The Indecipherable New Testament Versus the Roman Magisterium

Matt,  thank you for keeping this matter of the invention of dogma in general as well as the specific matter of justification in front of us.  I have been giving this a lot of thought lately myself.

If you look at these dogmas, lets say the Marian dogmas or indulgences, for instance, there had to have been an individual or group of individuals at some point in history who first believed that dogma.  And that idea either came from revelation or else it came from the person’s imagination.  If it came from imagination then it is not worth considering.  If it came from revelation, then what is this source of revelation that supposedly exists alongside but is never recorded in the Bible?  How do we have have access to that body of revelation, and who can know it? 

The bottom line is that Roman Catholicism might as well be Mormonism when it starts talking like that.  And any such talk of dogma that is not grounded in Scripture merely reveals Rome’s departure from true catholicity (that which has been held to be true by the Church universally, always, and by all).

Article XIX (second paragraph): “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.”

One can conclude that Romans 4:3-8 clearly establishes the doctrine of Sola Fide only by ignoring Matthew 7:21, Matthew 10:42, Matthew 16:27, Matthew 19:17, Matthew 25: 34-36, Mark 9:41, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22, John 5: 28-29, Romans 2:6-8, Romans 6:16, Romans 8:13, Galatians 5:6, Hebrews 5:9, Hebrews 6:9-10, James 2:24, and Revelation 22:11-12.

One can conclude those texts conflict with sola fide only if one is confused.

[comment deleted: off topic; commenter warned]

Hi Evan Miller,

If you do not like what we post you are free to start up your own website. You are not free to comment on SF’s posting decisions. We have a long standing policy forbidding this. We post what we like to post.  If you persist you will, unfortunately, surrender your posting privileges.

The claim that the Catholic Church’s Magisterium views the Bible as “indecipherable” won’t hold up.  The document under discussion (Indulgentiarum Doctrina) is largely an explication of Holy Scripture, containing some 50 or so references to the Bible, by chapter and verse.  Now, you may not like the conclusion the Church reaches on the meaning of Scripture, preferring your own or your denomination’s Magisterium, but that doesn’t mean the Catholic Church is selling Scriptures short.

Hi sclath,

Of course the claim is not that Rome teaches the bible is indecipherable…no one says that. The fact is Rome claims the bible is indecipherable apart from the Magisterium. So James White engaged in some comparative lit. Which is easier to understand?

I really didn’t think you would ever fall so low as to cite James White!  There would be many other ways to make this point.  You-or rather James White-is comparing here two different kinds of writing. 

If clarity were the issue, there is nothing unclear about the second passage if you read it to the end.  You just don’t like what it says. You disagree with it.  Its terms and language are foreign to you. 

If you were in any way inclined to try to understand indulgences, I would say, first of all,  remember that they apply more to that area which you call sanctification, rather than that which you call justification.  Now think of how you speak of the church community as a necessary help to the Christian life,  of the help that our fellow Christians can be to us, of prayer for each other.  Then extend this to the larger communion of the whole Church.  As Church we have many fellow Christians, present and past,  whose lives are a blessing to us and can help us grow in faith. In the communion of saints we can share to some extent in the goodness and blessing of extraordinarily holy lives.  Indulgences are only a way of formalizing that.    Of course, every bit of the goodness of those lives comes from Jesus Christ, by grace.  And any help in our growth as Christians which we may receive in this way is also grace. 

It behooves us as much as possible to try to understand each other rather than to try to present each other’s doctrines in the worst light possible.  How accurate do you think that Catholic polemic was which tried to portray Protestantism as antinomian, for instance?  I don’t really think you want to engage in something which shows the equivalent blindness and insensitivity. 

Susan Peterson

Hi eulogos,

I didn’t know James White was a polarizing figure…perhaps he is something like Steve Ray among protestants? In any case, I think the point he makes is a fair one. The Roman Catholic Church claims that Christians are incapable of truly understanding scripture apart from the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church which, it is claimed, is infallible. But when you look at the “infallible teachings”, the only thing that is made clear is that you need an interpreter of the interpretations. Scripture seems far more perspicuous than the catechism.

Matt, doesn’t everyone need a teacher/“magister”?  Take me, for example.  Just when I’m sure I’ve found clarity in the Scriptures [cf. my comment at 12:52 pm], I find out I’m actually “confused” [cf. your comment at 1:11 pm].

The quote in the article above is from Chapter 1.1 of “Indulgentiarum Doctrina” issued in 1967.  This is an “Apostolic Constitution” which is the highest level of decree which the Papacy can issue.  And sure, we disagree with the RCs about some things.  Indulgences is one of them.  That doesn’t mean we can’t agree about other things.

But one of the things we also disagree about is the methodology set out in the quote above.  It starts off by saying that divine revelation comes from the Apostles - we agree on that. 

But then it says that this revelation “develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit”.  I don’t think we would agree that the apostolic revelation “develops in the church”.  The apostolic revelation is just as it was when the Apostles revealed/declared it.  The context in which it is applied may vary, but the church has no authority to develop that revelation.

This is even more so in the following quote “as the centuries succeed one another the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her”.  There is absolutely no Apostolic basis for such a teaching. 

Nor is any cited - whilst slcath correctly notes that there are a number of references to scripture in Indulgientum Doctrina, none are cited for this fundamental point.  Nor is any other ancient authority cited.  Rather, the reference is to Dei Verbum, another Apostolic Constitution only two years old at the time (1965)!

Once this erroneous doctrine (i.e. that Apostolic revelation “develops in the Church”) is set forth, the whole basis of citing scripture thereafter is flawed.

James White is a ‘polarizing figure’ because he is consistent.  He doesn’t play ecumenical games.  He examines the Gospel taught by the Roman Catholic Church and determines that it is false.  He therefore makes the necessary conclusion that the RCC is a false church.  That is not a popular conclusion in a religious world enamored of ECT.  But it is a consistent position.  It is the traditional Protestant position.  It is a common position among many serious Protestants today.  RC Sproul, for example.  And Doug Wilson.  I attended a debate between Doug Wilson and James White, and heard Doug Wilson begin the debate by affirming every word of White’s book “The Roman Catholic Controversy.”  The mirror of the traditional Protestant position is in fact the traditional RC position - until Vatican II.  Only in these later years as RCs and Protestants have found themselves in the same trenches in the culture war have these positions been re-evaluated.  Unfortunately a common cultural enemy does not trump sound doctrine.  The content of the Gospel is more important the the fight against abortion.

I have met the man personally.  I used to be a moderator in his chat room.  He is a man of honor and integrity.  One does not ‘fall so low’ to cite his work.

carl

MichaelA:

But then it says that this revelation “develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit”. I don’t think we would agree that the apostolic revelation “develops in the church”. The apostolic revelation is just as it was when the Apostles revealed/declared it. The context in which it is applied may vary, but the church has no authority to develop that revelation.

This is even more so in the following quote “as the centuries succeed one another the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her”. There is absolutely no Apostolic basis for such a teaching.

Exactly.  Here are two classical nineteenth century Anglican responses to what was at the time J. H. Newman’s novel concept of the “development of doctrine,” one from an Anglo-Catholic source, the other from an Evangelical.

The development of a seed into a full-grown tree supplies an analogy which sets forth very well the growth of the Church’s disciplinary regulations, and the progress which is attainable in many departments of theological science, and the increasing complexity of the expression of dogma in the Church’s creeds and doctrinal definitions.  But the development of a seed into a full-grown tree would be a very misleading parable, if it were used for setting forth the relation between the substance of the apostolic teaching and the substance of the Church’s authoritative dogma in later times.  The Church’s duty is to guard the deposit of that substance, and to hand it on unchanged until her Lord’s return, while at the same time she expresses and applies it in various ways according to the varying circumstances and needs of successive generations. 

The late Father Dalgairns, of the Brompton Oratory, has very well expressed this fundamental principle of the Church’s actions.  “Christian truths,” he says, “were thus planted whole like the trees in Paradise; they grew, they unfolded blossoms and they developed into fruit, but they never sprang from seed.  If the principle [of doctrinal development] is to be of any scientific use, we must not be content with indistinct germs, any more than we could hope to satisfy a man who asked for an oak, by showing him an acorn.”

The bearing of this immutable principle of the Church’s action on the questions which may be raised as to her polity is very obvious.  If the society founded by our Lord is at the present time rightly believed to be constituted jure divino as a monarchy, with the pope as her divinely empowered monarch, then that society has always been so constituted.  The popes must always have enjoyed a divinely given primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church, and must from the first have been endowed with the privilege of infallibility, when pronouncing judgement in regard to doctrinal controversies. 

