested to learn this. Perhaps you can send your “graduates from Reformed seminaries” to teach them.

“I know that the Roman Catholic Church has dramatically changed since 1547.

yes

The different Reformed people, who graduation from Reformed Seminaries do not seem to try to battle Rome of 1600 or even 1700, but interested in engaging the world today.

Which people.

Korea in one sense may be a better hot bed of Reformed thought than anywhere else these days, they certainly have been sending the most missionaries and many Reformed seminaries I’ve heard about are in Bangladesh and Indonesia, and using Reformed theology to engage those cultures.

good for them. Does disagreeing with Rome on the solas mean that one cannot do missionary work?

So I actually have the utmost respect for those claiming to be from the Reformed tradition (oddly they use Calvinist is a secondary role and state reformed first).

Good for them

So when I read five hundred year old argument, refuting five hundred year old argument, while ignoring that both sides in my experience have moved on, changed, engage differently and are contemporary ... well ... either those here are the only real TR’s and need to set up their own denomination to recapture the True essence of Calvinism, or maybe they’re just fighting the Civil War after the rest of the nation moved on.

Hmmm…how about a more contemporary source…on the Catholic side, you can see the Quote from Pope Benedict above regarding Trent. As for a contemporary Reformed view of the matter, try reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Alone-Evangelical-Doctrine-Justification/dp/080105849X

AndrewA…why do I think unrepentant false teachers go to hell…? Well you could take 2 Peter 2 for starters:

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment; 5if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; 6if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; 7and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men 8(for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)— 9if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.[c] 10This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature[d] and despise authority.

  Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings; 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.

13They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.[e] 14With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood! 15They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness. 16But he was rebuked for his wrongdoing by a donkey—a beast without speech—who spoke with a man’s voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.

17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 20If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,”[f]and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

Please do not blame this sort of attitude on Sola Fide

Since I affirm Sola Fide, and am familiar with the “faith alone but not faith that is alone” language, obviously I cannot be blaming such attitudes on Sola Fide.  She misunderstands it, but then again her misunderstanding would not exist without the object of misunderstanding.  Not sure how that maligns SF, though.  Alcohol abuse cannot be attributed to alcohol, even though it doesn’t occur in the absence thereof. 

Really, it’s in response to Carl’s crisis over what embracing the RCC as authenticly ‘Church’ would entail.  I.e., that we can be as close to Liberalism with the doctrine of SF as without it. 

I do agree with Carl that the strength of his objections needs to be countered with something stronger than, “Well, I won’t go so far as to say that the RCC isn’t part of the Church.” 

Sproul is a disciple of Gerstner, whose last words were “I think I have the root of the matter in me.”  I don’t think that’s an affirmation of Sola Fide.  Then again, according to Sola Fide, it wouldn’t matter.

Moot:

Since I affirm Sola Fide, and am familiar with the “faith alone but not faith that is alone” language, obviously I cannot be blaming such attitudes on Sola Fide.

glad to hear it.

She misunderstands it, but then again her misunderstanding would not exist without the object of misunderstanding.  Not sure how that maligns SF, though.

Neither was I which is why I wrote what I did in response to your suggestion that someone’s misunderstanding of Sola Fide means that we ought not to hold it as a central doctrine…? which seems odd to me. People misunderstand EVERY core doctrine. 

Really, it’s in response to Carl’s crisis over what embracing the RCC as authenticly ‘Church’ would entail.  I.e., that we can be as close to Liberalism with the doctrine of SF as without it.

Not sure I understand what you mean here but I will half agree with the “i.e” part and half disagree since those who hold to Sola Fide often also hold to Sola Scriptura and it is very difficult to do that and remain liberal…though I suppose you could always make a go of it.

I do agree with Carl that the strength of his objections needs to be countered with something stronger than, “Well, I won’t go so far as to say that the RCC isn’t part of the Church.”

Yes…what gave you the idea I was not trying to counter his objections? 

Sproul is a disciple of Gerstner, whose last words were “I think I have the root of the matter in me.” I don’t think that’s an affirmation of Sola Fide.  Then again, according to Sola Fide, it wouldn’t matter.

huh…root of what matter?

Matt,

You use Calvin much like a Catholic uses a Church Father in that context, now, I’ve found Reformed theologian to be great Aristotelian logicians but not so much Platonist. So your usage was VERY odd, to ignore a modern Reform thinker (who if you read Carl’s quote actually does NOT declare RCC heretics, thus a modern Reform person just might get a PhD from CUA verses if one applies the Calvin quote). Kind of like when Catholic Mom pulled the “Luther said” card and the reaction was “so.” Okay, Calvin said in context of his life time ... so ...

Now the RC Sproul quote in regards to Rome does seem consistent to the Reform people of today (other than self declared Anglican want-a-bes) in relationship to Rome. Notice what it does say and what it does not say. RC Sproul seems to have much less passionate take compared to Carl or at time you have.

Per are there people inside RCC who also want to fight the Civil War ... yes!!! At total size of the RCC, I’d say there are more than all the Reformed put together who think that VC2 was a HUGE mistake and will still like to say “No salvation outside the Church” but they could be excommunicated, which would put them in an interesting position, wouldn’t it.

I do hereby remove you and Carl’s TR rating! (Whatever that’s worth).

heh

“Yes…what gave you the idea I was NOT trying to counter his objections?”

should be:

Yes…what gave you the idea I was——trying to counter his objections?

“You use Calvin much like a Catholic uses a Church Father in that context, now, I’ve found Reformed theologian to be great Aristotelian logicians but not so much Platonist.

I’ve used shorthand above and not been courteous to the on-looker, so for the reading pleaser of the audience a too-short summery of Philosophy: 

Plato - You know what something is by it’s representation of it’s perfect form, thus somewhere is the perfect chair which we know all chairs.

Aristotle - You know what it is by what is does, thus even though all chairs are different, there is chair-ness about them we identify (or my reply to Matt, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck).

Father Kennedy:

Pardon an intrusion from a dopey Anglo-Catholic who is accustomed to thinking of Lutheranism and Calvinism as “the same thing, only different.”  I really don’t know what Calvinists make of Lutherans, or vice versa, but if I’m not mistaken, the “Sola Fide” position is held in common, so perhaps this isn’t entirely irrelevant. 

What I’ve posted below are very brief excerpts from the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church.  I’m not sure how authoritative this document is for either side, but the version I’ve linked to is posted on a Vatican website.  It’s rather lengthy, but well worth reading.

In light of this ongoing discussion, I’m wondering what your thoughts about it might be from a Reformed standpoint.  And if Carl wants to chime in, that would be fine too.  You both obviously know a great deal about Calvinist theology, even if I don’t.  (As for Moot and Hosea—well, they know everything.  But I suspect that they like to take their half out of the middle, as do I.)

26.According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide). In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him. God himself effects faith as he brings forth such trust by his creative word. Because God’s act is a new creation, it affects all dimensions of the person and leads to a life in hope and love. In the doctrine of “justification by faith alone,” a distinction but not a separation is made between justification itself and the renewal of one’s way of life that necessarily follows from justification and without which faith does not exist. . .
27.The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Persons are justified through baptism as hearers of the word and believers in it. The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him. This new personal relation to God is grounded totally on God’s graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. . .

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
The Declaration also arrives at this rather happy conclusion:

41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

I am not poised to “swim the Tiber” no matter what happens in the Episcopal Church, and I’m not much of a cheerleader for post-Vatican II developments among our Roman friends, but I am left to wonder if this might not be a welcome exception.

Thank you.

Hosea:

You use Calvin much like a Catholic uses a Church Father in that context, now, I’ve found Reformed theologian to be great Aristotelian logicians but not so much Platonist.

Hosea, can you articulate why you think I quoted him above?

So your usage was VERY odd, to ignore a modern Reform thinker (who if you read Carl’s quote actually does NOT declare RCC heretics, thus a modern Reform person just might get a PhD from CUA verses if one applies the Calvin quote).

When did I ignore a modern reformed thinker. My point and my only point, the ONLY reason I quote Calvin, was to show that Carl’s position is at least as acceptable within the spectrum of Reformed thought as that of John Calvin.

Kind of like when Catholic Mom pulled the “Luther said” card and the reaction was “so.” Okay, Calvin said in context of his life time ... so ...

Actually it was not like that at all.

Now the RC Sproul quote in regards to Rome does seem consistent to the Reform people of today (other than self declared Anglican want-a-bes) in relationship to Rome.

heh…“self-proclaimed Anglican want a bes”...nice. Who are you referring to Hosea and what is the basis of your comment?

“Notice what it does say and what it does not say. RC Sproul seems to have much less passionate take compared to Carl or at time you have.”

Really? Have you read the book I linked? If so, provide the page numbers for your rather strange quote above. Sproul wrote Sola Fide to counter a document and a movement called “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” that suggested, as you do, that it was time to move on from the Reformation debates and find common ground with regard to the nature of faith and other matters. Sproul’s position is that this movement is wrong headed because, he argues, the core issues that divided Rome and the Reformers remain today and they are no less essential.

I do hereby remove you and Carl’s TR rating! (Whatever that’s worth).

not too much

Matt, you get a C for effort but an F for failing to answer the actual questions posed.

Andrew A…uh, no…you said:

“I’ll soften my tone a bit (sorry, I’m prone to rhetorical excess), but I still would be interested in exactly what you mean when you say false teachers are hell bound.  I’m not necessarly denying that such a view has some Biblical truth to it…”

I clarified what I meant.

As for whether the churches in question are in error…I think so…as to whether they would fall under the curses of the scriptures quoted above, I don’t know…who am I to say.

Re: the joint Lutheran/Roman declaration on justifcation:

It’s my understanding that this is, while informal, still significant in getting some theologians to talk to each other and find agreement in substance if not in words used. 

It (the declaration) happens to be taken far more seriously among the World Lutheran Federation (of which the ELCA is a member but LCMS is not).  Among the ELCA types, those who are more “evangelical catholic” and liberal are more fond of it than those who are more confessionally oriented.

As a comment, a big difference being credally (e.g. Anglican) oriented and confessionally (e.g. Lutheran & Reformed) oriented is one of scope—I view the ecumenical councils as providing a doctrinal “box” in which everyone must live.  It’s a pretty big box, all said, as they allow us to hold differing perspectives on a great variety of issues (e.g. the end times, predestination).  Confessional orientation strives for a greater degree of precision and requires a larger degree of uniformity in methods of doing theology.  The box is much smaller.

#203, just where do you get the idea that Revelation 12 is about “Mary”? No, I’m more inclined to believe Chapter 12 is about the TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST, whereas Chapter 17 reveals the HARLOT,

heh…“self-proclaimed Anglican want a bes”...nice. Who are you referring to Hosea and what is the basis of your comment?

I dunno maybe some “charicature of a Calvinist you seem to have in your head,”

Really? Have you read the book I linked?

No, I’ve not, do you want to read it to me? Now I have read many things from Ultra-Traditional to Liberal ends of Catholicism, the one think I fully must concur is what you to Catholic Mom above about the wide range of opinion inside RCC. An official ruling is actually quite rare (take in account the size when I say rare).  I promise you that you’ll find many Catholics who hate VC2, for many reasons, often because they also want to fight the Civil War [boy, two sides want to fight, why not let them ]. However it is the official position and they really did a number with meaning of “anathema” which is why the Utra-Traditionalist are upset. Carl demanded things on his terms about Trent about, well, Galileo, the Jews and Eastern Orthodox, yes, Protestant, not so much in word, tends to be in deed - then again I’ve found Reformed types do not seem to apologize or retract that much either, but I’ve seem time of changed behavior and such, so what “it” is by what “it” does.

As an aside, I might ask you Oscewicee’s question “Have you read any Pope Benedict’s writing?” I have not read the books, but told they might surprise many who are fighting 1550’s again.

When did I ignore a modern reformed thinker. My point and my only point, the ONLY reason I quote Calvin, was to show that Carl’s position is at least as acceptable within the spectrum of Reformed thought as that of John Calvin

Then you missed my point to Carl, that RC Spoul is writing in the modern context and is a poor quote to justify his first order charge against the Catholics. He backed down for the Morman claim, but actually his post against the RCC would very much appropriate reaction to LDS! RC Sproul quote could not be applied to the Mormons. Calvin’s quote also seems to justify the Mormon type charge.

Calvin is writing in his context and RC Sproul in his context, if the context was static, then using one to justify the other would be proper, but if you read both together, they actually seem to contradict each other, at least in tone.

Then the Catholic positions given here were also from Trent, and did not seem to take into account anything of the last five hundred years either.

It does make sense on why I can get along with “TR” outside of SF but those here seem so very strange, unlike other’s I’ve met, maybe like much in life, “caught more than taught.”

not too much

That’s good, I might feel bad if I tarnish your ego.

Hosea,

I’ve noticed that when you don’t have much to back up your points, you resort to insults to make up for it. It’s unnecessary but natural I suppose.

“No, I’ve not, do you want to read it to me?”

I’ve summarized it for you above. Sproul is quite clear that the core issues between Rome and the Reformers remain. He has never said anything different. I suppose that means, Calvin, RC Sproul, and RC Sproul ALL need some tutoring from your “graduates of Reformed seminaries”... ; - )

“However it is the official position and they really did a number with meaning of “anathema” which is why the Utra-Traditionalist are upset. Carl demanded things on his terms about Trent about, well, Galileo, the Jews and Eastern Orthodox, yes, Protestant, not so much in word, tends to be in deed - then again I’ve found Reformed types do not seem to apologize or retract that much either, but I’ve seem time of changed behavior and such, so what “it” is by what “it” does.

Yes, Rome no longer thinks that all Protestants are damned. And yet there has been NO change with regard to the doctrinal positions articulated in Trent. 

As an aside, I might ask you Oscewicee’s question “Have you read any Pope Benedict’s writing?”

Yes, I’ve read his first encyclical on Love and I am presently reading his book, “Jesus of Nazareth”. It’s fantastic.

Then you missed my point to Carl, that RC Spoul is writing in the modern context and is a poor quote to justify his first order charge against the Catholics.

Sproul makes precisely the same point in “Getting the Gospel Right” that Calvin makes in the section I quoted above albeit in far more friendly language…that Rome as an official body does not proclaim the true gospel and is, therefore, not part of the Church. Carl quotes Sproul appropriately. Sproul argues the same point in “Sola Fide”. There is nothing “unreformed” about it…although I am sure you can find a “seminary graduate” somewhere who might school us.

Calvin is writing in his context and RC Sproul in his context, if the context was static, then using one to justify the other would be proper, but if you read both together, they actually seem to contradict each other, at least in tone.

huh…They contradict one another….in “tone”...well ok. I’ll HAPPILY grant you that. They do not contradict one another in Content. In fact Sproul leans quite heavily on Calvin in both books.

Then the Catholic positions given here were also from Trent, and did not seem to take into account anything of the last five hundred years either.

hmm…Could be for the very good reason that Rome retains the very same position with regard to Sola Fide that she held five hundred years ago.

It does make sense on why I can get along with “TR” smile outside of SF but those here seem so very strange, unlike other’s I’ve met, maybe like much in life, “caught more than taught.”

yeh…we’re such dummies…I guess we just need to stop reading Calvin and Sproul hang out with more “graduates of Reformed seminaries”

Neither was I which is why I wrote what I did in response to your suggestion that someone’s misunderstanding of Sola Fide means that we ought not to hold it as a central doctrine…? which seems odd to me. People misunderstand EVERY core doctrine.

I suggested no such thing.  Carl is attempting to poke a hole in the notion that we can embrace Rome without going Roman, by claiming that this type of thinking leads to a pluralism that also embraces Liberals (if I have understood him correctly).  I countered by citing instances where the existence of the doctrine of Sola Fide (not the doctrine itself, correctly understood and applied) facilitated the embrace of Liberalism. 

Yes…what gave you the idea I was not trying to counter his objections?

Glad to hear it. 

huh…root of what matter?

Presby-Speak:  “Root of the matter in me,” meaning “saved.”  Gerstner’s confession reveals some doubt, inconsistent with the doctrine he vigorously cherished and defended during his lifetime.

Re. my post as #221, my laptop did something weird and somehow my submit command got implemented. That never happened before. Too weird!!!!

Anyway, to state again, #203, just where do you get the idea that Revelation 12 is about “Mary”? No, I’m more inclined to believe Chapter 12 is about the TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST, whereas Chapter 17 reveals the HARLOT, the false church. This is the church which I’ve referred to before as the RCC, whose daughters are the denominations which broke off from her and now are attempting to return to her. I know a lot of you don’t want to believe that, but I do.

Here’s another clue for you. Revelation 17:4 states The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, havinng in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. Clue: purple and scarlet are the colors of the RCC and her daughter churches. There are adornments of gold and precious stones all over the RCC and most of her daughter churches. The cup of abominations and filthiness of her fornication is the false (and very dangerous) doctrine it teaches.

False doctrine is attributed to satan. It is not of God. That’s why it’s an abomination. The woman in Chapter 12 is the TRUE church who fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. (Rev 12:6). This speaks about the end of the age when the true church will flee to the safe place God has preferred for her. The woman who gave birth to the male child was the true church (Israel) of the OT. Jesus came from the line of David. He was the male child born of that church. Satan is highly rebellious against God and His true church. So, naturally he does anything in his power to try to fool as many people as possible into thinking HIS church is the TRUE church. He effectively deceives the whole world.
Revelation 12:9 -
  So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
When satan was cast out from heaven, one third of the angels were cast out with him. These where the ones who were taken in by satan’s rebellious ways. Those angels are not the demons in the atmosphere around who work on our minds to deceive us.
Eph 2:2 -
  in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
12:4 -
  His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born.
The woman was Israel, the TRUE CHURCH (church in the wilderness) (12 tribes of Israel), and her child was Jesus. Jesus sprung from the true church and then built His new church of the NT. Everything in Revelation 12 is about the TRUE CHURCH.

I really don’t know what Calvinists make of Lutherans, or vice versa, but if I’m not mistaken, the “Sola Fide” position is held in common, so perhaps this isn’t entirely irrelevant.

Modern-day conservative Lutherans are basically Arminian, Amyrauldian at best.  In the OPC, Lutherans in good standing are welcome to participate in the Lord’s Supper.  The only caveat given to OPC elders is that if a Lutheran from e.g., the Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Synod denominations has the Supper, this may be grounds for excommunication back at their Lutheran parish.  Some elders, out of respect for the polity of those denominations, discourage Lutherans from partaking. 

The shoe on the other foot is that conservative Presbies are absolutely not allowed to partake of the Supper at conservative Lutheran parishes, citing differences in views of the Supper and in soteriology. 

(As for Moot and Hosea—well, they know everything.

Huh??  I didn’t know that?!!  Why don’t people tell me these things??

Mugsie1, I’m sorry but I find it deeply offensive to see the Catholic Church called a harlot. Nor do I see anything to indicate that the Catholic Church is behind the many evils with which we are surrounded. On the contrary, I hear and read its leader calling people to Christ, which is something I’ve not heard from the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. And I see its faithful rendering aid to people in need, as they are presently doing in Texas. I’m not trying to muzzle you - you are free to say what you like within the guidelines of the blog. But I can’t be silent when I read such words. And I’m an Anglican.

If Rome is not a visible valid church, is it possible that within her membership there are Christians, members of the invisible church?  Surely the answer must be “Yes!” It is not only possible, but highly likely, especially in light of the cross-communication between Protestants and Catholics in our day, that there are multitudes of people within the Roman Catholic Communion who belong to Christ and are part of the mystical body, the church, if only in its invisible incorporation.

This is the quote in question, as given by Carl in defense of his argument, instead of the one you interjected as support for a topic that was not being discussed (that Calvinist at one time held to the argument Carl was presenting).

This quote is not Galatians 1 quote, in fact it seems to me to be a second order division. I read this quote as Sproul saying Rome is in error, but RCC are part of the Elect. If I take Johnathon Edwards pondering if half his congregation was not saved, but he did not seem to know who were the Elect, then I think it’s far to say that Rome, though being in error does have the Gospel preached in it and the Elect are being saved, even though the whole RCC is not (if proportions hold maybe half are not).

This is NOT what has been presented by Carl above, who claims to have no fellowship with the apostate. Good, we should not fellowship with the apostate.

It does directly challenge Rome claim to being THE CHURCH, but does not declare them apostate.

If Rome is not a visible valid church direct challenge to the Church visible claim

Christ and are part of the mystical body defines the Church</i>

here are multitudes of people within the Roman Catholic Communion who belong to Christ declaration that elect RCC to being in Church.

This claim is not made with LDS by Sproul.

You introduced into this mix a Calvin quote that I’d read as a first order separation. I could be in error and maybe it’s a strong second order, then Carl calling for a first order separation, so I tend to read Calvin as a first order separation.

Is that better ... ignore all the points you made and get back to the topic, is the Sproul quote justify the calls and comparison to Mormons or not, forget Calvin, I have NO clue why you interjected Calvin in the Sproul quote, I see them as contradicting each other and Calvin not allowing for RCC to being in the Church Invisible.

(As for Moot and Hosea—well, they know everything.

Well, my life would be simpler if you’d just listen to us

My post at #225 should have read: Those angels are the demons in the atmosphere around who work on our minds to deceive us.

I believe the Harlot in Revelation more likely represents false religions, those who pollute the Faith and Gospel with false doctrine, teachings and who betray Jesus Christ…perhaps those who rebel and repress the truth and die unrepentant.

#227, I was Anglican all my life too. I used to believe that too. However, with further study WITHOUT the influence of Anglicanism, etc. I’ve come to different conclusions about what the Bible actually says in some areas. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. This is just my opinion, and I respect that too.

The thing is that when I studied both Rev 12 and Rev. 17 together with many other parts of Scripture it all started to make more sense to me.

#231, oh, it’s definitely about false religion. However, a harlot is a SHE. The Bible always refers to a church as a SHE. The only church that has given off daughter churches is the RCC. It just makes too much sense for me.

When I study the history of the Roman Church, and all the horrific things it’s done and all the false doctrines it still teaches today, I just can’t ignore it.

Oops.

heh
“Yes…what gave you the idea I was NOT trying to counter his objections?”
should be:
Yes…what gave you the idea I was——trying to counter his objections?

Actually, this line, in post #194:

Does this mean that the RC Church is not a Christian body…not necessarily. I won’t say that.

It seems to contradict the strength of Carl’s objections.  Hence my wording in #211:

I do agree with Carl that the strength of his objections needs to be countered with something stronger than, “Well, I won’t go so far as to say that the RCC isn’t part of the Church.”

Mugsie1, if you look at the history of any church old enough to have a history, you will find terrible things. That goes for the Anglican Church, too. It’s because churches are made up of very fallible and sinful people.

#235, I think you just proved my point. The Anglican Church is a daughter of the RCC. A lot of other denominations are too. Yes, churches are made up of very fallible and sinful people. No one is sin free except for Christ, himself. However, my point is that I no longer believe the mainline denominations are the TRUE church. Jesus would never call a church his that consisted of a large body of such conflicting beliefs. That just doesn’t make sense to me. Jesus clearly taught to the apostles what His church was to be like. I find a lot of distortion and outright lies in what the RCC and many denominations teach. There is some truth there, but it’s mixed in with a lot of false teaching.

The fact that RW, as the ABC, wants to unite the AC back with the RCC, (and that has been well known for a few years now), is quite concerning. I sincerely believe that if that happens, then all hope for the AC will be lost.

With regard to the crucial doctrine of justification and the celebrated ecumenical agreement between some Lutheran theologians and some RC theologians known as the “JDDJ” or Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, let me repeat here a very insightful and helpful comment I once heard one of my teachers at Yale Divinity School make.  I’m speaking of George Lindbeck, a devout lay Lutheran theologian who has served for many years on the International Dialogue team between “mainline” Lutherans and Romsm Catholics and who is often seen as one of the leaders in the movement known as “post-liberalism.”  Despite the considerable common ground stressed in the JDDJ, there remain important differences between the Lutheran and Catholic understandings of what “justification by faith” really means.  And here is how Dr. Linkbeck put it:

“For Catholics, justification by faith is just one doctrine among many.  For us Lutherans, it remains the docrine by which the Church stands or falls.”

I think that is a charitable and fair assessment.  FWIW, I’ll call attention to the fact that back in his younger and much better days, Hans Kung wrote a doctoral dissertation that was a real blockbuster in which he examined the teaching on justification by that great neo-Calvinist Karl Barth and found it “compatible” with the teaching of Trent when the latter is properly understood.  Please note: saying they are “compatible” is naturally not the same thing at all as claiming that Barth’s view of justification and Trent’s are identical. I seldom agree with Hans Kung, but I will admit that I do agree with him on that very specific point.

For those interested in pursuing the very complex topic of comparing the best Protestant and Catholic views of justification, I heartily recommend the detailed and comprehensive study by the great evangelical Anglican theologian at Oxford, Alister McGrath:

Justitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (original edition in 2 volumes came out in 1989; the 2nd edition combining the two volumes came out in 1998). 

This academic tome is over 500 pages long and unfortunately it’s rather dry and pedantic at times, but I think McGrath has done a superb job of summarizing all the major positions (and many of the minor ones).

Carl, Matt, and others who may be proud of claiming the mantle of being “TR” or “Truly Reformed,” may I respectfully suggest that if you haven’t read McGrath on the convoluted history of the doctrine of justification, you do so at your leisure?  McGrath bursts more than one bubble in terms of showing how badly many Protestants misunderstand Trent and attack mere straw men or misleading caricatures of authentic Catholic teaching, therby destroying bogeys of their own imagination that well-trained Roman Catholics would also stoutly reject.

That is NOT to say that I endorse RC teaching on justification.  I emphatically don’t.  But it’s grossly unfair to accuse Rome of teaching salvation by works, in the simplistic way that Protestants so often have done.

David Handy+

Moot, I was just saying I do not necessarily agree with Carl on that point…not giving an arguing against it…does that make sense?

Some notes on Sproul’s thesis that Rome isn’t the Church, while some Roman Catholics can still be saved:

The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

WCF, XXV.II (emphasis mine)

In effect, Sproul makes the possibility of RC’s to be saved as an extra-ordinary occurance.  It’s sort of like the “Thief on the Cross” argument that Baptists use when they reject the baptisms of most Christians.  They don’t want to bite down too hard for fear of loosing their own teeth.

(Shrug)

Matt+  (#238)

It does, as it did the first time.

Oscwise, Another thing I’ve had to consider very carefully is this:
Lu 12:32 - [In Context|Read Chapter]
  Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

The huge numbers of professing Christians around the world who make up the mainline denominations are hardly what you would call a little flock. I have to think very carefully about that. This verse also talks about our inheritance. The TRUE church will inherit the Kingdom of God (The new kingdom Jesus will set up here on earth when he returns).
 
1Sa 2:8 -
  He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He has set the world upon them.
Ps 25:13 -
  He himself shall dwell in prosperity, And his descendants shall inherit the earth.
Ps 37:9 -
  For evildoers shall be cut off; But those who wait on the Lord, They shall inherit the earth.
Ps 37:11 -
  But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Ps 37:22 -
  For those blessed by Him shall inherit the earth, But those cursed by Him shall be cut off.
Isa 49:8 -
  Thus says the Lord: “In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages;
Mt 5:5 -
  Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth.

It’s Scripture, itself, that I am working from. I can dispute what humans may say, but I can’t dispute Scripture.

238 Matt+

I’d agree with Moot.

Actually all of this has been confusing! To state as I understand so far: Carl gave a First Order, John Calvin give a call for First Order. RC Sproul is Second Order and Matt is Second Order. Forget the issues but I understand First Order as saying someone is outside the Church. LDS is First Order, JW is First Order, things get strange with the Coptics where RCC & EO claim First Order but some Protestants claim Second Order (based on profession of today). Second Order is a division where they are part of the Church but with a varying degree of error that impairs a very degree of union, some closer than others. Some in Continuing Churches want nothing to do with WO but they are not saying those who do are not Christan but there is often near complete broken fellowship.

FIRST Question - Are we using the same definition to First and Second Order?

SECOND Question - If we’re on the same page with 1st & 2nd Orders, did I summarize the position of the four individuals accurately?

Moot - LCMS is definitely NOT Arminian or Amyrauldian.

Moot and Hosea,

Moot, I think your assessment is correct. If a Roman Catholic trusts in Jesus Christ then he or she is justified even though the soteriological teachings of his or her church, according to Sproul, Calvin etc…are a first order error that removes the visible institution of the Catholic Church from the Church. 

I do not agree with Hosea above if I am understanding him correctly. Having read Calvin and Sproul…they both believe that Sola Fide is a first order issue removing the visible institution of Rome from the category of Church while, at the same time, both affirm that individual Roman Catholics may certainly be saved…but not through the teachings of their Church. I think where we disagree is with regard to Sproul. For some reason you seem to think he does not think Sola Fide is a first order issue when everything that he has written on the subject to date says otherwise.

[224] Moot

Carl is attempting to poke a hole in the notion that we can embrace Rome without going Roman, by claiming that this type of thinking leads to a pluralism that also embraces Liberals (if I have understood him correctly). 

Not quite.  I am asserting that the institutional church centered in Rome teaches a false Gospel, and therefore cannot be recognized as a true visible church because it fails to possess one of the three essential marks of a true church - preaching the true gospel.  If you think that Rome preaches a true gospel, then you are declaring Sola Fide to be a non-essential.  It is this last idea - that Sola Fide is a non-essential aspect of the gospel - that I reject.  A weaker form of justification in the Gospel - say, for example, “Jesus is Lord” ala NT Wright - would allow for a much broader boundary, and you would have trouble excluding liberals on that basis alone.  But what is the motivation behind NT Wright and the NPP and his ideas on justification?  It is precisely to square this difference between Protestant and Catholic. 

There is a desire to ‘get past’ the Reformation; to say it was a big semantic misunderstanding.  It wasn’t.  Pretending otherwise will not change the facts.

carl

[222] Hosea

He backed down for the Morman claim, but actually his post against the RCC would very much appropriate reaction to LDS.

For the record, I haven’t ‘backed down’ on anything.  Perhaps I wasn’t clear in how I used the Mormons in my arguement.  Perhaps you didn’t understand it.  But I haven’t moved off any position I have held since the start, nor have I felt compelled to surrender any ground.  If I back down, you will know it.  I will tell you I was wrong.
carl

As for whether the churches in question are in error…I think so…as to whether they would fall under the curses of the scriptures quoted above, I don’t know…who am I to say.

Okay, that’s all I wanted to know.

Moot, I think your assessment is correct. If a Roman Catholic trusts in Jesus Christ then he or she is justified even though the soteriological teachings of his or her church, according to Sproul, Calvin etc…are a first order error that removes the visible institution of the Catholic Church from the Church.

Except that I wouldn’t say, ala Luther, that Sola Fide is first order.  I do think that the fleshing out of SF (e.g., rejection of certain aspects of RC Mariology) is first order, for Protestants.  But affirming the exact relationship of works within our salvation;  no, I don’t believe that this has any bearing on our salvation. 