F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome

To ask us to defer to the opinion of men who lived two centuries ago, and who consequently were ignorant of all that the world has learned in the last two hundred years, is as absurd as to ask a trained philosopher to defer to the opinion of a youth just commencing his studies.  And if the theory of the development of Christian doctrine be true, the same rule exactly ought to hold with regard to religious truth; and a Romanist cannot consistently censure a Protestant if he thinks Luther and Calvin teachers likely to be twelve centuries wiser than Chrysostom and Augustine.  But if in the theory of Development the Fathers lose all claims to respect, it is still worse with Scripture: the Fathers may have been but children, but the Apostles were only infants.  They lived when the Church had but just come into being, and before it had learned all that the Holy Spirit has taught it in the course of nineteen centuries.  If so, it ought to be only for curiosity that we need look into books written in the very infancy of the Church; and to seek for our system of Christian doctrine in the Bible would be as absurd as to try to learn the differential calculus from the writings of Archimedes.  In other words, the theory of Development, as taught by Cardinal Newman, substantially abandons the claims of Christianity to be regarded as a supernatural revelation which is likely to be preserved in most purity by those who lived nearest to the times when it was given.

And yet there is such a thing as a real development of Christian doctrine.  We acknowledge that all the precious truth of Scripture does not lie on the surface, and that continuous study applied to the Bible, by holy men who have sought for the aid of God’s spirit, does elicit much that might have escaped a hasty reader, but which, when once pointed out, remains for the instruction of future generations.  But we draw a distinction between things essential to salvation and things true, but not necessary.  The way of salvation does not alter from age to age; those truths which were effectual for the salvation of souls in the second or third century are sufficient for salvation still.  We hold that, therefore, a Church takes a step unjustifiable, and which must lead to schism, if she imposes new articles of faith to be held of necessity for salvation which were unknown to the Church of past times.         

George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church

eulogos,

When someone cites a guy like Steve Ray I get my hackles up because I’ve heard him say things about Protestantism that just aren’t true - repeating the “33,000 denominations” canard despite its incorrectness for example. So I tend not to listen after his name is used as a reference.

But I’ve been thinking about that response and I need to not do that. I should really deal with the substance of what is being argued and set aside my hackles. And I would say the same thing about a Protestant apologist like James White.

You know, as you’ve heard me teach on this before, that I am very friendly toward Roman Catholics and I’m so happy that we share a great deal of unity not only with regard to social issues, but also creedal ones. We stand shoulder to shoulder with regard to the Trinity, Christology, the augustinian understanding of grace…

But I do think that the questions raised by the Reformation continue to separate us as you have indicated as well. And because that is true, there is a real argument to be had and engaged from both sides. Nothing is so superficial as a false peace.

I found the column to be very much a straw-man argument.  Let’s take one bit of Scripture that’s clear and one bit RC doctrinal statements that’s not very straightforward and show how clear one is and how unclear the other one is.  Really?  I don’t think there’s ANY Roman Catholic theologian who would say that Holy Scripture isn’t crystal clear and straight-forward in some things and obscure and difficult in other places

Underlying all these Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Orthodox issues is the facts of the basic assumptions and premises each makes about the “Church” and how it should operate, etc..  If you start with the idea that the “Church” after Christ was built on Peter, I understand how RCs can con conclude many things about the papacy.  I don’t agree with them, but I understand how they get from point A to point B.  As an example, putting transubstantiation aside as a means by which changes occur, I hear all the tortuous explanations from Presbyterians , some Anglicans, and miscellaneous Protestants of the Holy Eucharist to say it isn’t the very Body and Blood of Christ when Jesus said His flesh was food indeed and His blood was drink indeed and I can only conclude that both play the game according to their own underlying assumptions as to what’s clear and what’s not.

+Kennedy,

I’ve been commenting at StandFirm for a number of years and was never aware of any “longstanding policy against” questioning the propriety of posts.  While you are free to make the rules on your blog, your reaction to my comment was certainly a surprise.  I expected you to disagree with it, but not delete it and warn me off.  Ban me if you like.  I’ll still read StandFirm even if I’m no longer permitted to take part in the discussions.  Best wishes.  Regards to Sarah and Greg.

Evan

1559 Ten Rules on the Prohibition of Books from the Council of Trent:

Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM

Sadly, while Scripture in a language understood by the average person is forbidden—works of unbelievers are permitted:

Ancient books written by heathens may by reason of their elegance and quality of style be permitted, but may by no means be read to children.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM

Compare with St. Augustine:

18. Consider, moreover, the style in which Sacred Scripture is composed—how accessible it is to all men, though its deeper mysteries are penetrable to very few. The plain truths which it contains it declares in the artless language of familiar friendship to the hearts both of the unlearned and of the learned; but even the truths which it veils in symbols it does not set forth in stiff and stately sentences, which a mind somewhat sluggish and uneducated might shrink from approaching, as a poor man shrinks from the presence of the rich; but, by the condescension of its style, it invites all not only to be fed with the truth which is plain, but also to be exercised by the truth which is concealed, having both in its simple and in its obscure portions the same truth. Lest what is easily understood should beget satiety in the reader, the same truth being in another place more obscurely expressed becomes again desired, and, being desired, is somehow invested with a new attractiveness, and thus is received with pleasure into the heart. By these means wayward minds are corrected, weak minds are nourished, and strong minds are filled with pleasure, in such a way as is profitable to all. This doctrine has no enemy but the man who, being in error, is ignorant of its incomparable usefulness, or, being spiritually diseased, is averse to its healing power.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102137.htm

Modern day Roman Catholics—who are the beneficiaries of the restoration of the precious gift of Scriptures to every believer in his own language (after a 400 year delay—i.e. Vatican 2)—should praise the Lord for the Reformation.

God Bless,
WA Scott

Hi Evan Miller,

Here is a link to a post back in 2011 that was itself taken from a post of several years earlier which articulated the policy with clarity:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27976

I did disagree with your statement but since an argument about it would have resulted in both of us violating the policy articulated in point number 3 (in the linked article), I deleted it rather than respond.

Sorry, I left out some of the most problematic portion from the Rules that were raised in opposition to the Reformers restoration of the Scriptures to all the people of God.

1559 Ten Rules on the Prohibition of Books from the Council of Trent

Translations of the books of the Old Testament may in the judgment of the bishop be permitted to learned and pious men only, provided such translations are used only as elucidations of the Vulgate Edition for the understanding of the Holy Scriptures and not as the sound text. Translations of the New Testament made by authors of the first class of this list shall be permitted to no one, since great danger and little usefulness usually results to readers from their perusal. But if with such translations as are permitted or with the Vulgate Edition some annotations are circulated, these may also, after the suspected passages have been expunged by the theological faculty of some Catholic university or by the general inquisition, be permitted to those to whom the translations are permitted. Under these circumstances the entire volume of the Sacred Books, which is commonly called the <biblia Vatabli,> or parts of it, may be permitted to pious and learned men.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENTBKS.HTM

God Bless,
WA Scott

Apologies for my sloppy writing

Ouch…too painful to leave uncorrected—> corrected version:
“I previously left out some of the most problematic portions of the Rules.

1559 Ten Rules on the Prohibition of Books from the Council of Trent (raised in opposition to the reformers’ restoration of the Scriptures to all the people of God):”

If, as charged, the Roman Magisterium truly believes that Romans 4:3-8 is “unclear”; that “we can’t really know what it means, or trust what it says” without “an infallible interpreter,” it has as funny way of showing it.

Romans 4:1-8 shows up as a designated reading in the Roman Missal.  And the psalm to which St. Paul refers in the passage is designated as the Responsorial Psalm for the same day.  (See “Daily Roman Missal,”  Midwest Theological Forum, 2010, p. 1548-49)

+Kennedy,

Thanks for the linked post and its clarification.  It must have been during one of those dark times when our network guardians were blocking my access to StandFirm (they’re currently blocking TitusOneNine!).  I apologize for having violated one of your protocols.

Evan

“I hear all the tortuous explanations from Presbyterians , some Anglicans, and miscellaneous Protestants of the Holy Eucharist to say it isn’t the very Body and Blood of Christ when Jesus said His flesh was food indeed and His blood was drink indeed and I can only conclude that both play the game according to their own underlying assumptions as to what’s clear and what’s not.”

Bill2, I would have thought that most Roman Catholic and many Anglo-Catholic explanations of the Eucharist are also “tortuous”.  The problem (which I don’t actually think is a problem at all) is that Christ and his Apostles only taught us what we need to know about it, and no more.  Much trouble is caused by those who try to augment that with human reasoning and “logic”.

Episcopalienated at #13, those were excellent quotes.  Many thanks.  I wasn’t really aware of either gent, beyond being a name that crops up in history books sometimes. 

Two nineteenth century theologians, one an English anglo-catholic and the other an Irish protestant, but very sound and biblical teaching from both.