I’d rather that a wino came to Christ via the RCC, than a flagrant adulterer preached Sola Fide from a Protestant pulpit. 

- Moot
(unpacking my nylon / asbestos umbrella) 

Moot…I’m not sure I understand your 248. Are you suggesting that Luther did not think SF was a first order issue??

“I’d rather that a wino came to Christ via the RCC, than a flagrant adulterer preached Sola Fide from a Protestant pulpit.”

I don’t think any of the Reformers would disagree…not sure

I don’t think any of the Reformers would disagree…not sure

I’d like to think that none of the Reformers were arrogant enough to think that there were no saved Christians between, say, the 7th Ecumenical Council and the spread of their own teachings.  However it is not hard to find to find some people (not necessarly you, Matt) that seem to think that.

NRA.

I’ve read both parts of McGraths magisterial Iustitia Dei. Yes it is very good. And while he does show that the reformers had an incomplete grasp of the breadth of views on Justification in the Church from the time of the fathers to the Reformation and that the idea of imputation, for example, is and was not found in the fathers…but that is not necessarily a new insight. I do not agree with you that he shows that they misunderstood Trent. Trent I think is more a misunderstanding of the Reformers than vice versa…and while the fathers did not hold to imputation or the full flowered Reformed doctrine of Sola Fide, I believe Paul did and the saints do : - )

And expanding my comment beyond Prod vs Catholic:

I once had a Baptist sunday school teacher tell me that she didn’t understand how people got saved in a Methodist church since they don’t have altar calls.

I’m going to withdraw from the discussion at this point because I don’t claim to be up on Sproul, McGrath, and the nitty gritty details of Cavlin.  I leave you with this musical setting of John 3:16
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GhZJqhV7V3I

Matt+,

I’m aware that Luther regarded Sola Fide in its relation to Justification as the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls. 

I don’t think any of the Reformers would disagree…not sure

Maybe. I wasn’t thinking of the Reformers, though.  There seems to be a lot of Protestants (and no, I’m not accusing you) trying so hard to be Reformed, that they have a difficult time regarding the RCC as part of the Church.  Most of the people I’ve known in the OPC (considered very conservative amongst the NAPARC denoms) don’t have this kind of attitude towards RC’s or even the RCC.  They’re not as enamored of Sproul as folks in non-Reformed contexts seem to be:  Reformed parachurch ministry, basically. 

As for Sproul’s acknowledging the salvation of some RC’s, while not recognizing the RCC as part of the Church, I don’t think that can be harmonized with the Westminster Confession.  I say that because ‘ordinary’ in WCF XXV.II suggests well, ‘ordinary;’ naturally differentiating a confirmed RC going to Catholic Mass every Sunday, from the deathbed confession of a lifelong unbeliever. 

I prefer to err (if I am erring, and may God forgive me if I am) on the side of grace.  I do draw the line however, at the doctrine of the Trinity.  That alone will get us in plenty of trouble with the world;  I should know.

#244 - Sola Fide is actually not as much of an issue as once thought, in that Sproul does not back down from it, but he uses the formula you do of faith alone that is not alone. RC can agree to that, but saying sola fide without qualification will communicate intellectual consent, not action, so but in faith alone that is never alone, Catholics will sign onto. It’s other area of the Reformation that cause more problems (though there is a back door to sola Scriptura being sufficient for salvation, which is why the ultra-Traditionist are upset, Traditionalist will argue that’s not what it means, Moderates started frolicking with Protestants to merit a encyclical and Liberals would like it to expand to include Muslims and Mormons).

Back to my questions:

Carl, I believe has presented this a First Order issue. In First order issue the Sproul quote would never apply, for I can not see replacing the world Roman Catholic with Mormon, Arian, Nestorian or Gnostic. The Sproul quote then fails. When Matt+ charged KJS with five heresies, he charge that she was not a Christian. First Order is at that level, that is what I’ve read Carl saying above, specifically with Gal 1 quote. Thus RC and LDS would be basically the same.

Matt+‘s comment “Does this mean that the RC Church is not a Christian body…not necessarily. I won’t say that.”  Would be Second Order, because Mormon, Arian, Nestorian or Gnostic can not apply.

If that sums up the positions than Carl and Matt+ would be miles from each other, because First and Second Order charge is that great.

Matt+,

I should have posted before #255, to remove the log from my own eye, but listen to many tales of people from Reformed traditions and why they left, it was usually heresy trials and how everything turned theological, personality disburses turned theological, because there was no other vehicle for things to happen. Well charging the other of not being TR sounded juvenile like redneck challenging another’s masculinity.  So I tested with far more reaction than I could ever imagine, I confess a perverse joy in it, but that’s the problem. I don’t find “perverse joy” or “getting someone’s goat” or any other like thing in 1 Cor 13, I think I’m guilty of a love violation, I don’t think it was very Christ like and I apologies.

I’m not a heavy duty theologian, nor am I a logistitian, nor a philosopher, please parse the following with that in mind.

1)  The Church is all the saved of all the ages.
2)  Paul came to Corinth with ‘nothing but’ ‘Christ and Him Crucified’.
3)  Saving faith is a gift of God.
4)  We are saved by faith unto good works.
Therefore, all who have received of God saving faith in Christ and Him Crucified are part of the Church, and will show it by their fruit.

To my mind we who are the Church acknowledge these things, these ‘definitions of the terms above’:

Christ is the co-eternal Son of God in the Flesh, born of the Virgin Mary (and hence having no inheritance from Adam of the sin nature), He lived a sinless life, died on the cross, was buried, and rose again.

His crucifixion, whereby he voluntarily became in the flesh the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world, was the one and only true atonement for our sin we can not make a private deal with God.

Faith will produce fruit meet for repentance - and these fruits are the fruit of the Spirit.  A person who does not display these and claims faith is a liar.

To my mind, the above gives ‘unity in the church’ while maintaining difference of administration with the Roman Catholics, the Protestants, and the Orthodox.

It excludes the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and Unitarians, and a host of others.  Christ and him Crucified necessarily requires a true understanding of Christ which they refuse.

Perhaps my more learned brothers (and sisters) can restate the above in the deep theological terminology.  For me, it allows me to pray with Roman Catholics (who trust Christ and not the ‘Church’), my fellow Baptists, and Anglicans, and Dutch Reformed and even my Presbyterian cousin.

I had not noticed previously that the pilgrimage began at an Anglican site, Our Lady of Walsingham.  Here is an exerpt from a press release that may be found on zenit.org:

Cardinal Walter Kasper affirmed this Wednesday when he presided over an ecumenical celebration in Lourdes, where Anglicans and Catholics had joined on pilgrimage. Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury gave the homily at the event. The pilgrimage began at the Anglican shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in England.

“Lourdes is known for its miracles,” Cardinal Kasper said. “Who would have imagined, only 20 or 30 years ago, that Catholics and Anglicans would go on pilgrimage and pray together?

“For those who are familiar with the debates and controversies of the past on Mary, between Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, for those who know the reservations of the non-Catholic world toward Marian pilgrimage sites, for all these people, today’s unprecedented event is a miracle.”

The cardinal contended that, in fact, Mary is an essential part of the ecumenical movement, though this topic “is neither common nor obvious among ecumenists.”

History

Cardinal Kasper noted that Marian devotion is fully shared with the Orthodox Church. But, he continued, “Marian devotion also existed at the time of the Reformation.”

“Luther fervently venerated Mary during his whole life, professing her, with the ancient creeds and Councils of the Church of the first millennium, as Virgin and Mother of God,” he explained. “He was only critical of some practices, which he considered abuses and exaggerations. The same happened with the English reformers.”

It will be interesting to see how the Shrine of Walsingham is affected by the changes regarding female bishops in the COE.  Several ranings members of their staff were among those who signed the petition which many have interpeted as a threat to leave for Rome if structural safeguards are not made for those opposing WO in the CoE.

Any reasonable reader of the Scripture is opposed to WO - it isn’t an ‘AngloCatholic’ position. 

It is a shame that they Anglo Catholics have been left to bear witness to that truth alone.

Where are those ‘Sola Scriptura’ folks when the change is counter to Scripture and proposed to accommodate the world?

You know, we just don’t get it, do we?  Quarrelling over theology as if it was sports teams. Quarrelling over buildings, as if one stone was to be left upon the other.  We lack the imagination to understand what is happening, what has happened. Oh Jerusalem!  A day is coming when it will be more tolerable for Sudan than for our cities.  A day is coming when this generation will say, “Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck.”  When the day comes, perhaps you will remember that I have said this.  And please understand, I’m not talking about end times as far as I know.  Prepare yourselves, a storm is coming that will overthrow the foundations. The wise stand upon the shoulders of the foolish in this insane world pyramid and from there will fall like autumn leaves. This is not a prediction.  It is a description of a world burning. Now is the time to bear testimony.  Would that we might repent like Ninevah ... but I think it is too late. May Christ show me wrong.  We simply lack the wisdom to not make things worse if we understood.  Time for prayers.

As I understand it the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham is not solely Anglican- the Roman Catholic Church also has custody of part of the shrine. I’ve not been there, but someday…..

Is there any reason to think that structural safeguards will be possible in any way in the CoE, AndrewA?  I thought it died with the last synod (?) vote.

[261] monologistos

Quarrelling over theology as if it was sports teams.

No, monologistos, we are defending truth because truth matters.  If it doesn’t matter, then we should join the religious Left in its doctrinal indifference. We should replace truth with process, and declare that the journey is the purpose of life. 

The difference between liberal and conservative is doctrinal.  We have drawn a doctrinal boundary and stated without hesitation that liberals fall beyond its perimeter.  And yet when it comes to boundaries closer to home, we suddenly shirk back.  We fear the consequences of proclaiming truth lest it impact relationship.  Isn’t this the very argument presented ad nauseum by liberals on this very board - that relationship supersedes doctrine?  How can we exclude liberals on the basis of doctrine, but then resist applying the same standard to our temporal allies?

We cannot pretend those boundaries do not exist.  Unity cannot be found in a common enemy.  It will ultimately only be found in a common agreement on doctrinal boundaries.  Those boundaries must be worked through to a definition.  And that cannot be accomplished by looking the other way.  It must be faced squarely by those who believe truth is important enough to defend despite the potential cost.

carl

Carl,
We do have to be careful not to draw the line more closely than does our Lord. 

Article XIX
Of the Church
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

Article XX
Of the Authority of the Church
The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith; and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God’s word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ: yet, as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

Article XXI
Of the authority of General Councils
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes. And when they be gathered together, forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

Plainly the Scripture, and not our own feelings determine what is ‘Level 1’.  Unity in the Necessary (that which is plain in the Scripture), Liberty in the Uncertain (that which is implied in Scripture), and Charity in all things.

“General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes.”

I’m curious as to where this limitation can be found in Scripture.  What prince gathered together the council recorded in Acts?

#266 - Andrew

I’d read this in context of the times, not as a prohibition. Anglicanism comes off the Roman Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Greek side of the Church recognizes seven councils, but the Latin side had 19 at the time (English Reformation happening post Trent), but Anglicanism only recognizes Four (if we did seven, all the banter here would be much shorter:

Second Council of Nicaea (#7) 787 AD
This Council ruled on the use of saints’ images and icons in religious devotion, declaring that whereas the veneration of images was legitimate and the intercession of saints efficacious, the veneration of icons must be carefully distinguished from the worship due God alone.

In Cramner’s original articles did include all these but the 39 are after many events.

Somehow, they need a legal way to justify why four and not nineteen. So in calling on Scripture, they are saying that princes are the only one who can calls these things (in that we don’t know if God called them, because it’s the princes (hint to “Princes of the Church” - this is in the period of the secular popes, post fall of the Roman Empire, before that it was the Emperor who called them)) and we don’t know if they got it right. 

By context of the time, I don’t think this article is invalidating the council in Acts 15, rather why we don’t follow #5 - #19 (now #21).

Defence offered in two parts:
1) The Council of Jerusalem isn’t counted in the General Councils of the Church - it was after all called by an Apostle about a specific question, and it was done before the whole of the Cannon had been written. 

The Council of Jerusalem was not called to ‘determine what scripture means’ rather it was called to determine what scripture said.  That is to say the determination of that Council headed by James became scripture.  Not later council, headed by Bishops did or ever will.

The ‘General Councils’ were called to determine the Orthodox understanding of Holy Writ - their rulings are not themselves scripture.  These later councils, are the ones discussed as having the potential for error in there findings- the Council of Jerusalem,in as much as it is recorded in the Scripture is of course free from such potential error.

2) It is descriptive, not prescriptive.  By this I mean it only states what is true - it does not define a requirement for a valid Council.

No general Council can be called by the Church itself - even before the Bishop of Rome headed off on his own, this was true, Now of course this even more true.

This of course ties in directly with the stated potential for error - as those whose attendance was required would be the choice of the Prince, and they may or may not be blessed of the Holly Ghost.

Only a secular authority, truly interested in determining the teaching of the Church Universal, has the authority to order a Council.  Can you imagine a Council called by the See of Rome were the Orthodox felt compelled to attend? Or one called by the Patriarch of Constantinople where the Bishop of Rome felt he had to attend?  Obviously not.  So no General Council can be called without ‘Princes’ the ‘Secular Authorities’ - and any such council will by necessity be composed of humans, some of who might not even be Christian, much less be conformed to the Scriptures.

Now,
If it were ‘prescriptive’ - requiring (rather than recognizing) that a Prince call a council for it to be valid, I’d agree with you.  There is nothing in Scripture to prevent a Church Called Council (as you mentioned James led one).  However, as can be plainly seen from the rest of the article it is describing the world as it is,  not laying out requirements for the calling of Councils.

The Article is against making Councils of equal importance with Scripture, and if you would like I’d can find a few ‘proof texts’ about the folly of making men’s words equal to Gods.

You know, we just don’t get it, do we?  Quarrelling over theology as if it was sports teams.

Hi Monologistos,

I’d fully concur it’s time for prayer!

Though, while some might seem in sport, please make no mistake, I earnestly think Carl is very deeply sincere and at heart desires the defend the true Gospel.

I confess to think Matt+ will interject when ever there is a Calvinist being debated, often confusing the issues and in the one case made a point exactly opposite a few months later (old history but a Calvinist gave a prefect fine Dutch Reform exegesis of John 3, just happen to directly contradict the 39 Articles with a predicable result, a few months later, Matt+ gives a Calvinist understanding of the 39 Articles - I can live with that). I do feel that he jumps in often making points to defend but actually saying something opposite (in this case I’d FULLY agree in second order separation - the irony is this is the very issue why I could not be Roman Catholic, it required for belief by the last thing ever said ex cathedra but I don’t, so I could be EO, but out of respect/integrity I could not).

——

If a group in question is a First Order seperation, then we are commanded NOT to have fellowship with them. The Mormons do claim to be Christan, but they deny most every essential of the Faith.

If a group is Second Order, then we are Commanded to have unity (read work towards unity). John 17, 1 John 4, Romans 15 1 Cor 12 (the list goes on) and if we fear God, then we don’t want to be the divider of His Church such as those in 1 Cor 1.

This is definitely NOT sport.

In the Spirit, then unity boys call the purity boys to not go off the deep end and divide to a church of one instead of the being in the One Church, but purity boys keep the unity boys from accepting too much impurity (we all fallen so there is going to be impurity—as the joke goes if you find the perfect church, don’t join it else you’ll ruin it. So in the Spirit purity boys help define how far is too far on doctrine issue and unity boys help keep that desire for purity to utterly divide and destroy the Body of Christ, “that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”  A powerful check, the Gospel must be pure, but it also must be unified.

Satan’s job is to either corrupt the message (forget RCC for a moment, in TEC, he seems to have done an effective job) or divide us in unity (forget the Reformed division or any other Protestants, in the 56 Anglican ones, he also done a pretty effective job). Mostly keep Carl or myself from operating in the Spirit so our bents for purity or unity do not complement each other.

I’d have to agree with Carl, this is VERY important and not for sport, though I appreciate the rebuke (but my bent might more than the other). I think it’s good that struggle, at least if the Spirit guides us, for if the Word is true, we need each other. I completely disagree with him on this issue (that the RCC is a First Order separation) but fully respect his love of protecting the Gospel, honestly much more than Matt+‘s jumping in (who seems to make a Second Order stance, which I agree with, so seems to take one side and argue another). In dealing with Matt+, I have above and confess be for you, Monologistos, that I did not treat with the love of Christ and could accept the charge of “for sport.”

Thank you and bless you for risking posting what you thought.

It’s one of my bad grammar day! It does keep me humble, and much gratitude to those who do not exploit it here, but read through my ramblings!

Be for = before

(or way above their for they’re and then many, many other troubles)

Hosea. I did not “jump in”. I started this thread and have been involved from the very beginning.

I accept your apology above and thank you for it. However, it now seems you are making another odd charge:

“I confess to think Matt+ will interject when ever there is a Calvinist being debated, often confusing the issues and in the one case made a point exactly opposite a few months later (old history but a Calvinist gave a prefect fine Dutch Reform exegesis of John 3, just happen to directly contradict the 39 Articles with a predicable result, a few months later, Matt+ gives a Calvinist understanding of the 39 Articles - I can live with that).”

Could you explain what you are talking about here? Do you have links to the exchange to which you refer. Yes, I have been working on a series of articles on the 39 articles and am about to post another in the series but I did not decide to do that in response to a Dutch Reformed exegesis of John 3??? Where do you get your omniscient insight into my intentions?

In our past discussions of Reformed theology, I have noticed you seem to have a strange view of Reformed doctrine based, apparently, on the Reformed people you know. This discussion has been no exception. Not only have you been confused about the points I have made, you have been confused about the points carl has made…suggesting he gave in on points that he has not in fact conceded. You seem to have finally acknowledged, though I could be wrong, that yes, modern Reformed thinkers do STILL believe Sola Fide as a first order issue (despite differences in “tone” since the 16th century) but only after some unnecessary belligerence.

You still seem a little confused with regard to Reformed ecclesiology however. To say a given visible body is not part of the Church because it does not possess one of the three Marks of the Church says very little with regard to the elect or non-elect status of the members of that body.  Individuals can very be part of the invisible Church even though the visible body to which they belong is not.

Yes, I enjoy these discussions and think they are important and since this is an open board and, indeed, I am a contributer to SF and this is my post, I participate in threads and discussions I find interesting.

I think you were confused and seem to remain so, about Carl’s position and I clarified that it was in fact quite consistent with both Calvin and modern Reformed thinking.

I have not articulated my own view on the matter of Rome. I certainly think Sola Fide is a first order issue but need to think through the ramifications. I was not stating a definitive position with regard to Rome.

Dear Matt+

The John3 thread is [here], the David+ questioning the 39 Articles is [here] and I’ll let you reread your own comments but when you said this I thought it to be a direct contradiction to what I was arguing with David+ and you <were introspecting (there is also with David+ the covenantal approach with a child’s death that you mostly stayed out of but framed the John 3 discourse {mentioned because it was in my mind when the John 3 thread happened but maybe not in yours}. Then you said this which is David+ (or you on the John 3 thread) had taken instead of calling the 39 Articles an “extra-scriptural assertion.” Praise be to God, first that GAFCON declared the 39 Articles to be completely consistent with Scripture, that David+‘s bishop help organize it and that you, Matt+, help reconcile the 39 Articles to Reformed types (I may thin Tract 90 needs to carefully consider and rethought, but I’m not that RC bent more Greek side, maybe, still I know were not either Reformed or Catholic but a mix/battle-ground of the two).

Per being your thread, that’s true, but I seem to notice even when it is not your thread and on on you “list” (in head, I’m not accusing paper) is being debated you often jump in not matter who posted. Often “recklessly” in my opinion, because here it seemed Carl called for a first order, you a second, but that was the WHOLE issue, if we are in a First or Second order, I ask twice before for clarification, no reply, I stick with my reading, Carl is calling for 1st, you @nd, Calvin (to 1550 RCC) 1st, Dr RC Sproul+ 2nd and put me down for 2nd.

Per Reformed thinkers, well, I have never identified myself as a Calvinist as you have, but not calling in your masculinity (I do apologize, I do think I was listen to Satan not Christ, it tweaked, but I’m called to love, Jesus is only seen tweaking in effort to provoke seeking Truth), but I still find what I read here different from those I meet. In both RCC tradition and Reformed tradition, that I have earnestly concluded that that both are dynamic and broad, but often it seems that people here read it in a book. I am sorry (non-apology) but I have too much respect for both to accept it as representative. Basically, I like Reformed theology I find outside SFIF, but the type I find here, I quietly hope disappears off the face of the Earth for it seems so absent anything I find in the Word about the Love of God or Love for the people of God.

As for the rest of your post (#271) well ... typical ...

I think you are out for sport at least by tone.

I said sola Fide is a distraction! (RCC view is Protestant (not Matt+ or Reformed - honestly show some empathy, they can’t often tell the difference) who begin a conversation with “do you know if you’re going to Heaven,” then hit the person with four Spiritual laws then say pray this and your in the club. I know you NEVER promote this, you said it’s by faith alone that is never alone, but you (and us) are Protestant and we must own that we as a group made a movie in the 1930’s called the <u>Gospel Blimp</u> where people to fulfill the Great Commission were chucking Bibles out of Blimp. It sound absurd, but Catholic Mom’s comments above tend to reflect that view of Protestants, the four “spiritual laws” and you’re in. I know reading your stuff that Matt+ is into discipleship and teaching the people of God and you’re into producing Gospel fruit, but we do have to own that Protestants give ALOT of ammunition and so when reading RCC statement we NEED (if only out of love that we’re even commanded to give our enemies (I know you complaint I did not site as you wish, do you want one?)) to remember, it may not be us they refer but to other who are Protestant of which we are a sub-group. Sola Fide is not the question (read the JDDJ, I know you’re a Calvinist and these where Lutheran, but you asked rhetorical above if Luther thought Sola Fide was 1st Order (before I’ve shared that sola Fide directly translate unformed faith, if he said formed faith there may not have been a problem), but the JDDJ does confirm two things, first that this is 2nd Order now (RCC or us don’t do these things with LDS or JW’s) also that Catholic understanding of Sola Fide and Lutherian are close enough to make this document—RC licensed theologian Dr. Peter Kreefe has suggested Rome apologies to Martin Luther on this topic (CRI article but many years ago, sorry, I can’t satisfy your critism). Is that an admission that sola fide is a 1st order issue with Calvinist or a prime example of Matt+ not being helpful in dodging the question I asked (if you were say you thought it a 2nd order division with the RCC) and interjecting some new concept, such as when you interjected John Calvin when Sproul was the quote in question.

You are a good debater, but when I asked for clarifications you ignored and have introduces many other topics (what Calvinism was five hundred years ago, may be in the range of “Reformed thought,” but when the quote from today and actually I think the opposite (declaration post-Trent for 1st Order verses declaration post-VC2 for 2nd Order), it’s obfuscatory.

I think you were confused and seem to remain so, about Carl’s position

Did I not ask for clarification? I do not see a simple reply form either if we understood 1st or 2nd Order and the various positions of each!!!!!

I clarified that it was in fact quite consistent with both Calvin and modern Reformed thinking.

Which was NEVER in question, except if 1550 applies today (which would demand all to remain static) and I actually was not questioning if Carl’s understanding was not Reformed (as you took it, though I did question {still do} how much you we in line with contemporary Reformed thought (RC Sproul quote given above and his radio show seem to respect post-VC2 (and CCC) treatment of the Gospel, in effect, IMHO, Sproul answers Sarah Hey’s question at the Lambeth blogger’s Roundtable differently than you did, that yes a assembly such as RCC can got to the edge but return to faithfulness, in the quote above, Sproul give credit to Protestants “especially in light of the cross-communication between Protestants and Catholics in our day,” which I confess to be lower than my opinion of Sproul [credit to the Spirit and the use of the Word in the vernacular]).

So AGAIN:

Carl—RCC are 1st Order - like Mormons, no command for unity, in fact we need to separate.

Sproul, 2nd Order—other First Order groups can not be substituted in the quote, but 2nd Order groups could be and the quote still makes logical sense.

Matt+—obfuscates - said a 2nd order statement but now seems waffling bring up many points in which it would be 1st Order but not saying when ask to clarify if RCC is 1st or 2nd Order in his opinion.

As nearly as I can tell from your latest comment, Hosea, you don’t think that Calvinism is the same as the Reformed in general.  Calvinism would be a type of Reformed theology. Is that what you are saying?

If so, I agree with you.

But why is that an issue on this thread?  Matt is a Calvinist.  He doesn’t try to hide it.  He’s going to express his Calvinist theology—and since he’s extremely well-read in the Reformers, I’m not certain why that is an issue on this thread. 

But it’s also quite clear he’s not a Presbyterian—he’s an Anglican.  As nearly as I can see, he’s an Anglican sacramentally, ecclesially, and further does not believe in the regulative principle.  But he’s also Reformed in the Calvinist tradition.  How that makes him “not an expert” in Reformed theology I don’t know—unless you believe that *only* Presbyterians may have knowledge about Reformed theology?

This discussion amongst you began when Carl stated “Many of the differences between Catholic and Protestant are first order”.

As a non-Calvinist myself—but a Reformed Anglican and a happy Protestant—I completely agree with Carl.

It is for that reason that I cannot convert to Rome.  Believe you me, had I been able to, I would have!

You then responded with this comment: “Yes, I realize you think Catholics are not Christians and heretics . . . ”—which was not what even Carl said, much less Matt.

I think it’s possible to be mistaken on theology—even first order issues, Hosea—and still be justified by Christ and in a saving relationship with Him.

So why would you exaggerate Carl’s position like that?

The more I read the comments on this thread, the angrier you sound, Hosea.

Am I misreading you?  Is there some sort of anger fueling all of this?  Why attack Matt, personally, just because he happens to have opinions about Reformed theology and Reformation history with which you disagree?

I honestly don’t get it.

Hi Sarah,

Let me try this a third time - first acted up, but I several “[comment deleted—off topic]” on another thread and thought, “on one of those night,” wrote a PM, but this now working again ...

I honestly don’t get it. Neither do I, see # 242 where I summarize what I think I do understand, so far those I debated have chosen not to reply to the questions but either introduces something new or go on without a <i>simple reply.

As a non-Calvinist myself—but a Reformed Anglican and a happy Protestant—I completely agree with Carl.

Sarah, I’d say this is in direct contradiction to what you have said with +Steenson or Lambeth Blogger’s Rountable about the RCC - That is a 2nd Order, but the RCC is not like the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Unitarians, Arians, Nestorians or Gnostics. This is what I read Carl as saying, that they are a 1st Order group.

You then responded with this comment: “Yes, I realize you think Catholics are not Christians and heretics . . . “—which was not what even Carl said, much less Matt.

Dear Sarah,

This has been an ongoing issue with Carl and myself. Yes, This is exactly how I read Carl. Note, he has NEVER denied it, in fact it was Carl who compared RCC to LDS, the retracted in someway, then inform me that he never retracted anything, when he (Carl) does, he’ll let me know in a certain form. So please reread Carl’s statement on the topic, I paraphrase, in case I am in grave error but he has never rebuked my paraphrase as being close to what he has said (as you charge).

Now Moot pointed out that Matt+ was hypocritical defending Carl while contradicting Carl, which lead to my #242. Matt+ in reply has raised other 1st Order issues (One might just hold Matt+ to if Matt+ thinks the RCC is guilty of all he raised since the 1st v 2nd Order issue was raised).

Why attack Matt, personally, just because he happens to have opinions about Reformed theology and Reformation history with which you disagree?

Dear Sarah and Matt+,

Well, I am not Reformed and I do think that Matt+ often act like a school boy headed off to the rest room with a ruler (pardon if too graphic, but seriously,“my Calvinist soul shivers” hits me as sever insecurity compared to other Calvinist who oddly identify themselves as Reformed first, do then accuse me of knowing nothing, then jumping into to defend another Calvinist ... well, I don’t think Mott joined me on this one for any other reason he disagreed with what was said, I don’t think it was that Moot identifies himself as a bastardized Anglo-Catholic, as I remember he declared himself a Heinze 57 Evangelical. Yet, Matt+ will interject himself in any (including the David, who really needs no defense, Ould thread) Calvinist argument, often contradicting (on this one as I understand, Carl is 1st Order, but Matt+ put forth 2nd Order, well I am second order, so while I debate Carl over 1 V 2 Order Matt+ interjects on the side of Carl, to end up contradicting himself, that I find obnoxious and no better than debating a Liberal Episcopalian! Sorry, if it’s that strong, but 1st & 2nd Order are that different, even if te effects are not.

I honestly don’t get it either, I think Carl is 1st Order, but Carl’s savior Matt+ interjected talking out of both sides of his mouth, I do if Carl wants to say RCC is the Whore of Babylon, He’d answer #242 directly and we could be start form there and if Matt+ want to accuse RCC of some heresy, he’d stop saying “are you saying Luther did not say Sola Fide” but state directly Matt+‘s charge of high crimes and treason against RCC verse avoiding the question.

AS For Me: Second Order, I could be EO better than RCC, ironically it is the required Maryology that is my stumbling block. I’m not TR like above, but I just don’t believe what is required, so on this topic am Protestant in thinking, but I still think RCC are my “errant” brothers who the only infallible thing is our common love for Jesus, our Christ.

Let me try this a third time - first acted up, but I several “[comment deleted—off topic]” on another thread and thought,

I have seen! Thus it has been a rough night for SF mods. Also apologies to form the missing “/I”

Carl (#245)

Not quite.  I am asserting that the institutional church centered in Rome teaches a false Gospel, and therefore cannot be recognized as a true visible church because it fails to possess one of the three essential marks of a true church - preaching the true gospel.

Sure.. Works is mired with justification, and definitely the wrong way.  Most Protestants I’ve talked to over the years make the same kind of mistake.  All the way from the Bible-church guy who embosses the date he prayed the Sinner’s Prayer on the inside of his Bible, to the WELS Lutheran elder who thought that salvation was God rowing a boat with one paddle, and the person rowing the other paddle. 

All the way on the other side of the continuum, are the Universalists and the Antinomians, with their de-emphasis on the role of works. 

(shrug) We live in a Protestant Dark Age. 

If you think that Rome preaches a true gospel, then you are declaring Sola Fide to be a non-essential.

Carl, the creeds are essentials for us.  The Father is essential in determining the Elect before the foundation of the World;  The Son is essential for the Double Propitiation He enables for the sake of the Elect;  The Holy Spirit is essential to apply this salvation to the Elect within their lifetimes.

Sola Fide is a particular interpretation of the creeds, that most Christians get wrong theologically or practically.  If we’re honest, we’d have to admit that we as Protestants are far, far from preaching and living it “purely.” 

That’s why I can’t justify not being a Roman Catholic strictly on the basis of Sola Fide.  Now, there are PLENTY of other reasons why I cannot, indeed must not, swim the Tiber.  Any one of them is enough for me to stand on the banks saying, “Dang!” and then walking back to the mess that we Protestants have made for ourselves. 