MichaelA:

Two nineteenth century theologians, one an English anglo-catholic and the other an Irish protestant, but very sound and biblical teaching from both.

Yes, and thank you for that.  To further demonstrate that belief in Tradition as a second source (or “separate stream”) of divine revelation is no part of authentic Anglo-Catholicism, the following passages are from Bishop Charles Gore’s great work, Roman Catholic Claims: 

First let it be clear that the Church’s function is not to reveal truth.  The revelation given once for all to the Apostles cannot be diminished or added to.  It is a “faith once for all delivered,” and the New Testament emphasizes the Church’s duty as simply that of “holding fast” and teaching what she has “received.”  The apostle St. Paul claims that his converts should repudiate even him - should treat him as anathema - if he were to teach anything else than what he taught at first.  It is thus of the very essence of the Christian revelation that as originally given it is final.  Whatever is new to Christian theology in substance, is by that very fact proved not to be of the faith.

. . .

It is not then a matter which needs proving, that novelty in revelation is equivalent to error, according to the fathers.  But this evident proposition leads to an important conclusion.  It follows that the authority of the Church is of a more secondary character than is sometimes supposed.  She is not a perpetual oracle of divine truth, an open organ of continuous revelation: she is not so much a “living voice” as a living witness to a once-spoken voice. 

. . .

According then to the older and really catholic view, the later Church can never know what the early Church did not.  She can never have substantially clearer light about the intermediate state, for example, or the relation of the departed to the living, or the “treasury of merits,” or the position of Mary, than the Church of the second century had.  The revelation receives no augmentation, and what for our discipline was left obscure at first, must remain obscure, according to God’s providence, till our fragmentary knowledge becomes complete in the Day of Light.  It is in fact, as Dr. Salmon remarks, absurd to suppose that the Church’s tradition can come to convey additional assurance.  You cannot have increase of knowledge by tradition.

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”

Wow!  My login still exists after a year!

OK, I know I am coming late to this argument and I probably shouldn’t drop in – especially as my internet time is waaaayyyyy down on what it used to be in the UK but I’ll bite.

Surely in comparing the Bible and a magisterial document such as Indulgentiarum Doctrina is comparing apples with oranges?  They are NOT regarded by the catholic Church as fulfilling the same purpose.

Let’s be straight; there are degrees of magisterial statement.  Some use very technical language to describe very complex concepts.  After all, the Trinity is not only not mentioned in scripture by name but is also not directly explained.  (Indeed, the Trinity is paradoxical – though not contradictory.)  Fer cryin’ out loud, the average Catholic would be unable to name a SINGLE papal Encyclical (Rad-Trads notwithstanding) because such documents are NOT used to pass on the faith to the populous.  We do, however, have no less than FOUR Bible readings at Mass plus a liturgy very largely composed from scripture!  The Catholic Church is NOT like the JW’s – as White insinuates – where you have the Bible reading and then the Watchtower used to interpret it (exchange ‘Deus Caritas Es’ for the Watchtower.)  The Catholic Mass is NOT a papal document study.  In fact, while I have been to Catholic Bible studies I have not once; not EVER come across a Papal document study! 

Let’s also be straight about what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY claims.  James White is dreadful for telling Catholics what they believe.  He claims that Catholics hold that the Bible is indecipherable without the Magisterium.  This is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church.  It is a false claim.  The Catholic Church does not hold that the Bible is completely unclear!  Indeed, we hold to the concept of material sufficiency which even James White admits (though he tried to suggest there is an internal contradiction in the Church on this matter.)  Even, when Gary Hoge was cross examined on that claim a few years he made it clear that he held that the Bible was NOT unclear – as a Catholic Apologist.  A Catholic is perfectly at liberty to argue for Catholic dogma using the Bible which the likes of Gary Hoge, Scott Hahn and Dave Armstrong do.

However, the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is NOT SOOOOO clear on every single point as not to allow for varying erroneous interpretations, especially when divorced from historical belief.  Even Protetants have to make an appeal to primary and secondary doctrines to resolve his matter so Protestants go a LONG way towards to the Catholic understanding.  Indeed, every time a Protestant returns ‘to the original Greek’ they are making an admission that translated English is not enough for a pure understanding of the Word of God.  So those who an read ancient Greek end up being a form of semi-magisterium just by dint of their ability to translate and ensure correct linguistic meaning.

So, we hold that the basics of Scripture can be understood without a Magisterium.  We do!  Buuutttt… Scripture is not so clear that it cannot be distorted.  The Magisterium is NOT supposed to be operating as a Bible blocker but as a means to ensure that the HISTORIC interpretation of the Bible is preserved and not lost to someone’s novel interpretation of the Bible. 

I mean, the US constitution is far clearer than the Bible and less open to interpretation but that has not stopped Obama and his Commie friends re-interpreting the text it so that it ends up matching the constitution of the USSR. If the US constitution can be corrupted in understanding by a loony, why not the Bible?

Next, papal Encyclicals and the like are theological documents for the theologically learned.  They vary in tone and, style and content depending on the audience.  Papal documents in themselves do NOT establish the means by which the Catholic Church teaches the faith.  James White is arguing that materials written for PhD students amounts to the same as for high school students.  (Hey, are we to say the Calvin’s institutes means that the Bible is not clear for Calvinists?  Or that the Westminster Catechism that the Bible is utterly obscure?)

Now, materials that ARE meant to pass on the faith are available and are freely accessible.  The 1992 catechism is online for all to read and is extremely clear and includes an explanation of indulgences.  SO the teaching of the Magisterium is NOT hidden in weird language as per White’s claim but is clearly articulated in simple language and accessible to who seek it.  If White wanted to critique the Catholic Church’s teaching through the Magisterium then he should have gone for THAT which IS the teaching of the Church written plainly for the masses!  He will find it very understandable.  He’ll hate it but he will understand it.

Proof that the Catechism works as a teaching tool – Everyone knows what the Catholic Church teaches – love it or loath it. Anyone can look up the Catechism online an read what the catholic Church teaches – with citations.  That cannot be said, with respect (and I MEAN that!) for the 5,000 creedal Protestant denominations who can only agree among themselves in what they share with Catholics.  Sure, White can argue Indulgentiarum Doctrina with a Catholic scholar but he CANNOT claim that such documents equal the means of the transmission of the faith to the masses.

So, in conclusion, the James White makes a false comparison and misrepresents the Catholic understanding of the perspicuity of scripture.  Shame.  There is enough to separate us rather than digging up things that are not true.  Sure, us Catholics do hold that the Bible is NOT AS CLEAR as Protestants claim – sure.  We hold that the Bible (indeed, any book where one has a will to ‘re-interpret it as Obama does with he US constitution) can be distorted by those who are unlearned or willfully wish to twist the scriptures.  I mean, heck, the Bible was written in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew two thousand yeas ago I the middle East where and when the culture was quite, quite different to the modern West!  So many things I have learned about cultural expectation of the time that explain what the scriptures mean!  I defy anyone to read the Bible as a modern Westerner – in translation – and ‘get it’ exactly as a first century Christian would.  I mean, in order to understand Shakespeare students have to be taught about the concept of the ‘great chain of being’ which is no longer the assumption of the modern Brit, even though Shakespeare was English!

Books often need a context.  The Magisterium helps maintain that context.  Yes, I know that Protestants can argue that the Catholic Magisterium has corrupted the context – that is your privilege.  But the claims of James White are just not what we hold.

It really gets me down when we argue about things that are NOT the real issue.  Sola Fie versus faith and Work – yeah, that IS a real issue.  But White’s claim that the Catholic Church insists on passing the faith through obscure Magisterial documents for theologians is just wrong.

Hi Jedinovice, I’m not sure if I agree with everything in your post (I’ll read later more carefuly and think through), but you make a number of very good points.

Thanks Michael.  It’s good to be back online.  I have made it to the East.

Anyway, there is nothing to disagree with her.  White is making much out of nothing by making an inappropriate comparison.

If the Catholic Church claimed that the Bible was utterly unclear *and* that the way of properly explaining the meaning of the Bible was via obscure Magisterial documents written in Latin as the source language… Then Mr White would have a point.

But neither statement is true.  Therefore, White’s entire argument is false.  Therefore, there is literally no argument.
It’s a classic case where the conversation should go…
“Yea, but we don’t believe that.”
“Really?” 
“No.  It’s rubbish.”
“Oh, sorry then.”

That’s really it.

I mean, I do not want to paper over the real cracks between us.  It’s just that White does not tackle what Catholics really believe.  It’s the anti-Catholic game of “Let me tell you what your religion really teaches.”

We do differ on the degree of perspicuity of the Bible, yes.  But not to the extent that White claims we believe.  (Actually, The Catholic Church argues that very large portions of the Bible are far LESS obscure than many Protestants claim!)