Does Sola Fide play a significant role there?  You betcha.  It’s just not star of the show. 

It is this last idea - that Sola Fide is a non-essential aspect of the gospel - that I reject.

Hmm, took us long enough to articulate it, don’t you think? 

A weaker form of justification in the Gospel - say, for example, “Jesus is Lord” ala NT Wright - would allow for a much broader boundary, and you would have trouble excluding liberals on that basis alone.

I don’t follow the Wright debate. 

So, you’re worried about how to exclude liberals?  If you have a Presbyterian parish which has a healthy respect for the WCF doing its job, and a Catholic parish next door which has a healthy respect for Rome, then you are excluding liberals.  If the parishes cooperate with one another (say, if one member transfers to the other for vague reasons, and the Presby pastor calls the RC priest to find out if the person in question had been under discipline), then you’re doing an even better job at keeping out liberals. 

There is a desire to ‘get past’ the Reformation; to say it was a big semantic misunderstanding.  It wasn’t.  Pretending otherwise will not change the facts.

Pretending that the battlelines are the same as they were 400 years ago, doesn’t change anything either.  Today, we’re friendly with the Baptists, have WO in our own backyard, have clergy rejecting the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement citing “cosmic Child abuse,” and the rest of the usual suspects.  Among the conservatives, we have teachings and movements that would make Luther and Calvin roll over in their graves.  Oh yeah, and the latter believe in Sola Fide just fine. 

Sola Fide?  I’d rather articulate it gently to my Roman brothers and sisters, while I’m digging the forest out of my own eye.

As for the matter of whether Rome as an institution is part of the ‘Church,’ I’ve addressed this in 254 & 239.  Sproul has to get past the ‘ordinary’ clause in the WCF (his doctrinal standard, mind you), and I don’t think he can.  I don’t think you can either, assuming that you find the clause reasonably stated (I realize that your parish might not have WCF amongst its doctrinal standards).

Oh, that wasn’t a dig at the Baptists, in #276.  Luther and Calvin had some nasty things to say about them.  Today, they’re our allies, and I think that’s a good thing.  My point in bringing them up is that the vitriol against the Anabaptists has given way to a ‘kinder, gentler’ (mostly) debate amongst peers and allies.  I.e., this is an example of a battleline that has shifted.

Hosea (#274)

I did not call Matt+ a hypocrite, nor do I believe it;  Please don’t say that. 

I agree with you that Carl often overstates his case when it comes to Rome. 

Shake some Grace on it, bro.

Roman Catholic have the same Jesus we do.

They may stress the ‘faith without works is dead’ but then so did James.

They teach Christ and Him Crucified (and risen) as our only means of Salvation. 

That is enough for ‘recognition as being Christian’ (though of course with much room for error). 

The same ‘litmus’ reveals the JW, the LDS, the Gnostics, and the Presiding Heretic as ‘not Christian’.

We shouldn’t be denying our Brothers in Christ, nor claiming they are in the same conditions as the infidel, and the apostate, we should be praying and working to show them the way more clearly. 

Wrong Doctrine on some things leads to a non-abundant life.  Wrong Doctrine on the ‘Christ and Him Crucified’ leads to death.

Let us not confuse the ‘errant brother’, who may not have the ‘more abundant life’ with the ‘unsaved son of their father the devil’ who has only death.

I don’t think it was that Moot identifies himself as a bastardized Anglo-Catholic, as I remember he declared himself a Heinze 57 Evangelical

Wow, these things are a poor substitute for face-to-face communication.  I grew up as a Heinz-57, as my parents flitted from CRC to Lutheran to Pentacostal to RCA to Baptist etc.  They couldn’t quite find a parish home, unfortunately.  Earlier this decade, I settled on the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.  A few big life changes later, I find myself as an Episcopalian.  But really, I’m probably closer to being a moderate OPC boy, at heart. 

If 2009 turns out to be eh, that sort of ‘fan,’ and the CCP options are untenable, I may go OPC again.  But I don’t know at this point.

[274] Hosea6:6 wrote:

  This is exactly how I read Carl. Note, he has NEVER denied it, in fact it was Carl who compared RCC to LDS, the retracted in someway, then inform me that he never tretracted anything, when he (Carl) does, he’ll let me know in a certain form. So please reread Carl’s statement on the topic

Yes, let’s do that, shall we?  And let’s start with post 91 .

I consider the Gospel of Rome as set forth in the Council of Trent to be a false gospel, and therefore consider those who hold to that gospel to be under the condemnation of Galatians 1.  Beyond this, I don’t make any pronouncement of the faith of another man.

Rome as an institution teaches a false gospel.  Why is it false?  Because it adds work to faith.  It in fact adds considerably more than that added by the circumcisers condemned in Galatians.  The RCC therefore cannot be considered a true church because it fails to possess one of the three necessary marks of a true church - the true gospel.  Any man who holds to and trusts in the gospel as taught by the RCC is therefore likewise under the condemnation of Galatians.  I allow for the possibility that individual Roman Catholics can be of the Elect, called, and redeemed.  But such individuals would of necessity reject the false gospel taught in the RCC.  This last is not a concession I would grant in the case of Mormons.  But I don’t possess the authority to condemn other men.  I am no judge.  I simply state the standard, and let them judge themselves. 

So why did I bring in the Mormons?  Because the touchstone for my entry into this thread was the oft-expressed desire to avoid Catholic/Protestant issues lest it affect unity.  But if there is no doctrinal unity, then what is the current basis for it? 

  We have for nearly three years on this weblog argued that truth is more important than unity when it comes to the apostasy of liberal Christianity.  Why does unity suddenly become paramount when that exact same standard is applied to Rome?

Doctrine has driven the separation of conservatives from liberals.  And yet now we use liberal arguments to justify the relationship between Catholics and Protestants?  Why?  What are we protecting?  I suspect it is the common bond felt by mutual combatants in the same war against the same enemy.  But this is a false basis. 

Cultural conservatism does not validate a religion.  Common opposition to the post-modern behemoth does not validate unity.  There must be unity in the Gospel.  Unity cannot be found between those who hold mutually exclusive gospels.

So now we move to Post 168 . I expanded on this very idea.

I fear the basis is simply the common enemy of the post-modern world.  But that is no true basis.  The traditional Mormon and I both have a common enemy in the post-modern world.  But there is no spiritual union between Mormonism and Christianity because there is no common faith between them.

This should convince any Christian of the truth of my assertion.  Mormons are culturally conservative, but not Christian.  More than cultural agreement is required, or else we end in unity with the Mormons.  A common faith is required.

FULL STOP!  And don’t I wish I had put a paragraph break right there in the post.

So the questions hangs in the air.  Not whether Catholics are the same as Mormons, but whether a Catholic and a Protestant possess the same faith.  Unity is only possible if this is true.  I ask that question in the next sentence.

Do I have a common faith with a Roman Catholic?

That being the principle point of my argument; where I was going all along.  And what is the conflict of faith?  I describe the content of that conflict in the very next sentence.

Is the conflict between Sola Fide and Faith plus Works truly adiaphora?  Is a conflict that exists at the very heart of the Gospel really a second order difference?

I honestly don’t know how to be more clear.  I did not compare Mormons to Catholics.  I used Mormons to prove that a common bond of faith is essential.  Beyond that, I hope I have cleared up any misunderstanding.

One more thing.  Matt is not my savior in this argument, but i did appreciate him engaging on Friday afternoon when I was at work and incapable of responding to the thread.

carl

Carl writes (## 91, 281):  “I consider the Gospel of Rome as set forth in the Council of Trent to be a false gospel, and therefore consider those who hold to that gospel to be under the condemnation of Galatians 1.”  This is an extremely serious charge. I obviously cannot set forth here the entirety of Trent’s Decree on Justification, but below are several representative passages.  I would be obliged if Carl or someone who shares his views would let me know whether, in their opinion, these passages contain the allegely “false gospel” that brings its adherents under the condemnation of Galations 1; or perhaps draw my attention to other passages from the Decrees or Canons of Trent that teach that “false gospel.” 
<blockquote>
CHAPTER X:  In What Manner it is to be Understood that the Impious is Justified by Faith and Gratuitously

And whereas the Apostle saith that man is justified by faith (can. ix) and freely [Rom. 3: 22-24], those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all justification; without which it is impossible to please God [Heb. 11:6] and to come unto the fellowship of his sons; but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification.  For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace [Rom. 6:6].

CHAPTER X:  On the Increase of Justification Received

Having, therefore, been thus justified and made the friends and domestics of God [Eph. 2:19; John 15:15], advancing from virtue to virtue [Psalm 83:8], they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day [2 Cor. 4:16]; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh [Col. 3:5], and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification [Rom. 6: 13, 19], they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith cooperating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written:  “He that is just, let him be justified still” [Apoc. 22:11]; and again, “Be not afraid to be justified even to death” [Ecclus. 18:22]; and also, “Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” [James 2:24].  And this increase of justification Holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O lord, increase of faith, hope and charity” [Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost.]

CANON I.  If anyone saith that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.  If anyone saith that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepard and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

(Taken from Dogmatic Canons and Decrees, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1977, pp. 32-33, 35-36, 49, 51.)

Hosea…
“...my Calvinist soul shivers…”

oh wow…you thought I was being deadly serious? lighten up.

Correction:  first quoted passage above in #282 is Chapter VIII.

Lourdes Hah - Lourdes or even the Virgin Mary cannot save or heal Rowan Williams from his well-earned consequences.  He has wasted the precious coin entrusted to him!

I am mad as ‘all get out’ at Rowan Williams who has time to go prissing, posing, posturing and simpering to Lourdes, time to speak out in favor of sharia law and Marxism, to act to support those who believe God approves sinful human behavior and identities - but he does not have time or (real) integrity to speak out and defend the Name of Jesus Christ and His Kingdom and Church from the likes of Bruno, Shori, the dung that they are doing and promulgating.

I have no respect for him or for Kasper for cavorting around with him.  Kasper and Benedict have let the ‘gay masses’ go on in England without correction.  Homosexual activity is prevalent in the RC priesthood and has been for a long time.  There is too much emphasis on devotion to saints and not enough on teaching and preaching the WORD of God in the Catholic church.  They, like the Anglican’s look pretty good on paper, but they are not discipling the flock or teaching the WHOLE truth. 

There is too much emphasis on form and ceremony and not enough real practice of Christianity in spirit and in truth, in power and in suffering the crucifixion of the flesh….not enough accountability from the top down and bottom up.

Lourdes can be about trying to manipulate God, seeking healing instead of crucifixion and superstition instead of true worship. 

The charismatics and pentecostals lack discipline, the mainline church has tolerated unbelievers until they have let them take over.

The UMC just barely defended part of their doctrine, but gave way to the liberal/revisionist/unbeliever/uncrucified population in another key area.  They are destined for decades more conflict unless they put out or set apart those who are rebellious and disobedient - or re-form in a separate group like the orthodox Anglicans.

The same thing that RW is doing in worshipping the Virgin, angels, miracles, but not the Lord of the miracles has gone on in the charismatic church with healers like Oral Roberts and Todd Bentley…we are not to honor or follow human beings (self, others, men, women, saints or otherwise)  but Jesus Christ…He alone is Lord of His Church.

Mary (the icon of the Church) always points to Jesus.

Psalm 118:8 is the exact middle of the Bible: 8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man.

Trusting in Rowan Williams or Bishop Bob Duncan McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden or Government financial bailout, or our own health, mind, power is foolish.
The mennonites, episcopalians, et al sucking up to the sicko Iranian president is foolishness - really worse, it’s idolatry…
Psalm 118:9, It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.

God had firm stern words throughout Scripture for those who seek help or favor from the Assyrians…from man.

Trust in The Lord with All your heart, lean not on your own understanding, in all your ways, acknowledge (submit to) Him and HE will direct your path.  Proverbs 3:5-6

Yep - I’m so angry I could spit - and yes, I will pray for the sorry excuses for church leaders with whom I’m so angry .... I’m also angry with myself for each and every time I’ve failed to hold to the Cross, the Word, to Love Him first, to love others…just as angry if not more so.  >:8-(

I honestly don’t know how to be more clear.  I did not compare Mormons to Catholics.  I used Mormons to prove that a common bond of faith is essential.

I see.  So, more like an argument by analogy, but not so much a comparison per se?

Regarding your analogy, are you:
a)  Saying that some members of the ‘Church’ of Latter-Day Saints could be presently saved, just as some Roman Catholics could be presently saved, or;
b) Saying that no member of LDS can be presently saved, just as no Roman Catholic can be presently saved?

Because according to the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXV.II, to repeat the reference), you’d have to choose (a) or (b). 

If you prefer the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Canons of Dordt, and the Heidelberg Catechism) as your doctrinal standards, then the choices remain the same:

“We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.”  (Belgic Confession, 28.1)

IOW the Belgic concurs with the WCF on this point.  Institution may not be the cause of salvation, but the two are part of a Gordian Knot (Aside: The WCF does a better job imho of allowing for the special exceptions - e.g., the deathbed conversion). 

My guess is that if you recognized that (a) and (b) are your only options (per the Reformed doctrinal standards), then you’d bite the bullet and choose (b).  Option (a) is heretical, as it implies that LDS is part of the Church. 

What would I choose?  I’m glad you asked.  I of course don’t use the ‘common bond of faith’ analogy between Roman Catholics and Mormons, so I’m not bound to choose between (a) and (b).  Instead, I would choose:

(c)  LDS is too heretical to be part of the Church, therefore Mormons canNOT be presently saved, and;
(d)  If the possibility exists that Roman Catholics can be presently saved, then (per WCF XXV.II & Belgic Confession 29.1) the Roman Catholic Church must be part of the Church. 

I can respect (though I’d disagree) a view asserting that Roman Catholics cannot be presently saved.  The thing I’ve noticed is that if this view is consistently applied, then the asserter is plagued with whether or not Protestants outside of his own denomination are presently saved.  In my library e.g., I have catechetical materials put out by the Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS).  There is a very interesting section in one of the books dealing with the issue of whether or not an Arminian can be presently saved.  The writer couldn’t bring himself to say, “Of course, dummy!”  Instead, he leaves the reader with even more doubt- “Gee, I just don’t know.”

I said it before, and I’ll say it again.  You may find yourself in a denomination like the Reformed Church in the United States in a few years, Carl.  If not, you may well find yourself as a Roman Catholic.  If the latter, I won’t hold it against you.  Try not to be too much of trophy, though - many Protestants find it obnoxious.

RE:“Sarah, I’d say this is in direct contradiction to what you have said with +Steenson or Lambeth Blogger’s Rountable about the RCC . . . “

And you would be wrong.  As I said above, I believe that one can be wrong about a first-order issue and still be a justified Christian.  And Hosea . . . lest we forget . . . these are *first-order issues* with the Roman Catholics as well.  So important that if we do not believe their way, we can’t “convert to Rome” nor are we in a “true church” outside of Rome.

And that’s just fine by me.  I take no offense by that—just as I’m confident that Bishop Steenson takes no offense over my parallel belief about the Roman Catholic Church.

So to summarize, it appears that you and I do not agree on what the *consequences* of first-order disagreements are amongst Christians.  And I believe that one may find Christians in the Roman Catholic Church, just as they believe that one may find Christians in the non-churches of the Protestants.  ; > )

Thanks for responding to my question about Matt. 

It appears from your response—“school boy,” “insecurity,” “interject himself”, “obnoxious”, “talking out of both sides of his mouth”—that yes, it really is a personal animus that you have against Matt.