We do claim that a Magisterium is needed to preserve the historical Christian faith.  Protestants do not.  They hold that, ultimately, the Bible alone is sufficient to preserve historical Christianity.

Fine.  Let’s talk about these things.  They are real. 

But what White presents isn’t.  Ergo, nothing to argue over.  No problem here.  Let’s move on.

Hi Jedinovice,

I believe the comparison is valid and here’s why.

1. the RC church teaches that she is the only infallible interpreter of scripture.
2. One might read the bible and come to a valid understanding of what it says…true
3. but all such readings stand or fall by whether or not they line up with Magisterial teaching.
4. The individual may, therefore, come to a right reading on his own but that is not determined by how well his reading lines up with the biblical text but by how well his reading lines up with the Church’s reading of the text.

The Church is the necessary mediator between the Christian and God’s word.

Now when you compare actual Magisterial teaching to scripture, this assertion becomes absurd. One often needs another interpreter to understand what, exactly, the church means. And, moreover, the effect (though not necessarily the purpose) is to remove the individual from scripture and focus his thought and effort on Church dogma.

This was illustrated some years ago as I watched Fr. Corapi (I pray he is now in a monastery somewhere) on EWTN lead people through years and years of page by page, paragraph by paragraph study - not of scripture but of the Catechism. And still people were confused and remain confused by it.

jedinovice:

Fer cryin’ out loud, the average Catholic would be unable to name a SINGLE papal Encyclical (Rad-Trads notwithstanding) because such documents are NOT used to pass on the faith to the populous.

That is a rather surprising claim, although I think it is correct to say that major papal encyclicals are often formally addressed to the bishops of the Roman Church.  But I have read several of them myself and it’s fairly obvious that they can be easily understood by any literate person.  They have never been withheld from the faithful and, among the Roman Catholics I know, their appeal is certainly not limited to those who could rightly be called radical traditionalists.

Next, papal Encyclicals and the like are theological documents for the theologically learned. They vary in tone and, style and content depending on the audience. Papal documents in themselves do NOT establish the means by which the Catholic Church teaches the faith.

Actually, in recent centuries they have sometimes been used for exactly that purpose.  Until the issuance of Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX in 1854, and Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII in 1950, no one was in a position to fully insist that the doctrines of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her bodily Assumption into heaven were “revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful,” although both beliefs were already held by many.  No Roman Catholic is now free to imagine otherwise, and that became the case once both papal pronouncements were made, and for no other reason. 

Ineffabilis Deus contains the words, “Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours,” and it was Pius XII’s intention that “our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church . . . for perpetual remembrance.”  Both popes appear to have succeeded rather well with that.
 
You make much of the current status of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but before it was released in 1992, the most authoritative Roman catechism at anyone’s disposal was the Catechism of the Council of Trent, published in 1566.  No one consulting the earlier version, which was just as official in its own time and in the centuries that followed, would have learned that the two doctrines in question were dogmas of the faith because they had never before been proclaimed as such.  Nor would they have learned that papal infallibility, as defined by the decrees of Vatican I, was based on a “tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith.” 

Of course, the faithful have always been able to rely upon catechisms produced by a body of local bishops and theologians, but Dr. Salmon provides an amusing example of what can happen when a less authoritative source than Rome herself mistakenly identifies as “a Protestant invention” what in fact also becomes a dogma of the faith a few decades later.

The controversial book which, thirty years ago, was most relied on in this country was “Keenan’s Catechism,” a book published with the imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic bishops, and recommended also by Irish prelates.  This book contained the following question and answer:-

‘Q.  Must not Catholics believe the Pope is himself to be infallible?

‘A.  This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.’

About 1869 or 1870 I had a visit from an English clergyman, who, for reasons of health, resided chiefly on the Continent, and, mixing much with Roman Catholics, took great interest in the controversy which was then agitating their Church.  I showed him the question and answer in “Keenan’s Catechism”; and he was so much interested by them, that he bought some copies of the book to present to his friends abroad.  A couple of years later he visited Ireland again, and purchased some more copies of “Keenan”; but this question and answer had then disappeared.  He presented me then with the two copies I have here.  To all appearance they are identical in their contents.  From the title-page, as it appears on the paper cover of each, the two books appear to be both of the twenty-first thousand; but when we open the books, we find them further agreeing in the singular feature, that there is another title-page which describes each as of the twenty-fourth thousand.  But at page 112 the question and answer which I have quoted are to be found in the one book, and are absent from the other.  It is, therefore, impossible now to maintain that the faith of the Church of Rome never changes, when it is notorious that there is something which is now part of her faith which those who had a good right to know declared was no part of her faith twenty years ago. 

George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church

 
It is good to see you defending the perspicuity of Holy Scripture, at least up to a point, but I am going to defend the perspicuity of papal encyclicals as well.  I find some of their contents impossible to believe, but not the least bit difficult to comprehend.  In any case, you and your co-religionists will listen in vain to “no less than FOUR Bible readings at Mass plus a liturgy very largely composed from scripture” in the hope of learning about these doctrines, apart from the various prayers and collects which have been inserted by the Roman Magisterium alone, following its insistence that they touch upon things that have all supposedly been revealed by God Himself from the very beginning, even if no one could be sure of that for several centuries.

I hope things are going well for you in Asia.  Please pray for those of us who remain in the belly of the beast. 

>jedinovice:

>Fer cryin’ out loud, the average Catholic would be unable to name a SINGLE papal Encyclical (Rad-Trads notwithstanding) because such documents are NOT used to pass on the faith to the populous.

>>That is a rather surprising claim, although I think it is correct to say that major papal encyclicals are often formally addressed to the bishops of the Roman Church.  But I have read several of them myself and it’s fairly obvious that they can be easily understood by any literate person.  They have never been withheld from the faithful and, among the Roman Catholics I know, their appeal is certainly not limited to those who could rightly be called radical traditionalists.

Thank you for understanding.  And yes, I actually agree that many Papal Enciplicals are easy to understand.  But there is a range.  James White, however, wishes to claim that such Encyplicals are THE means by which the faith is taught – as if that is their primary purpose.  It is not.  I am glad you understand.

>>Next, papal Encyclicals and the like are theological documents for the theologically learned. They vary in tone and, style and content depending on the audience. Papal documents in themselves do NOT establish the means by which the Catholic Church teaches the faith.

>Actually, in recent centuries they have sometimes been used for exactly that purpose.  Until the issuance of Ineffabilis Deus by Pope Pius IX in 1854, and Munificentissimus Deus by Pope Pius XII in 1950, no one was in a position to fully insist that the doctrines of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception and her bodily Assumption into heaven were “revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful,” although both beliefs were already held by many.  No Roman Catholic is now free to imagine otherwise, and that became the case once both papal pronouncements were made, and for no other reason. 
Ineffabilis Deus contains the words, “Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours,” and it was Pius XII’s intention that “our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church . . . for perpetual remembrance.”  Both popes appear to have succeeded rather well with that.

Careful.  Let us be clear what we are discussing.  James White wishes to say that Encyclicals are THE means of transmitting the faith.  This is incorrect.

The wish of Pope Pius XII was indeed carried out but… through teaching, Catechisms and a range of material. Besides, if I may, the Dogma ‘caught on’ because it was ALREADY believed by the Catholic Populous.  It was not a strange idea but common belief so, of course it ‘caught on.’  The Assumption of Mary had ALREADY caught on!  Indeed, Pius XII was more responding to the sense of the people than imposing a strange belief. (Bear in mind, we are talking Catholics here!!!)

 
>You make much of the current status of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but before it was released in 1992, the most authoritative Roman catechism at anyone’s disposal was the Catechism of the Council of Trent, published in 1566.

Er, no.  There have been numerous local Catechisms used from Trent.  In the UK there was the famous ‘Penny Catechism.’  My mother still has a copy and it was used for her instruction in converting to the Catholic faith.

> No one consulting the earlier version, which was just as official in its own time and in the centuries that followed, would have learned that the two doctrines in question were dogmas of the faith because they had never before been proclaimed as such.  Nor would they have learned that papal infallibility, as defined by the decrees of Vatican I, was based on a “tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith.” 

Sure.  But this leads onto discussion about development of doctrine and goes off topic.  James White was making a claim about our beliefs of the perspicuity of scripture AND Magisterial documents.  He was wrong on both counts.  That’s all that is being argued here.  The topic could change to development of doctrine and infallibility – I am game, time and internet access (ha ha) permitting but let’s stick with the claims of James White as clearing up matters of fact FIRST, lest we start running down rabbit trails.

>>Of course, the faithful have always been able to rely upon catechisms produced by a body of local bishops and theologians,

Exactly.

>but Dr. Salmon provides an amusing example of what can happen when a less authoritative source than Rome herself mistakenly identifies as “a Protestant invention” what in fact also becomes a dogma of the faith a few decades later.
>The controversial book which, thirty years ago, was most relied on in this country was “Keenan’s Catechism,” a book published with the imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic bishops, and recommended also by Irish prelates.  This book contained the following question and answer:-
>‘Q.  Must not Catholics believe the Pope is himself to be infallible?
>‘A.  This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.’

Again, careful.  Now you are moving into the topic of development of doctrine!  That is a huge topic and a major shift AWAY from what James White raised.  Besides, one local catechism does not break the general historical faith of the Church.  Individual Bishops can make all kinds of errors. (The Bishops of England and Wales have, quite frankly, been liberal wussies who have actively denied Church teaching in public until Pope Benedict started kicking heads… almost literally.)

>About 1869 or 1870 I had a visit from an English clergyman, who, for reasons of health, resided chiefly on the Continent, and, mixing much with Roman Catholics, took great interest in the controversy which was then agitating their Church.  I showed him the question and answer in “Keenan’s Catechism”; and he was so much interested by them, that he bought some copies of the book to present to his friends abroad.  A couple of years later he visited Ireland again, and purchased some more copies of “Keenan”; but this question and answer had then disappeared.  He presented me then with the two copies I have here.  To all appearance they are identical in their contents.  From the title-page, as it appears on the paper cover of each, the two books appear to be both of the twenty-first thousand; but when we open the books, we find them further agreeing in the singular feature, that there is another title-page which describes each as of the twenty-fourth thousand.  But at page 112 the question and answer which I have quoted are to be found in the one book, and are absent from the other.  It is, therefore, impossible now to maintain that the faith of the Church of Rome never changes, when it is notorious that there is something which is now part of her faith which those who had a good right to know declared was no part of her faith twenty years ago. 
>George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church

It APPEARS that the bone of contention here is infallibility and people which to discuss the Catholic Church’s (‘erroneous’) claims.  Sure, we can do that.  But I repeat – this is moving AWAY from James White initial claims about PERSPICUITY!  We have major scope shift.  I am not responding to issues of development of doctrine or Papal Infallibility when my purpose was simply to correct matters of FACT regarding the Catholic Church’s beliefs.

Let’s get the facts in regard to James White sorted first and THEN discuss where we differ.  As an aside, briefly, Salmon does not understand the nature of development of doctrine.  But I am trying not to go down rabbit trails.

 
>It is good to see you defending the perspicuity of Holy Scripture, at least up to a point,

Thank you for your understanding. I am pleased you get what I am trying to say here.

> but I am going to defend the perspicuity of papal encyclicals as well.  I find some of their contents impossible to believe, but not the least bit difficult to comprehend. 

Thank you.  That is fair.  I agree that everyone KNOWS what the Catholic Church teaches – they disagree with it.  Thus, James White’s claim that that Catholic Church’s teaching is unclear is not with foundation.  Let us be clear about is being discussed.

>In any case, you and your co-religionists will listen in vain to “no less than FOUR Bible readings at Mass plus a liturgy very largely composed from scripture” in the hope of learning about these doctrines, apart from the various prayers and collects which have been inserted by the Roman Magisterium alone, following its insistence that they touch upon things that have all supposedly been revealed by God Himself from the very beginning, even if no one could be sure of that for several centuries.

That is your prerogative to believe. I am not looking for a fight!  I am not here defending Papal Infallibility, or development of doctrine, nor even the perspicuity of papal documents.  I am simply trying to show that James White is wrong on matters of fact and that on his chosen specialized subject – the perspicuity of Catholic dogma – he is simply wrong on basic matters of fact.

Once the facts are established then we talk about anything we like!

>I hope things are going well for you in Asia.
 
It’s… an adventure.  The future looks bright here in Indonesia but we are long way behind the rest of SE Asia in terms of development so it is unnerving.  But, yes, it’s nice being on the ‘winning side.’  I do miss the old country so much though.

>Please pray for those of us who remain in the belly of the beast.
 
I will pray hard today and keep praying!  God seems to want me here because He stopped me returning to the UK no less than four times (major culture shock!) but I feel for the West and your heroes. I feel such a heel for leaving but, certainly for the UK, “The only way out to jump or go through.”
I salute you!

Thank you so much for understanding what I was saying.  There is no virtue in arguing over what we do NOT disagree with.

>Hi Jedinovice,

Hi!

>I believe the comparison is valid and here’s why.

Careful!  You can argue with the logic of Catholic belief but you must be clear WHAT we believe!  James White was making an argument about the perspicuity of Catholic teaching versus the Bible.  I have shown White is wrong matters of fact!  Let’s just be clear about the FACTS!  You do not have to agree with the Catholic Church but you must understand what we believe.  I am not trying to defend that catholic Church here – I am trying to clear up mis-understanding.  Now, if you want me to make a defence of, say, Papal Infallibility, then I am game in principle.  But I am trying hard to stay on topic here.  (It would take some explain, mind.)
Now, to your argument.

>1. the RC church teaches that she is the only infallible interpreter of scripture.
^^^  Nonononono!  Wrong!  Utterly wrong.  That is a very Protestant ‘understanding’ of Catholic belief.  It is, however wrong.  The Catholic Church does NOT hold that it is the only infallible interpreter of scripture.  You have badly misunderstood the nature of infallibility. (No surprise.  Protestants find the concept so alien they often fail to grasp it.)

The Catholic Church does NOT hold that it is the infallible interpreter of scripture! 
No!  The claim of Infallibility is in the teaching of matters and faith and morals and applies to the overall teaching of the Church which draws from both Scripture and (shudder) Tradition.  Infallibility is general and applies to dogmas and NOT individual verses of the Bible!

Sounds like a subtle distinction but it’s important.  Matt’s description of infallible Bible reading is the operation of the JW’s with Watchtower and Awake read during the service – for three hours.  I know. I’ve been there!  In the Catholic Church a pastoral letter from the Bishop may be read out once every six months.
 
2. One might read the bible and come to a valid understanding of what it says…true
We agree.

3. but all such readings stand or fall by whether or not they line up with Magisterial teaching.

Correct.  But NOT in the sense of the Catholic Church having a line by line “This is what Scripture really says” commentary.  Catholic Bible study must be within the grounds of what the Catholic Church holds to be the historic faith passed down across the generations through Apostolic Succession.  Remember that we do not appeal to Bible Alone but to Scripture and Tradition. I will explain how this affects your case in a moment.  The irony is that Apostolic Succession (forgetting infallibility for now) does not REQUIRE an infallible interpreter of Scripture!  The poor Protestant must, I am sorry to say, be inspired infallibly by the Holy Spirit every time they open the Bible to interpret the scriptures perfectly.

4. The individual may, therefore, come to a right reading on his own but that is not determined by how well his reading lines up with the biblical text but by how well his reading lines up with the Church’s reading of the text.
Not the text!  That is Protestant thinking.  Catholics think quite differently.  A person’s reading of the text must not be in DEFIANCE of the historical faith.  It must not deny Apostolic Teaching through succession.  It’s a key distinction!  There is NO big book of Bible study in the Catholic Church that says “This verse means this.”  Remember that we also appeal to HISTORY!  TRADITION!  Quite frankly, there is a hell of a difference between being told, “You can read the Bible but remember the faith of your fathers when reading it” and “Sure, read the Bible and we will tell you exactly what the verses mean.”

Besides, James White holds that any Christian who reads the Bible and does not become full blown double predestination Calvinist is, ipso facto, not a Christian. His definition of Christian is, er, narrow.  So you sure as hell had better not come up with an interpretation of the Bible that denies the Institutes.  (Except that White denies Calvin’s belief in the nature of Baptism so that means you cannot have a Bible reading that contradicts White’s infallible interpretation!  So where does that leave the rest of us?)

>The Church is the necessary mediator between the Christian and God’s word.

Only if one automatically reads “The Word of God” as purely the Bible.  The Catholic Church sees that Church as PART of God’s Word and, thus, the Church is not a mediator but a preserver.  It’s quite different thinking!  You think Church Versus the Bible.  We think, Church and Bible. Why in Protestantism is the Church that bound the Bible together is the enemy of the Bible?

>Now when you compare actual Magisterial teaching to scripture, this assertion becomes absurd.

I, er, am keen to differ.  Many years ago when I tested the claims of Catholicism and Protestantism I was stunned and amazed just how much the Catholic Church was able to argue their case from scripture and the Protestants, well, after two round they went… “Oh yeah?  Well, well…  What about Mary, eh, eh?”  They always changed the subject.  After a year of this I jumped fully to Rome.