Given that personal anger—which I certainly don’t comprehend, other than that Matt disagrees with you—I would recommend that Matt not engage in debate with you any more, although I doubt he will follow that suggestion!  That appears to be something you would like—that Matt no longer debate your statements—since if anyone has seemed insecure in their arguments, Hosea, on this thread, it has seemed to be you.  The more emotional you get, the more challenging it is to follow the flow of your argument.  And I think the disconnected thoughts are often the sign of high emotion.

I have to again ask—why the high emotion?  Why the anger? 

There’s no need to respond on this thread to that question if you don’t want to . . . but I do find it very puzzling and confusing for those like me who simply wanted to appreciate a nice interesting argument. 

I don’t agree with all of what Carl says—for instance, I *do* think that there is unity with Roman Catholics, particularly as the dividing lines between those who are postmodern and those who believe in revealed Truth become ever clearer and clearer.

But it is much harder to follow the debate with the personal animus that you have against Matt impeding both your own arguments’ coherency and cohesiveness, as well as the thread’s conversation.

[287] Moot

The difference between LDS and RCC is that the RCC contains a significant amount of truth.  They have among other things a proper trinitarian understanding of God (absent the Marian inroads into the functions of the Trinity.)  LDS does not possess such advantages.  A man in the LDS who comes to faith will of necessity leave that church.  A man who stays makes a prima facia case against himself that he is not a Christian.  Why?  Because Mormonism is polytheistic paganism.  There is no place for a Christian to reside within its walls.

But because there is significant truth in the RCC, I cannot make a similar statement about RCs.  I will not say that membership in the RCC is a prima facia case for being an unbeliever.  I allow for the possibility that people may be called by the Spirit through the ministry of the (badly corrupted) Word.  I will even allow for the possibility that they might find a comfortable place within its confines.  And I would say the same for members of Liberal Christian churches.  I credit my own faith to the ministry of the Word in a liberal church - a church presently so dead I will not let my children attend it.  And the pastor who confirmed me is still resident.

But there yet remains this critical condition. People who are called by the Spirit will of necessity believe certain things.  And one thing they will of necessity believe is that their standing before God is not in any sense dependent upon their own good works.  This condition does not depend upon what church they attend.  It is a function of regeneration.  If a man tells me that Jesus is not the Christ, I know that man testifies against himself. If a man tells me that Jesus is still present in his grave, I know that man testifies against himself.  If a man tells me that he will stand before God because he did good works, I know that man testifies against himself.

It has nothing to do with the WCF.  It has nothing to do with the RCC being a part of the visible church.  Men are called to faith by the Spirit through the Word one by one by one.

carl

btw, I forgot…

If not, you may well find yourself as a Roman Catholic.

My RC friends tell me this all the time.  They all think I would make a great RC.  One has even volunteered to be my sponsor in RCIA.  It will never happen.  Never on God’s green Earth will I pledge alliegence to the RCC.  My friends at AOMIN would never let me live it down.

carl

That’s an interesting group of folks that you hang out with, Carl.  Thanks for the link, it explains a lot.

Much of the above leaves me wondering how many Calvinists can dance on the head of a pin? Of course, such a question ignores the related question whether Calvinists are even allowed to dance. If the latter question is answered in the negative, it obviates the entire discussion.

I think I it is perhaps best for me simply to avoid that particular logical rat’s nest and heed Father Kennedy’s advice. Before departing, however, if you are not certain of your own position, you might want to consider attempting to view Father John Corapi’s program on praying the rosary on EWTN.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

That’s an interesting group of folks that you hang out with, Carl.  Thanks for the link, it explains a lot.

You are welcome, Trooper.  I provided it for that very reason.  I am pleased to call Dr White my friend.  And I am not the only person on this board who does so. 

carl

[282] Silver Lake Romanist

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

carl

Thank you very much, Carl, for your response [#294].  I will let the passages you cite speak for themselves.  Allow me to add the following:

Canon XXIX does indeed teach the necessity of the sacrament of Penance for the remission of mortal sin, but must be viewed in light of other portions of the Decree on Justification.  For example, Chapter XIV notes that the guilt of sin is remitted “by the sacrament [of Penance] or by the desire of the sacrament.” This canon in no way teaches “works righteousness.”

Canon XXX does indeed reference “temporal punishment” and purgatory, but this is not a question of works righteousness. 

Canons XXXI and XXXII, it must be noted, are speaking of “the justified.”  This makes all the difference.  As to the question whether the “justified” receive eternal recompense for good works,  the Decree on Justification (in Chapter XVI) fleshes this out:

...Neither is this to be omitted, that although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good works that Christ promises that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of His least ones shall not lose his reward [Matt. 10:42]; and the Apostle testifies that that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory [2 Cor. 4:17]; nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord [cf. 1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17]....

I would recommend that Christians who may be interested in pursuing this further actually sit down and read Trent’s   Decree on Justification in its entirety. Readers can judge for themselves whether this document is a false gospel condemned in Galations 1.

Silver Lake Romanist:
As an Anglican, my belief in the doctrine of justification by faith is adequately expressed in the Articles of Religion:

XI. Of the Justification of Man. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

This article goes as far as, but no further than, the teachings of Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers.  That is as far as I would care to go myself.

It is obvious to me that many sincere believers have been led to Christ through the witness and ministry of the Roman Catholic Church, and that they have undergone justification by faith in such a way that they can be saved by God’s grace.  Frankly, I cannot imagine believing otherwise, even if I have principled objections to many of your doctrines.  However, I am concerned about the various anathemas pronounced by the Council of Trent against the Protestant reformers and the understanding of justification which they upheld.

There appears to be some confusion among Roman Catholics themselves as to whether or not these anathemas remain in place.  I have heard it argued that they were abolished in the revision of Canon Law which took place in 1983, but others have insisted that this is not the case. 

It has also been suggested by Catholics who are clearly uncomfortable with the implications of these anathemas that they only apply to members of the Roman Church who embrace heretical viewpoints, and are not aimed at Protestants who have never been a part of that Church.  But the canons themselves make no such distinction, and were promulgated long after the Papal Bull “Unam Sanctum” of 1302 which states:  “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff,” as ratified by the fifth Lateran Council in 1517.  If the pope’s authority extends to the entire human race, then surely the Decrees of Trent do as well.

Here is one view of the matter from a traditionalist Catholic source:

The question many people ask today is were these anathemas from the Council of Trent ever revoked? The answer is No. An anathema on an infallible statement can never be changed, and is always binding; otherwise the statement is not infallible. Many people have been falsely lead to believe that Vatican II and the Code of Canon Law of 1983 did away with Trent’s anathemas. First, there is not the slightest hint in the documents of Vatican II that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated. As a matter of fact Vatican II referred to the Council of Trent dozens of times and quoted Trent’s proclamations as authority. Second, prior to the 1983 Code, those who were excommunicated from the Church were divided into two categories; i.e. vitandi and tolerati. The 1983 Code of Cannon law eliminated these distinctions which has given rise to the false impression that these condemnations were repealed, but this is not the case. Catholics must remember that canon law deals primarily with internal discipline. While there is always some relation between canon law and dogmatic theology, as a rule the law does not make doctrinal pronouncements. Mr. Charles M. Wilson, an associate member of the Canon Law Society of America and president of the St. Joseph Foundation when asked if the Code of 1983 repealed the anathemas he stated, “I can find nothing in the Code now in force that explicitly or implicitly removes any anathemas of Trent.”

  http://www.geocities.com/peterpaulmin/CoucilofTrent.html

While the Catholic participants who helped produce the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” I have referred to above may share the outlook of their Lutheran counterparts that their newly found agreements do not fall under the past condemnations issued by either Church, Roman Catholics will need to be very sure of this in light of your Church’s teaching on infallibility and the stringent nature of Trent’s decrees.  Although I may find this level of dialogue promising, and I do, I am not bound by Romanist belief, and many Catholics and Protestants alike still have doubts.

I have no brief to make on behalf of Lutheranism or Calvinism,  but it does seem that there are some serious issues of “first order truths” on the Roman Catholic side that would have to be resolved in order to arrive at a full and proper understanding of the doctrine of justification that overcomes past misunderstandings, and which both sides could officially accept.  If the traditional Roman Catholics, whose judgment I trust, are correct, then this would involve a serious revision of the doctrine of infallibility, and perhaps its abandonment altogether, since Trent’s decrees could not otherwise be modified.  Something that Rome obviously might not be prepared to do, although I would consider it a welcome development.

Otherwise, we are at an impasse, unless there is a way to demonstrate that the Decrees of the Council of Trent do not truly intend that which they clearly appear to say.  But traditionalist Roman Catholics utterly reject such a notion, and perhaps not without good reason.  It may be that theirs is an example we should follow.  However, if there is a way around this dilemma, I would be glad to hear about it.

Have we here agreed that Rome teaches enough correctly for the members of that ‘branch’ to know:
1) The Christ of the Bible,
2) to understand our need of Salvation
3) which is through His Atoning Grace alone

If so, then I think we have established that they are indeed ‘Christian’ - even if laden with much error.

The Mormon is not taught the Christ of the Bible.  If he comes to a saving knowledge it is through the written word, not the “church” teachings.

If we look to the Articles for what marks the ‘minimum’ for ‘Christian’ we find the Three Creeds.  The Romans support them, the Mormons do not.

Granted the Romans exceed the restrictions of the Articles by requiring what can not plainly be shown from scripture, but this is a ‘sin’ that is ‘not unto death’ - it doesn’t keep them from salvation.

Mormons on the other hand do not support the three creeds (and can not), their denial of the deity of Christ is a sin unto death.  There is no life in their teachings.

And one thing they will of necessity believe is that their standing before God is not in any sense dependent upon their own good works.

As I said, that proves too much when it’s applied to Protestants. 

But there yet remains this critical condition. People who are called by the Spirit will of necessity believe certain things. And one thing they will of necessity believe is that their standing before God is not in any sense dependent upon their own good works.  This condition does not depend upon what church they attend.

Ah, no.  The conditions of regeneration and repentance cannot abide membership in a false church, Carl.  These conditions very much depend on which Church they’ve entrusted with their spiritual care;  at least, who they will eventually entrust.  At the end of the day, you’d have to encourage a baby Christian in LDS that they have to leave on account of “too much false-gospel” being in LDS;  whereas simultaneously you’d be holding up the “pure preaching of the Gospel” requirement for the RCC.  OTOH, I’d at least be able to urge the new Christian convert still attached to LDS to leave on the basis that LDS is a false church. 

For all your entrenching, you really are on a more dangerous road than I am. 

I am gratified however to see you backpeddle on the WCF and the whole Reformed thing.  It will be fun to watch you cross swords with NRA+, knowing that you two are actually peers when it comes to subscription to Reformed teaching. 

It will never happen.  Never on God’s green Earth will I pledge alliegence to the RCC.

Yeah.  That’s what Scott Hahn said.  I guess that wasn’t his call.  In your case, we can make an exception.  Your resolve is so much stronger. 

At any rate, I suspect that if you do ever get out of your little Bible-church, perhaps through a job-change, you might be taking advantage of the relocation to look for a parish home that is both Reformed and ruled by a bishop.  The nearest thing I can think of for you would be the REC.  You.. may be in for some rude awakenings. 

I’ll leave it at that. 

Moot

You know little about me and presume much. 

1.  I haven’t backpeddled on anything.  I have consistently said the same thing since this thread started.  You mentioned the WCF.  I never mentioned it except to deny its relevance.

2.  I will not forget that you attempted to use against me information about myself that I offered up in good faith.  That was unkind.

Otherwise, you may think what you like.

Cheers

carl

You mentioned the WCF.  I never mentioned it except to deny its relevance.

I brought the WCF up originally because Sproul’s name was raised earlier.  I kept it up in my posts to you because of your claims to be Reformed.  I certainly wasn’t using it as a confessional standard that applies to you, or even to Anglicans, but rather as something that might be mildly useful.  I don’t agree with all of it, and indeed most Presbies I know don’t agree with all of it. 

It’s just .. interesting that a self-proclaimed ‘TR’ would have such little regard for the WCF in this area;  if not a bit anomalous.  But what do I know?  I’m not even on P&R;Publishing’s mailing list. 

I will not forget that you attempted to use against me information about myself that I offered up in good faith.  That was unkind.

It’s unfortunate that suggesting your current church affiliation might have an impact upon your ecclesiology and soteriology, offends your sensibilities.  Your interactions with some folks on this board suggested a stronger constitution.

Gracious 300 posts and still going!  This has been an absolutely fascinating thread and show Christian blogging at its best.  Where else could you find educated Christians of different perspectives: Calvinist, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Anglicans of various shades and others debating the issues which they hold in common and giving their varied perspective on those which they think divide.

This is the sort of thread from which I learn and I wish I had the time to follow up all the interesting leads and references introduced to do it justice.  One examines one’s own beliefs and begins to understand other peoples’ perspectives as well.

In the heat of the debate it is easy and perhaps natural to make assertions about the motivations and character of peoples’ contributions and this detracts from what is an informative thread.

For me I have no problem regarding all those who have contributed as fellow Christians, and although there are points of quite serious disagreement on fundamental points I would not write them off as affecting their prospects of salvation.  To give just one example I pray that Roman Catholics are pleasantly surprised on the issue of Purgatory as they continue their Christian journey.  But that is my perspective as an Anglican.

I’d say the Infallible thing is problematic for Rome as much as it seemed a good idea at the time.  For those who utterly reject Roman Catholicism, I expect this means they must by necessity reject apostolic succession since the Church of England and Anglicanism receives its orders through Rome.  The alternative seems to be the New Age claim that one can be a full member in the family of Christ by leaping over 2000 years of history and simply claiming kinship with the apostles.  Similarly, I am a bit amused, I confess, by those liberal friens who say they would never belong to a church with closed communion or with no acceptance of ordination of women.  Short memories.  But I guess it’s OK this week.  I don’t believe the Church is the sort of thing that is established by the latest declaration of General Convention.  If it was, wouldn’t that make Spong, Chane, Shori, and company the actual apostles of this new church?  It becomes a kind of dispensationalism and in my view, that is what much of the Protestant claim to acceptable doctrinal purity really amounts to.

Seems like GC, Synod and Conference votes, feelings, desires, cultural trends and perceived sense of fairness and justice trump and override Scripture, Tradition, Reason AND all evidence to the contrary in TEC, the Western/Northern provinces of the AC and most other mainline denominations.

Seems like GC, Synod and Conference votes, feelings, desires, cultural trends and perceived sense of fairness and justice trump and override Scripture, Tradition, Reason AND all evidence to the contrary in TEC, the Western/Northern provinces of the AC and most other mainline denominations.

That is, all medical, science research evidence to the contrary.  Political pressure and violence has hijacked the both the APA orgs - both psychiatric and psychological orgs.

although there are points of quite serious disagreement on fundamental points I would not write them off as affecting their prospects of salvation.

Well, this is what I never quite got an answer about from Matt.  Or rather he answered using Protestant jargon (to me) and the thread then went off on a long discussion of “first order” and “second order” differences.  But originally Matt had said that salvation was not dependent on holding correct ideas (of salvation, of the role of Mary, etc.) but of faith in Jesus Christ.  My question was “how much is salvation dependent on correct ideas (and acting on those ideas) about BEHAVIOR—i.e., abortion, homosexuality, etc.?”  If a person had faith in Jesus Christ, but went to a church where they were told that abortion was OK, and they subsequently “in good faith” (as it were) had an abortion, would this affect their salvation?  If I got a direct answer to this, I don’t think I understood it.

  To give just one example I pray that Roman Catholics are pleasantly surprised on the issue of Purgatory as they continue their Christian journey.  But that is my perspective as an Anglican.