I mean, no Protestant can tell me definitely what the nature of Baptism is.
Another example:  Matt (God bless him) thinks that I am Christian.  An ill informed, Romanised Christian who really should read the Bible for himself and see the clear light of Calvinism expressed there by a Christian nevertheless.  However, James White – also a Calvinist - holds that I am a member of the anti-Christ, the Church of Babylon, utterly unregenerate and not a Christian at all!  Both appeal to the plain meaning of scripture.  As I say, White even thinks Calvin was not Calvinist enough.

Now, one can disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on, say, Baptism, but everyone knows what it is!

> One often needs another interpreter to understand what, exactly, the church means.

Then how does everyone know what the Catholic Church believes?  I grant, you seem to be having difficulty understanding Catholic teaching but I am putting that down to an engrained Reformed way of thinking that automatically sees the Christianity = Bible and Bible = Christianity and anything else is just incomprehensible. 

Fact!  Everyone knows what the Catholic Church teaches.  Fact!  Anyone can look up what the Catholic Church teaches online.  Fact!  If someone needs to read a papal document – they can!  But most people do not because the Catechism is clear enough!

(I will accept that there has been very poor catechesis in the Catholic Church, plus a lot of quisling Bishops in the West.  But Pope B16 is kicking back on this.  I belief it is, alas, far too late to prevent outright persecution in the West and the fight should be haven joined earlier and the Quislings kicked out under JPII but at least it’s happening now.)

>And, moreover, the effect (though not necessarily the purpose) is to remove the individual from scripture and focus his thought and effort on Church dogma.
Whoa.  What are we discussing here?  Perspicuity or Church authority?  You’ve just shifted the argument.  You can argue that the Catholic Church has no right to impose dogma – that the Bible Alone is the only/final authority.  But James White’s claim was about perspicuity!  Even if were to agree with you and say “Yup, the Catholic Church acts as a justified Mediator between the Bible and the reader” it says NOTHING about the PERSPICUITY of Church teaching!

Besides by this argument ANY Bible commentary is suspect.  What is odd is that, if the Bible is sooooo clear then why did Calvin need to write his Institutes? (To be fair to Calvin – on the matter of free will he is absolutely clear.  It does not exist in any shape or form whatsoever.  On the Eucharist… I defy anyone to work out his position.  Papal documents are much more clear on this matter!)  Why did Luther have to write, say, “Bondage of the Will?”  Why have any commentaries at all?  Logically, anyone can pick up the Bible – pray – and receive the clear, true and, er, infallible meaning.  Criticizing the Catholic Church for writing about the meaning of the scriptures is to criticize ANYONE who does the same.

Indeed, if Catholic Dogma really was so obscure…
a)    No-one would be able to clearly understand it and no-one would be able to disagree with matters of Papal infallibility, Justification by faith and works, Transubstantiation, etc, etc.  But everyone knows the basics, at least, of Catholic Dogma.  (Forget whether it is right or not!  We are talking about understanding!)
b)  The MSM and the Liberals would not be spitting blood at the Catholic Church.  I would not (in my time in the UK) be hearing the Brits screaming down the phone lines of local radio about Pope Benedict’s evil teachings (they did) when he visited my old country in 2010.  It was BECAUSE the people understood Catholic teaching that they rejected it!

So we have to be clear what we are discussing.  James White’s claim stands on the perspicuity of Catholic Church teaching.  Everyone knows what the Church teaches in terms of baptism, number and nature of the sacraments, the nature of baptism, the place of works in salvation, etc, etc.  Now, find me two Protestant denominations that can agree on any of the above!  We have one central Catechism.  You have 5000 creedal denominations.  Putting aside truth, in terms of perspicuity it seems clear to me which side has it.  As episcoplainted very neatly put it…

> but I am going to defend the perspicuity of papal encyclicals as well.  I find some of their contents impossible to believe, but not the least bit difficult to comprehend. 

Which is fine. I would not EXPECT him to believe.  But that is not the argument here.  Episcopalianated ‘gets it!’

>This was illustrated some years ago as I watched Fr. Corapi (I pray he is now in a monastery somewhere) on EWTN lead people through years and years of page by page, paragraph by paragraph study - not of scripture but of the Catechism. And still people were confused and remain confused by it.

Then said Father was a bad teacher.  What does one bad teacher prove?  I have had loads of bad teaching in the Catholic Church.  We have all of these treasures of theology in the Church and are useless at giving them out.  BUT… when I actually had people take time out to explain… wow!  Talk about scales falling from eyes!

Even as a hetrodox catholic – I UNDERSTOOD what the Catholic Church taught. I did not understand WHY!  When time was taken out to show me… Perspicuity!

Besides, I can reserves that.  Find me a Protestantthan can really explain Sola Fide to me. 
“It’s justification by Faith alone without the need for works.”
“Ah, so I can sin freely then?”
“Nononono!  Sola Fide means you give up sin in gratitude to God for saving you.”
“But I don’t have to, right…?  I mean, I am saved by faith alone.”
“Ah, but it is a faith that works.  You work in gratitude to God.”
“So I do have to have good works to be saved.”
“Well, the works are signs of being saved.”
“But if it’s a sign, I don’t *need* good works right?”
“Right.  You are saved by faith alone.”
“So I can sin as long as I have faith?”
“No.  A faith that sins is not saving faith.”
“So I have to have good works to prove my faith?”
“Yes!”
“But you said that good works weren’t needed to be saved…”
“They are not.  You are justified by faith alone.”
“So I don’t need good works after all.”
“No.  Saving faith has works…”
Aiaiaiaiaiai!

Confusion can flow both ways you know!

Anyway – the Catholic Church does NOT provide a blow by blow infallible interpretation of scriptures. Not at all.  So that does not fly.  Next, you would really have to PROVE that Catholic teaching is utterly unclear.  Matt has made such a try but I do not think it stands up to scrutiny.

What has, instead happened, is the topic has shifted from the perspicuity of Catholic Dogma (and said documents) to the right of the Catholic Church to act as any kind of mediator at all.

What Matt is saying, I think is, “Look, that Catholic Church has no right to go around making infallible dogmas especially when they are in clear defiance of scripture.”  I get that. I really do.  Matt can argue that case.  (I am happy to tackle that if needed.)  BUT… that is distinct from the subject of perspicuity.
Let’s stick with the original charge, eh?

Apologies for typos. I am a hopeless proof reader and tend to write lots and miss errors.

At least SF now has a spell check.  That helps save me SOME embarrassment!

Oh, as a complete aside – and just because I am still logged on – Our cat (a pedigree Siamese that adopted us one night – do not ask where she came from – we do not know!!) gave birth to three kittens last night.

I just thought I’d mention it.  Look, I don’t do facebook, OK?!

Hi Jedinovice,

I’ll try to get to the substance of your response here later today and dive into the Catechism with you on the question. But first…what you are saying here seems to differ significantly with the orthodox Catholic writer and blogger Mark Shea here:

http://www.mark-shea.com/tposaocm.html

“But people who assert things like the Perspicuity of Scripture as Revealed Truth have to face the fact that the Laboratory of Experience is simply against them. The one thing Scripture is not is perspicuous.”

Do you believe he is misinformed? Granted Mark Shea is not the Catechism (which, again, we’ll talk about later)...but his words with regard to perspicuity are fairly representative of Catholic arguments on the matter.

Is he all wet? if so where does he get ideas like this?

At the very least we can say that the way I interpreted the Catechism with regard to perspecuity is in keeping with the interpretation of orthodox and not unlearned Catholics like Mark Shea.

If only we had an interpreter to enable us to come to the correct interpretation of the Roman teaching on this question.

The words “Roman Magisterium” have a sort of ominous ring to them, but let’s face it:  every Christian needs the help of an authentic teaching authority (magisterium) to resolve significant doubts about very important matters of the Christian Faith.

For example, without the help of this or that magisterium, there is simply no way I can achieve certainty concerning the relationship between Jesus and His Father.  Fortunately, that magisterial help came in the form of an ecumenical council, whose decisions virtually all Christians have had the good sense to accept. It’s fantasy and arrogance for me to think that I can sit down with my Bible in front of me and, with no authoritative outside help, achieve certainty as to the issues decided by the early ecumenical councils without relying on these selfsame councils or any other sort of extra-Scriptural magisterium.

Without the help of this or that magisterium, I cannot resolve beyond reasonable doubt very significant issues about the meaning of the Words of Institution (cf Luther/Calvin, Zwingli controversies), or about infant baptism, or about apostolic succession, or about the morality of contraception.

Oh, sure, without the help of a magisterium, I can have an “opinion” about these disputed matters, but I cannot achieve “moral certainty.”  Iin fact, every Christian who is not a skeptic adopts some sort of magisterium.  The question for the Christian is not whether to submit to the authority of an extra-Scriptural magisterium, but to which extra-Scriptural authority to submit (e.g., the Book of Concord, the “First Eight Ecumenical Councils,” a trusted former seminary professor, etc.)  If someone denies this, just ask them this simple question:  “How do you know that the books of the New Testament are 27 in number, and are inspired by the Holy Spirit?”

Hi sclath, I wrote a brief analogy regarding the relationship between the teaching of the church and scripture here:

Just because someone makes an ignorant or errant observation about the nature of the cosmos doesn’t mean people should be forbidden to practice astronomy or held back from buying telescopes.

The universe itself is the measure of all theories and hypotheses. It will survive the incorrect ones.

Neither is the scientific community the measure of the cosmos. Natural revelation itself remains the norm by which all hypotheses and theories - be they amateur or professional - are normed. And observation rules the day.

To say the natural world is the measure of science does not do away with science or scientists or the need to be trained and well read in order to interpret natural phenomena effectively. But it does mean that even when the scientific community is united on a given theory, that theory remains subject to testing and observation. Nature has a way of upending the scientific community.

In the same way scripture as God’s special revelation, is the norm that norms all other norms. Like the cosmos itself is the measure of all science, so scripture is the measure of all doctrine and interpretation.

This does not do away with the teaching authority of the church but it does establish the fundamental truth that even the church can err and her interpretations, therefore, must not be held sacrosanct.

Accurate interpretation does not mean forbidding “private interpretation” any more than good science forbids backyard telescopes.

Matt, studying the cosmos and studying the Scriptures are different in one crucial respect.  The object of study can be known without assistance in the case of scientific study, but not in the case of the Scriptures.  The amateur astronomer can find the sky for himself.  But the Christian cannot know the contents of the canon of Scripture by himself.  So even assuming that a Christian could reliably interpret the Scriptures unaided by any magisterium if he knew what writings constituted the Scriptures, he certainly couldn’t identify the Scriptures in the first place without a magisterium.

#41, Bingo!

Sclath, you are of course assuming your assertion rather than providing any basis for it:

“The object of study can be known without assistance in the case of scientific study, but not in the case of the Scriptures.  The amateur astronomer can find the sky for himself.  But the Christian cannot know the contents of the canon of Scripture by himself…”

That is a mere assertion that forces one to conclude that for some reasons God chose to make his natural revelation clear as a bell and his written revelation a magical mystery book.

I’ll answer your assertion in kind. Special Revelation, God’s word to his people, not only as clear, but far more clear than natural revelation and every Christian can read and understand it just as easily as he/she can any other book.

“One often needs another interpreter to understand what, exactly, the church means.”
Then how does everyone know what the Catholic Church believes?

I agree that every Roman Catholic “knows what the CC believes”, its just that almost every one of them “knows” it to be something different to the others!

Besides, I can reserves that.  Find me a Protestantthan can really explain Sola Fide to me. 
“It’s justification by Faith alone without the need for works.”
“Ah, so I can sin freely then?”

Actually, in this dialogue (I appreciate that its made up) the protestant does rather well.  Justification by faith alone without the need for works does not of itself imply that one can sin freely.  So the explanation was fine.  The problem was that the listener formed an unjustified misconception.  One can’t be responsible for that… just saying…

#41 and #42, you have just conflated your own argument, and you have completely misunderstood our argument.

Protestants agree that the witness of the early church is necessary and helpful to determine which books are of Apostolic authorship. 

We also believe (as did the early church fathers and the great councils) that those Apostolic books are quite capable of speaking for themselves. 

That is why we protesants are also fully catholic.

We honour the writers of the Nicene Creed (which was not written at Nicaea, but no matter) because what they wrote conforms with and elucidates Scripture, and applies the meaning of Scripture to particular issues.  They did not purport to add any new teaching that wasn’t already there.

“Without the help of this or that magisterium, I cannot resolve beyond reasonable doubt very significant issues about the meaning of the Words of Institution (cf Luther/Calvin, Zwingli controversies), or about infant baptism, or about apostolic succession, or about the morality of contraception.”

This statement is entirely incorrect.  “This or that magisterium” won’t resolve anything.  Read the scriptures, think about what they say, then work outward from there.  That is what the church fathers did, and it is a good example for us to follow.

OK, since we are going into this, I want just set the tone by giving my RESPECT to Protestants.  I feel it is only fair.  My prayer partner (who passed away a couple of years ago) was Anglican and then Salvation Army.  He was one of the best friends I ever knew and prayed with me long and hard when I had no hope any more.  My subsequent prayer partner in the UK before I left was/is Calvinist Anglican.

Vineyard kept me going when I was enduring the test of my life and my brother and father was both dying!

In Indonesia I had had the privelidge of teaching at the local Pentecostal Church.  I admire Protestants and I recognise their contribution in building up Western society and grieve over the UK moving from a Protestant Country to an Atheistic one.  No, I mean I REALLY grieve.  I thought leaving for the Far East would be a release but I grieve for the old land more than ever.

I think respect paid is important.  Now, on with the show!

>>“But people who assert things like the Perspicuity of Scripture as Revealed Truth have to face the fact that the Laboratory of Experience is simply against them. The one thing Scripture is not is perspicuous.”
>Do you believe he is misinformed? Granted Mark Shea is not the Catechism (which, again, we’ll talk about later)...but his words with regard to perspicuity are fairly representative of Catholic arguments on the matter.
>Is he all wet? if so where does he get ideas like this?

I do not think Mark Shae is ‘all wet.’  Not at all.  Indeed, I find him an engaging writer and a strong apologist.  Now, for his exact meaning - the best thing would be to email him.  But I remember the same query coming in regards to similar comment by Gary Hoge who, on questioning, confirmed that he did not regard the Bible is completely indecipherable.  So I will dare to speak for him but I will probably email him and confirm.

I will put it like this, if I may.  Protestantism tends to have a binary, “Either/or” mindset which pitchs one idea against another rather than harmonising.  This extends to the meaning of the word ‘perspicuity.’

By necessity - since Luther cut down the role of the church - Protestantism must argue that the Bible is perspicuous in the sense that anyone ‘guided by the Holy Spirit’ can pick up a Bible - in translation - and read out the True Gospel of Calvinism.

So perspicuity - for the Protestant - has a particular meaning. It means “So simple, a ten year could get it.”  After all, Protestantism holds that anyone, learned or unlearned, young or old, 1st century Christian or 21st Century Westerner can understand “the plain meaning of the Bible” without need of commentaries, the Church or extra-Biblical writings (helpful though they may be - they are not NEEDED.  Once they are NEEDED Protestantism ends up appealing to a form of Tradition and that kills Sola Scriptura.)

So Protestantism sees the Bible as ultimate a simple, easy to read and understand book.

The Catholic church does NOT see the Bible like that.  It sees the Bible as a complex work.  Not as bad as Wittgenstin but up there with, say Descrates.  Now, Descrates is not indecipherable and can be understood in translation but a LOT of people would misunderstand it.  I regard “The Abolition of Man” as not hard to understand but a genius computer programmer at work could not understand even the first chapter!

Now, in the Protestant understanding (which, alas, tends to be dictomous) the denial that the Bible is so simple a ‘plough boy could understand it’ must, therefore, indicate that the Catholic Church regards the Bible as ‘utterly indecipherable’ which is White’s claim.  But this is a leap too far.

However, the Catholic position is NOT that the Bible is ‘utterly undecipherable.’  This is a false dicotomy from our point of view.  We hold that the Bible is less like, say, “The Chronicles of Narnia” but more like “Lord of the Rings.”  It’s a harder read. 

So the Bible is not ‘utterly indecipherable’ in the sense that one cannot understand a word of it, even in translation!  The Bible is ‘perspicuous’ in the sense that it is decipherable (an utterly indecipherable book stands as no authority at all!) and that anyone get pick up the Bible and get the GENERAL SENSE.  But the Bible is NOT so perspicuous that anyoe can pick it up with no knowledge of Greet, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Middle East geography, or the culture, customs and conflicts of the time and understand the tenets of Christianity instantly.  Protestantism actually admits to this in practical terms with reference to ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ doctrines.  Since appeal to the Bible Alone has led to 5000 creedal denominations, Protestantism has had to tacitly admit that the Bible is NOT that clear on matters of faith but “the main things are the plain things.”  (Though just try and get a listing of the Primary and Secondary doctrines so you know which is which!)

So, in the Catholic sense that the Bible can be understood but must be approached with learning and an eye on history and claims that a plough buy CANNOT instantly read out ‘the clear message of the Gospel.’ For us the Bible is perspicuous TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.  The gist of the Gospel can be understood by the layman but NOT to the degree that every article of faith and morals can be extracted by the unlearned. 