Whereas, in the heat of discussion, we can calm ourselves by reminding ourselves of the length of time in Purgatory that you all will be spending contemplating your errors.   Of course, every time we think of that, it adds to OUR time in Purgatory.

#305 Catholic Mom
Well of course there is always that possibility that I will end up asking if someone will have a word with her son as I am packed off to Purgatory but I hope not.

Just in case the wasn’t sufficiently clear—Catholics (at least modern Catholics) don’t believe that Protestants will be in Purgatory because they are Protestants.  Just that everybody except (by definition) the saints needs to be purified before able to stand face to face in the presence of God.  I think most people would also say that “time” as it applies to Purgatory is meaningless.  It’s a process, not a measure of time.

“...originally Matt had said that salvation was not dependent on holding correct ideas (of salvation, of the role of Mary, etc.) but of faith in Jesus Christ.”

Well, if I really said that I was mistaken. Of course it matters what you believe. I do not think for example that someone who comes to faith in the Watchtower society’s “Jesus” comes to a true saving faith. He or she has taken hold of a false god. It certainly matters what you believe.

What I meant was that I am sure that, say, the thief on the cross had a radically incomplete understanding of Christ and yet, what he saw of the true Christ, he believed.

Justifying faith involves:
1. Knowledge (right knowledge of Christ’s person and work)
2. Assent(that what is revealed about Christ in scripture is true
3. Surrender (trust in his person and work alone for salvation and commitment to him as Lord)

False teaching prohibits people from getting past step 1 so they can never attain step 3.

Those under false teachers, who believe what the false teachers tell them, are unable, apart from divine intervention to get a true saving knowledge of Christ.

However, I think it possible to possess all three aspects of saving faith in both the Roman and Protestant branches of Christendom…which is why I hesitated above with regard to the status of Rome. So while I think Rome is in error soteriologically, I think it remains possible for one to come to know Christ and put his or her full trust in him within the Roman church.

As for the second part of your question…the sins of abortion or homosexuality for those who are aleady justified…well certainly there is a differnce between the Roman concept of mortal sin and our concept of Preservation.

But something that Romans and many evangelicals do seem to miss is that unrepentantly rejecting scriptural truth, sitting under a teacher who openly and brazenly contradicts scripture (Spong for example) committing homosexual acts without repentance, unrepentant adultery, murder, etc…are not acts that characterize the justified sinner. Good trees bear good fruit. unrepentant theives, murderers, adulterers, homosexual offenders, do NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 6:9)...to do such things, commit such acts points to the possibility/probability that the person has a said faith rather than a true one…that he is a tare in the field.

One of the problems with arguing with people from other churches is that each argues from the view their own church defines.  Thus Catholic Mom, you see things within the RC concept of Purgatory, whereas as an old-fashioned Anglican I regard Purgatory as a vain thing fondly invented and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture[Article XXII].  I know that nothing I do can make God love me less; that all I have to do is with repentance and humility to allow Him to love me and to redeem me through His Grace, for there is nothing that I can do that can make myself more ‘pure’; that any improvement is solely due to His working on me through his Spirit.

I walked into a Catholic service by accident yesterday(I’m on a Marine Base for a visit). Not knowing just where the Anglican service was truly at and it being the only chapel on the base I walked in sat down and it looked very much like the church I attend in Ca. But when the service began it seemed a little different and then it became very clear during the priest sermon about those who return to Catholicism after being gone, non active and the such that JEsus rejoices over and those like me who have never been RC who will go to ...uhm….a less than desirable place…... if I do not convert to Roman Catholicism! I knew that I was not in the right church. I got out quickly and I have to say during his whole sermon nothing was preached about the love, forgiveness, or redemption of all sinners by Jesus Christ no matter what our walk was or is. If the Roman Church was going to win me over it had it chance yesterday and blew it big time! I felt like an outsider, not worthy of Christ and someone who is a foriegner. Personally I do not think that that is what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had in mind when he surrendered himself to the cross for all generations whether they be Gentile or Jew.

IMHO, somewhere along the lind the RCC has lifted itself up as the only way to Heaven and to the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet I have not read that anywhere in Scripture. Christ wants all to be one but He did not say one with Rome, He said one in Him. Yesterday was a most disturbing and horrifying day I have ever had. I did not feel the Love of God in that place!

Well…not to get into the whole predestination discussion which seems to be a bottomless pit, but if certain people are predestined from the beginning of the world to be saved and certain others aren’t, and this is utterly a choice/act of God and not of the person, then why would it matter WHAT a teacher taught?  In fact, perhaps the fact that the teacher acted as an impediment to the person’s obtaining true knowledge was itself predestined and the will of God?  That is, the people that that teacher was teaching were, in fact, not predestined to be saved? Perhaps God only imparts “true knowledge” to those whom he predestines to be saved?

Or am I mixing you up with David Ould?  I freely admit utter ignorance of Calvinism, but this is always where it seems to be going for me.

Hi Sarah,

It appears from your response—“school boy,” “insecurity,” “interject himself”, “obnoxious”, “talking out of both sides of his mouth”—that yes, it really is a personal animus that you have against Matt.

No, not anger, more like the commenter that you noticed was frequently pointing out that he was a Democrat, well, the Calvinist label seemed to be as frequent, I am bemused by the TR measure (except apparently some godly pastors can have their careers end if they don’t measure up, so maybe off the otherside of horse than TEC ... dunno ... not my experience) so I teased. I did get a react ... but the Lord did convict me that my tease, though ment in jest was just mean. I did apologize.

I believe that one can be wrong about a first-order issue and still be a justified Christian.

Then I do think we opperate with different definitions.

Carl and I may have a closer understanding in that if it fully First Order, then his call for complete separation and use of Gal 1:8 - thus no relationship. The same reaction if someone wanted Matt+ to marry a Mormon or Muslim, if a Mormon desire communion or a Catholic. I believe Carl also has presented a accurate case if First Order from historical First Order separation, as I used form heresies above. 

Second Order as I understand is impaired relationship though it could be nearly completely severed. 

Per from their side - Trent to VC2, I think it was equal from both that the other were not Christian and we fought wars, set up laws forbidding intermarriage and follow Scriptural reference to what you do in that case.

Post VC2 - several of Carl’s demands above appearently did happen, one is change in how they understand grace, I’ll use change because my liberal Catholic professor did, but removing the rail and turning the priest around, also the JDDJ is HUGE even if other school of thought disagree with it’s formula, either the Lutherans caved or the Catholics are stating things in a way the Lutherans can accept (the dialog with Anglicans only produced documents one flavor might like).

The line in that has the Utlra-Traditionalist upset in the CCC:

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.“322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.“323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.“324

This is bore out that when someone ‘converts’ to RCC they are “Confirmed into Full Communion,” this is not so with Mormons or Ghostics or Arians. There is another line which Ultra-Traditionalist think justifies the Protestant Reformation of Sola Scriptura but honestly it was hard find this one and Wikipedia entry has been edited to take out the Anti-CCC sites which handily point to much useful material.

Then Moderate Catholic apparently caused enough of a problem to merit this line in Ecclesia de Eucharistia

The Catholic faithful, therefore, while respecting the religious convictions of these separated brethren, must refrain from receiving the communion distributed in their celebrations, so as not to condone an ambiguity about the nature of the Eucharist and, consequently, to fail in their duty to bear clear witness to the truth. This would result in slowing the progress being made towards full visible unity.

I read, too much frocking, but notice the reason is not a Gal 1:8 Trent type one, but ‘we got the real goods and you are giving credit to their Eucharist if you receive from them, we got the transubstantiation, they don’t, don’t give them any idea.’

Another odd line from the encyclical

While it is never legitimate to concelebrate in the absence of full communion, the same is not true with respect to the administration of the Eucharist under special circumstances, to individual persons belonging to Churches or Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church. In this case, in fact, the intention is to meet a grave spiritual need for the eternal salvation of an individual believer, not to bring about an intercommunion which remains impossible until the visible bonds of ecclesial communion are fully re-established.

This was the approach taken by the Second Vatican Council when it gave guidelines for responding to Eastern Christians separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, who spontaneously ask to receive the Eucharist from a Catholic minister and are properly disposed.95 This approach was then ratified by both Codes, which also consider ­ with necessary modifications ­ the case of other non-Eastern Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church

Thus there is protocol for a Protestant to receive the RC Eucharist - it gets odd, a Anglo-Cath could meet probably better than others, but once again, an example of impaired communion, not no relationship.

From the RC side post-VC2 has moved to a Second Order.

I understand first order to be no relationship (Mormoms, Gnostic, and the like), Second Order a varying agree of impairment, but can be near complete then full communion.

Most Evangelical writers I read around 2000 when debating going back to school in a RC institution were also framing it in the second order, heavily impaired model (apologies for no references, but those articles have been updated and replaced since then).

Carl, please correct me if I’m in error, but I’ve read you (here and our other banters) to say no fellowship, complete division with Rome. if First Order, I’d actually agree that you have handled the Word of God correctly.

One Day Closer,

I’m very very sorry you had this experience.  I’m sure we’ve ALL had the experience of being in a service of our own denomination and thinking “Geez…I hope no non-whatever’s are here today because this is such a truly terrible example of our church.” 

I wish you had been in MY church yesterday.  The homily was on putting other’s needs before your own.  We have a retired priest who acts as a “relief” priest from time to time and he is always wonderful to listen to because he radiates such joy and faith even as his beloved family has dwindled (brother just recently died of cancer) and he nears the end of his own life.  He always works a story about his mother or his father into the homily, and it’s clear how much he loved them and how much he expects to see them again.  I have never heard a harsh word from him towards anybody of any faith or non-faith.

Not too long ago I brought an Anglican friend of mine to church with me.  It was a beautiful service and the homily was about the sin of arrogance—the one sin that you can never get anybody to confess to.  The priest was a visiting mission priest who runs a home for homeless/abused children in Brazil.  My friend said afterwords “That was really wonderful.  You know, if I had been raised in this church, I can see how I would love it, but because of the beliefs I’ve been raised with (and believe in) I can’t reconcile myself to the teachings and practices of this church to the point where I could join.”  I can appreciate and respect that.  But I just feel awful when somebody goes to a really bad service and gets turned off.

I personally think it would be a much better thing to have had a vision of Jesus Christ vs. Mary. But either one is fine. But, really the Lord Jesus coming to you in a vision is well….... Far Blessed than any other vision that could happen to a person!

I felt like an outsider, not worthy of Christ and someone who is a foriegner.

BTW, if that is the way the priest made you feel, then the priest is a jerk.  Yes…there are jerks in the priesthood just like every other profession.

Thanks for the words Catholic Mom, but I have to say that all my reservations about the RCC was pretty much solidified yesterday. Besides I cannot even take communion in a RCC becuase I am not RC but yet Jesus died for all and gave His body and blood for all who believe and come to Him to be fed. But, yet the RC’s say otherwise. NO, I think I heard exactly what I was suppose to hear yesterday and I know that God only is in charge and no man on earth can judge my worthiness or unworthiness to Him, His body & blood, and my salvation save Jesus Christ Lord of ALl! A priest can hear my confessions, and absolve me of them as Christ has given authority. He gave that authority to all the Apostles not just Peter. Those Apostles were charged to go out and spread the Good News to ALL the Nations and baptise them. But no where in theh Scriptures do I read nor have I read that we must all be Roman Catholic. I believe that has been a man/pope made rule.

Just my 2 cents!

Complete sentence in my head but didn’t make it to the keyboard

I’ll use change because my liberal Catholic professor did, but removing the rail and turning the priest around is a symbolic representation to this (see NB&S;‘s commentary on VRG’s shoes on how symbolism is a refection of theology),

“if certain people are predestined from the beginning of the world to be saved and certain others aren’t, and this is utterly a choice/act of God and not of the person, then why would it matter WHAT a teacher taught?”

Yes, and why do evangelism if God’s elect are going to come to faith anyway? And why do apologetics if the gates of hell will never prevail over Christ’s church? and why pray if God already knows what we need has promised to provide it?

The first answer to all of these questions is: we do them because God has given us the command to do them.

Second God has revealed in his word that heretics do, in fact, lead people to hell, that people come to faith through the evangelism, that we are to defend the faith, that prayer is effective…etc…none of these things preclude or obscure God’s sovereignty. Rather they reveal the secondary causes through which God effects his will. God soveriegnly determines to call his elect men and women through the proclamation of the church, defeat the lies of satan through apologetics, provide and protect through the vehicle of prayer, and permit others to be damned through the promulgation of false teaching.

Since we do not always know the designs of God we are left to be obedient to his commands…evangelize, proclaim, defend, oppose heretics…snatch those who follow them out of the fire, all the while believing his word, that these acts of ours are effective in the context of his sovereignty

“In fact, perhaps the fact that the teacher acted as an impediment to the person’s obtaining true knowledge was itself predestined and the will of God?”

And perhaps not. Perhaps these people are elect and will hear the proclamation of the gospel one day when the church calls his heretical teachers to account?

How do we know?? We simply cannot…

Since we do not know who is and who is not elect, we must act in keeping with his commands and oppose heretics. 

“That is, the people that that teacher was teaching were, in fact, not predestined to be saved?”

Could be, but who knows. Who are we to presume one way or the other.

“Perhaps God only imparts “true knowledge” to those whom he predestines to be saved?”

Well yes and no. All men and women know that God exists and that they owe him honor obedience and worship (Romans 1:18-21) and all men suppress that truth as an act of the will.

And all men and women have a true sense of God’s law (romans 2) And all men and women willingly reject it (Romans 3:10-18)

When God begins his work of regeneration, he both gives new knowledge AND moves the person to acknowledge what he has formerly sought consciously to suppress.

To be fair I have attended a number of services at Roman Catholic churches; the first was a baptism and then a friend’s wedding where I was made most welcome; I was quite surprised that the liturgy was almost word for word identical, save for the odd mention of ‘our holy mother the church’ which jarred a bit.  However I have heard of other experiences, and attended a funeral where in a long piece on the trials awaiting the deceased and our efforts which should earnestly be put into prayer, there was nothing of love or joy in Christ; only fear, terror and dread.  It made the early and untimely death of a faithful worshipper much worse, reduced the family to tears and excited indignation in me.  I am sure the priest meant well but it was not helpful.

But I am sure that Catholic Mom is right, this is not the common experience and to be fair I have heard a protestant preacher [although not of our denomination] express his certaintly that the RCC leads people to hell, is a Babylonian lady etc, a view I would similarly reject and am embarrassed by - particularly given the Roman Catholics who go to their church in the morning and ours in the evening for the exhuberant worship.

Similarly every so often I go to the local catholic church [where I know the priest and some parishioners]and see what is going on.  I have never heard anything like the experience ODC most unfortunately had.

Yes! I completely agree that there are many Protestant Churches that may make many new comers feel the same wa y I felt yesterday. In fact that is onereason I left my family Pentecostal Church roots. There were more hell and damnation sermons then there were love an forgiveness sermons and the fact that I was so restricted on dress, and activities growing up. But, my point is the RCC professes bo the one true church and the message I got yesterday was if you are not RC then you are not going to heaven. If you are not RC you are not fit to take the body & blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, if you are not RC you are a person from outside of God. At least other Proterstants preached that in order to be redeemed you must repent and ask for forgiveness and come fully to God and seek Him, His will, His wisdom, etc… Not seek to be converted to Roman Catholicism! Last I checked it was Jesus Christ of Nazerath who hung on that cross not Peter of Rome.

Matt, may I ask you a question concerning your definition of “justifying faith”?  You include “commitment to him [Christ] as Lord” as part of justifying faith.  How is it that such “commitment” is not a “good work”?  If actually following Christ “as Lord” is a good work, how is the commitment to Christ as Lord (which surely includes a comittment to follow Christ) not a good work?  Isn’t “commitment” a mental act, although in this case done through the grace of God?

#320 ODC - I agree completely, which is why I believe the Anglican Church has something very special at its best, which distinguishes it from the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church and some of the Protestant Churches and that is on its concentration on the redeeming love of Christ and while we live in the fear of the Lord, being very serious and respectful, we concentrate on His extraordinary saving love rather than fear or dread.

That is why I am an Anglican fan.

SLR,

I think that it is impossible to trust in Christ without submitting to his Lordship…it is part and parcel of his Person. To know Christ in a true way (step 1) is to know that he is King. You cannot trust in Christ to the exclusion of his Lordship. I don’t however, think I would categorize it as a “work”. Think of it as you might think of a naturalization service: A new citizen takes an oath promising to be a good citizen. Or in the older marriage service: wife promises to love honor and obey.
You simply cannot come to justifying faith in a Christ if you do not know Jesus as both Savior and Lord since such a Christ would not be the true Christ.

Pageantmaster,
That too is why I became an Anglican! John 14:6

Well, as far as funeral sermons go,—without wanting to encourage those who charge that there is a lack of homogeneity in Catholic teaching—I would have to say that there can be quite a range.

The most extreme—my mouth drops open in amazement to this very day—was a married guy I used to work with. Devout RC and father of a young child.  Lived some distance away and came down to our installation to do a special project.  Lived in a hotel.  Got involved with a European Jewish woman at work (divorced mother of two boys, gossip was she was desperately looking for a father for her boys).  Tried to divorce wife.  Wife said hell would freeze over before she gave him a divorce.  Moved in with Jewish woman.  Divorce dragged on.  Had a heart attack at age 39 and died in girlfriend’s bed.  Had TWO funeral masses—the first at the church across the street from our building where this guy had been receiving “counseling.”  At the first mass, the girlfriend and her sons played the part of the family.  Girlfriend stood at head of coffin and received condolences.  Priest said how they would all see him again in heaven.  Afterwords a hearse took the body away for the second mass, at which the wife and daughter were present.  Didn’t get to hear what the priest said there, but it would have been interesting.

By contrast, there was an article in the paper not too long ago.  A family was suing a priest for emotional pain and suffering inflicted during a sermon at father’s funeral mass.  Priest said, in effect “this guy was a no-good SOB his whole life and he is no doubt burning in hell right now.”  Family was offended.

#324 Bless you ODC.

#325 Catholic Mom - oh dear yes, I see what you mean.
Bless you too.

Thank you, Matt.  [323]  I totally agree “that it is impossible to trust in Christ without submitting to his Lordship.”  I guess what I don’t understand is why a naturalization oath or a wedding vow or a commitment to Christ are not all “works.” Each involves an interior act.  Each is an act of the will.

I hate to sound like a liberal, but maybe some of the differences between Protestant and Catholic are definitional.

But, my point is the RCC professes bo the one true church and the message I got yesterday was if you are not RC then you are not going to heaven. If you are not RC you are not fit to take the body & blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, if you are not RC you are a person from outside of God.

What can I say except to say that if that’s what the priest said or implied, he was 100% misrepresenting Catholic teaching?  My church works closely with many Protestant churches in town and the people of these churches are never referred to as other than “our Christian brothers and sisters of other denominations.”  To say they are “not going to heaven” would be the height of absurdity. 

As far as receiving communion, this is because Catholics taking the idea of “communion” literally—if you receive communion in a church you are “in communion” with the church.  I don’t receive communion in Anglican or Lutheran churches, because that would indicate that I am “in communion” with them, which I am not.  I did receive “communion” (kind of) in a non-denominational church once, because they made it very clear that this was a non-sacramental “remembrance” of the Lord’s supper.  Receiving communion with them was really only one step removed from having coffee and doughnuts with them after the service.  They did not view it as a sacramental Eucharist and neither did I.

One Day Closer writes: ” but I have to say that all my
reservations about the RCC was pretty much solidified yesterday.“I don’t want to suggest that you are bearing false witness, ODC, but I would suggest that if all your fears and prejudices were confirmed by accidentally wondering into one Catholic service and hearing things you didn’t want to hear, maybe you were pre-disposed to your conclusions in such a way as to not give fair hearing.  I’ve been robbed by a black person with a gun.  I understand how strangers can seem frightening.  I have to say it did not come into my mind that I should therefore be assured that all black people are thugs.  I heard the same sort of uncritical thinking when people were saying they listened to some music video posted somewhere on the Internet and were therefore assured of the rightness of their opinions regarding Obama as an anti-Christ. Frankly, this way of thinking is not persuasive but speaks to both a shortcoming in humility (judging others, bearing false witness) and a shorcoming in ability to reason.  “I saw once instance of what I feared and now I’m convinced I was right all along.”  The Episcopal Church did not welcome members of other churches to communion until recently.  One had to be confirmed.  Even today, the national canons stipulate that one must believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and be baptized and in good standing with one’s own communion.  Yet, some here condemn others for a different understanding of what Eucharist means.  Many here understand Eucharist as a means to unity.  Traditionally, in all churches, it was understood not as a means but a realized unity.  And children were allowed access to this communion based on the faith of their family ... and not upon an intellectual affirmation of some short list of theological relationships.Ultimately, salvation is never assured in this life in the way we in our pride think it is ... and most especially not when we presume to state that others who stand outside the magic circle we draw, are not.  It is rather frightening to hear mostly reasonable people opining on the retrobate status of uncounted millions of fellow Christians.  Fear based theology lacks the love of God.  Yes, I can understand, formerly a member of TEC myself, that you would have had enough of mushy, Christ-denying theology but we cannot protect ourselves nor brighten our candles by casting down those of others.

Hmmmm

monologistos,
Thanks for chiming in, however you are way off base where I am concerned. I was not ,i>“pre-disposed”,/i>! I have always been very catholic in my beliefs, not RC but catholic in many ways, which is why I am an Anglican. I just know that my Authority is in Jesus Christ, my submission to Him, my constant asking of His forgiveness, and my constant seeking of His will not that of a Pope or a church that from what I heard yesterday sees me and many like me as outside of “The Church” because I am not RC. Maybe this is not the norm for many RC churches, as Catholic Mom has stated, I do not know since I am not taking a survey of every RCC in America. I just know that I am catholic in my beliefs and I submit to God through my seeking, asking, and praying to His Son our Savior Jesus Christ.
I attend church to be fed the Word and the Body & Blood of my Savior, not to hear that I am not worthy of it because I am not RC.

#320 ODC - A number of Protestants also practice Closed Communion:

“Confessional Lutherans, or those such as are found in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod practice closed communion. Failing to do so is condemned by confessional Lutherans as the sin of unionism. The Apostolic Christian Church, Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, Amish, some churches in the Reformed tradition and Primitive Baptists also practice closed communion. [Wikipedia on Closed Communion]”

There were several lengthy blog article about Baptist to close it for only their members or those baptized via immersion which I found in a quick web search, so not unique to RCC. It does make you appreciate the Anglican approach.

monologistos—in defense of ODC, I would have to say that hearing a priest, speaking during mass, express un-Christian and un-Catholic ideas is somewhat different from being held up by a gun or listening to somebody ranting about Obama.  It would be closer to listening to someone from a predominantly black denomination denounce white people during a sermon and concluding that that was a representative view of that denomination.  Or going to an Obama campaign rally and hearing an official speaker say that people who vote Republican are obviously fascists who wish all poor people would die so they wouldn’t have to waste money on them.  One might reasonable conclude (or at least think possible) that these were official Obama positions.

That said, if one is reasonably sophisticated and educated, one indeed should not write off a church of one billion people based on a nasty experience with one bozo.  Unfortunately there are Catholics who do that as well.  “This awful priest said this awful thing and I’m so p.o’d I don’t go to mass anymore.”

Yes Hosea6:6 I understand what you are saying! That is why I am Anglo-Catholic/Anglican. However, again…..these other churches are not saying that they are the one true church. If someone was to walk into many (at least 98.9%) Anglican Churches, the priest before communion would say or it would also be noted in the bulletin that all Baptized Christians are welcome at the Table to recieve communion. We don’t ask if you are Anglo-Catholic, we don’t instruct that if you are not Anglo-Catholic that you cannot receive. All Baptized Christians are welcome to partake of the Holy Sacrament of our Lord and Savior, RC, Lutherans, Baptist, Methodists, Assembly of God, and many other Christian denominations are welcome at God’s table to receive. We become one in Him at that alter rail.

#335 ODC—While in someways I stayed in Anglicanism this time by accident, after August 5, 2003, I did start investigating other options. While the impulse to head out was strong, basically what you wrote in #335 why I stayed put at that time, high respect for the Sacraments (not a almost ‘juice and cookies’ that I’ve seen in some) and open to all Believers.

Look guys….it was a really bad Sunday yesterday and I think that with prayer and help from my own priest who is my spiritual advisor to whom I will talk this over with upon my return home this weekend, I will, with God’s help recover from this very bad experience. But, I do have to wonder why it is I wandered into that service because I am not of the belief that there are accidents or coincedence. God is in charge and I believe that things happen for a reason and for His purpose. What it is most of the time I do not know and God wqll reveal it to me when He deems fit to do so, if He deems fit to do so. I just know that that was the worst experience I ever had in any church of any kind ever in my 49 years! I only felt that totally unworthy one other time in my life and that was just before I laid myself out on the floor and asked God to take charge because I cannot continue this life in the manner of which I was living at the time. Five months later I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church to where God had led me.

Were all baptized persons always welcome at the rail in Episcopal churches. Before I joined, I did not receive - it was my decision, but I had the feeling that earlier it wouldn’t have been a matter of choice. I am not offended if a church places limits on who may receive. To me, it says that they take the eucharist/mass/communion seriously - it’s not just a snack.

#337 There is always a reason ODC.  Perhaps God has called you to where you are and has work for you to do?

On the other hand, ODC, maybe He sent you there as a way of saying “Just so you know…so you won’t be disillusioned later…there are a few really BAD priests in this Church.  If you can get past that..you’re going to make a great Catholic!”

Gotta hand to you Catholic Mom….your optimism on this issue is far better than mine!

Catholic Mom:

Tried to divorce wife.  Wife said hell would freeze over before she gave him a divorce.  Moved in with Jewish woman.  Divorce dragged on.  Had a heart attack at age 39 and died in girlfriend’s bed.  Had TWO funeral masses—the first at the church across the street from our building where this guy had been receiving “counseling.” At the first mass, the girlfriend and her sons played the part of the family.  Girlfriend stood at head of coffin and received condolences.  Priest said how they would all see him again in heaven.  Afterwords a hearse took the body away for the second mass, at which the wife and daughter were present.  Didn’t get to hear what the priest said there, but it would have been interesting.

I stand all amazed.
This sounds like the kind of thing that only Episcopalians could come up with, and I’m surprised we didn’t think of it first.
But we’re terribly reform minded, so some improvements may be in order.
Rather than hauling away the . . . uh, “faithful departed” for a second Mass elsewhere, why not simply usher out the first group, let the dust settle for an hour or so, then have the formerly immediate family make their appearance for the next Requiem in the same Church?  If they so desired, they could even alternate between Rites I and II.  Who knows what the Jewish girlfriend might prefer?
The same priest could deliver both eulogies.  Our clergy are uniquely qualified to do that sort of thing.  That’s why we send them to seminary.
Of course, how much effect any of this would have on the deceased is an open question.  And, while we’re quite adept at producing immediate results, the more ultimate kind still lies beyond our grasp.  Especially if you’re dead.
As for where to bury the poor guy, and how many times, well . . . that’s where even Anglican comprehensiveness breaks down.  Which is why God created the coin toss, I suppose.  But I’m going to ask my rector, just to be sure.
Thanks for putting ideas in my head.

episcopalienated, perhaps he could have a winter “home” on the coast and a summer “home” in the mountains?

Well, I’m thankful that he wasn’t cremated then divided up into two urns one for each family! We humans sure make a mess of things don’t we?

Now, if you had read closely, I had indicated he lived a distance (three hours) away and was staying in a hotel near our site M-F. (Until he moved in with the girlfriend, when he became local, although the family was still far away.)  And he had formed this very warm relationship with this pastor at the church next door.  Being such a good Catholic and all. So, apparently, when he died, the pastor didn’t just “get beyond” the fact that this was a married man with a child living in an adulterous relationship with another woman, he ignored it altogether!  As he did the fact that the people standing there weren’t actually his family!  When he said that they would all see Ray again in heaven I wanted to add “and be sure to stay away from his wife when you’re there.”

That said, I actually feel terrible for the girlfriend’s kids, and the wife, and the biological kid, and even for Ray and the girlfriend.  I still keep his mass card in my nighttable and pray for them all.  It is only funny when you take the real people out of it.

It is only funny when you take the real people out of it.

True of so many things, isn’t it?

ODC, I don’t have any way to judge your predispositions or lack thereof.  You went to one service and came away with some very definite convictions which you applied to the Roman Catholic Church.  One, that you are unworthy to receive.  In that, God certainly had a message for all listeners.  Before we are able to accept God, we must accept our unworthiness in relation to Him.  God gives us this as a fruit of the Holy Spirit.  It isn’t a good work.  But it does require a spirit of metanoia and of repentence.  This isn’t done in a single moment but is the walk of a lifetime towards God.  It is God that makes us worthy but to *assume* that we don’t need to respond to God with our free will is to make of humans puppets incapable of bearing the image of God ... the consequence would be that we would be no more capable of participating in the economy of salvation than our dogs and cats.  It is easy to make shibboleths of words like “saved by grace alone”.  Of course we are saved by grace alone.  It isn’t our humility nor our good works that is crucified for us, raised and ascended into heaven.  Frankly, this is a pretty minor issue while a basic one. It has importance to Protestants because they are reacting to abuses such as the selling of indulgences.  It binds Protestant dialog into a reactionary mode against the bad parent.  Get on with it!  For what it’s worth, “open communion” is an anomaly of the past few tens of years.  You think of it as inviting others to your table ... I think of it as inviting the crowd at Sodom in to be entertained by your wives and daughters. Did I state that strongly enough? THose who partake without discerning the body eat and drink condmenation upon themselves. Look at TEC today and see the results: schism, heresy and apostasy ever on the rise. There is a point in every organization or being where “diversity” overtakes unity and the organization fails, the being dies.  I’m pretty sure God does not have in mind for us in giving us the Great Commission, these endless rationalizations for our failure to accept His grace and be healed.  What did the Christians do in the arena as the wild beasts were loosed?  They sang praises to God.  They died even as they had lived.  We who are momentarily under rather less duress, might begin there. Joy and peace remain with you.

Catholic Mom:

It is only funny when you take the real people out of it.

Duly noted, and I apologize for any offense caused.
But I didn’t put any “real people” into it.  I was making light of the ludicrous circumstances you described, not the people involved.  That, and having a bit of a laugh at my own Church’s expense, not yours. 
And I’m not the one who posted the story of this poor man’s misadventures in the first place.

Being such a good Catholic and all.

That’s followed by a smiley face in your reply.
So why do I suspect, even now, that there was at least some levity intended on your part in the original entry?
Perhaps I will have to do a better job of reading your posts more closely.
Not that I suspect you’d ever shift gears on me to criticize someone else for doing what you apparently just did yourself.
What with you being such a good Catholic and all.

No, no!  I INTENDED it to be funny!  I just said at the end that even though I DO laugh to think back on it, of course the real circumstances were tragic.  As is frequently true of many of the things we laugh about.  And I thought your response was hilar