Protestants argue that you need no education except the ability to read to get the Bible.  Catholics say that, well, know. You need some degree of education to get the Bible.  But that does not make the Bible indecipherable - just a complex book that needs some education behind it.  Frankly, I would EXPECT God’s word to be complex.

So, I am willing to bet that Mark Shea is arguing in the Protestant sense of Perspicuity.  The meaning of the word such a ‘plough boy’ can understand the bible FULLY in terms of the Faith (normally ref: Calvinism” is not true.  The Bible is NOT perspicuous!  The unlearned have picked up the bible, have misunderstood the meaning and have produced thousands of competing denominations.  The experiment of unleashing the Bible on the masses and saying “Go on then, read it for yourselves on your own and find the One true faith” has manifestly NOT worked!  I am sure that is what Mark Shea is saying.

However, the catholic Church holds that the Bible is not an utter mystery but it must be understood in context.  As I say, Shakespeare is not indecipherable but students must be educated in iambic pentameter and in the underlying theology including the great chain of being.  Are to say the school is a barrier to understanding Shakespeare?  But Protestantism is saying that the Church is a barrier to understanding the Bible!

So, think of it in terms of scale.  In Protestantism - roughly speaking, the Bible is 100% perspicuous (certainly in terms of ‘primary doctrines.’)  Anyone can just pick up a Bible and ‘get it.’

The Catholic Church sees the Bible as around 60% perspicuous. Not impossible to understand but not so clear that anyone can pick it up without training, knowledge and expect to get Primary doctrines in formal terms.  (We do hold to the material sufficiency of scripture but deny formal sufficiency of Scripture.  For most Protestants this will not do.)

So, I would imagine that Mark Shea is critiquing the *Protestant* definition of perspicuity.  The difficulty is that once a Catholic denies the Protestant understanding of the Bible we are accused of claiming that the Bible is ‘utter indecipherable.’

I hope that clarifies.  As I say, I will probably email Mark Shea and inquire.  That do?  [It won’t be for a couple of days.  I am flooded right now!]

And please understand something CRITICAL when it comes to catholic thinking.  We do not in terms of either/or but both/and. It is not “The Bible is unintelligible and so the Church must take over” but that, for us, “The Bible and the Church are one.  They both proclaim God’s word and clarify EACH OTHER.”  This involves rather a paradigm shift on the part of the Protestant to ‘get.’  But try and see it from our POV.

>I agree that every Roman Catholic “knows what the CC believes”, its just that almost every one of them “knows” it to be something different to the others!

Huh?  You mean to tell me that people do NOT know what the Church teaches in regards to Baptism, the Eucharist, the necessity of the Church, Tradition, Mary (EVERYONE know what we teach about Mary!) contraception, abortion, etc, etc? 

—-
>Justification by faith alone without the need for works does not of itself imply that one can sin freely.  So the explanation was fine.

Except that:

a)    It is circular and
b)  Once works is added to the mix you end up virtually recreating the Catholic argument!  (Luther recognized this and hence his infamous ‘Sin Boldly’ statement.

—-
> Read the scriptures, think about what they say, then work outward from there.  That is what the church fathers did, and it is a good example for us to follow.

Ah yes, we should follow the scriptures like the Early Church Fathers did – the Shepherd of Hermas, the epistles of Linus and Clement but definitely NOT Hebrews or Revelation (‘cause they aren’t scripture.)  Just sayin’. 

I did pray for you last night and will continue to do so.

Hope to join in more when I get time.  Er, my new job and new location do NOT allow for much in the way of internet access.

Hi Jedinovice,

I think you’ve misunderstood the protestant understanding of perspicuity…as do many protestants. What you have provided below is just about right:

“The Bible is ‘perspicuous’ in the sense that it is decipherable (an utterly indecipherable book stands as no authority at all!) and that anyone get pick up the Bible and get the GENERAL SENSE.  But the Bible is NOT so perspicuous that anyoe can pick it up with no knowledge of Greet, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Middle East geography, or the culture, customs and conflicts of the time and understand the tenets of Christianity instantly.”

So either you or Mark Shea has misunderstood the Protestant doctrine.

The definition above puts you in a tight spot because if the bible is perspicuous in the way you suggest above then any believer who takes the time to learn the art and science of biblical interpretation (be he 12 years old or 55) can get it.

The Church is immensely important and necessary as a guide in this training but not an infallible guide and not the only sure interpreter. The one who employs the basic tools of literary study as he would any other book can understand it and apply what he understands.

Your definition is precisely in keeping with my analogy above.

slcath:

The words “Roman Magisterium” have a sort of ominous ring to them, but let’s face it: every Christian needs the help of an authentic teaching authority (magisterium) to resolve significant doubts about very important matters of the Christian Faith.

Unfortunately, that kind of help is not available to us in determining where the source of the authentic teaching may be found in the first place, unless we find it in the authority of the Church Universal based on the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins: “In the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘catholic,’ which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.”  Where the teaching authority of the Church is concerned, as opposed to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture itself, that is the principle which Anglicans accept. 

Otherwise, we face the dilemma of two rival claimants to an exclusive authority, the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Church of the East, with each insisting upon its ability to make infallible pronouncements on matters of faith that are often incompatible with each other, and with each identifying oral Tradition as a source of doctrine, although both sides are not in agreement as to what its contents are.  As each part tries to represent itself as the visible manifestation of “the one true Church on earth” with which all Christians should be in communion and full agreement, we are forced back on the use of our own private judgment in trying to discover which one of them is right, if either one is.  We must examine their respective truth claims to our own satisfaction and there is no independent and impartial magisterium to help us with that. 
 

The amateur astronomer can find the sky for himself. But the Christian cannot know the contents of the canon of Scripture by himself. So even assuming that a Christian could reliably interpret the Scriptures unaided by any magisterium if he knew what writings constituted the Scriptures, he certainly couldn’t identify the Scriptures in the first place without a magisterium.

One of the most problematic statements I have ever read about the Roman Catholic view of the canon of Holy Scripture is found in the opening paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia article, Canon of the New Testament:

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (emphasis added)

The Universal Church did, of course, acknowledge all 27 books of the New Testament as canonical long before the Council of Trent, and she did not do that on the basis of a magisterial authority that the Church of Rome took more than 1500 years to exercise in an official and formal way.

From F. F. Bruce’s essay, The Canon of the New Testament:

The first steps in the formation of a canon of authoritative Christian books, worthy to stand beside the Old Testament canon, which was the Bible of our Lord and His apostles, appear to have been taken about the beginning of the second century, when there is evidence for the circulation of two collections of Christian writings in the Church.

- - -

It was specially important to determine which books might be used for the establishment of Christian doctrine, and which might most confidently be appealed to in disputes with heretics. In particular, when Marcion drew up his canon about AD 140, it was necessary for the orthodox churches to know exactly what the true canon was, and this helped to speed up a process which had already begun. It is wrong, however, to talk or write as if the Church first began to draw up a canon after Marcion had published his.

- - -

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and general apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa — at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397 — but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.

Although disagreements did arise from time to time in the early Church about the status of a few individual books, it was not somehow impossible to faithfully recognize and preserve the ones that came to us from the Apostles themselves prior to a Church council being able to decide that.  The end result is a canon of the New Testament that was identified early on and upon which we can all now agree.

jedinovice:

It certainly wasn’t my intention to take the thread off-topic and, hopefully, I haven’t done that.  In the article which the topic is based on, Mr. White states: “What does it teach? It teaches about an infallible Magisterium, and the bishop of Rome; it teaches about an oral tradition no one can identify but which existed outside of the Bible (and, in the case of the Marian dogmas, outside of—-everything).”  I cited the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and papal infallibility and how they developed as examples of what he is talking about here.  With that in mind, I think that some discussion of the development of doctrine as the Roman Church understands it is indeed relevant.  (And Father Kennedy didn’t blow the whistle. )

Careful. Let us be clear what we are discussing. James White wishes to say that Encyclicals are THE means of transmitting the faith. This is incorrect.

Well . . . are you at least prepared to concede that they are a means of transmitting the faith?  The two Marian dogmas to which I referred became binding on your Church as soon as the papal encyclicals which defined them were issued.  Presumably, the popes have intended for them to be widely disseminated and they have been.  Surely the encyclicals themselves are more authoritative than the various catechisms and other instructional materials that the Church uses to get their contents across.

Besides, if I may, the Dogma ‘caught on’ because it was ALREADY believed by the Catholic Populous. It was not a strange idea but common belief so, of course it ‘caught on.’ The Assumption of Mary had ALREADY caught on! Indeed, Pius XII was more responding to the sense of the people than imposing a strange belief. (Bear in mind, we are talking Catholics here!!!)

I am well aware of the fact that the doctrine of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven upon her death was very widespread among Roman Catholics prior to 1950, and that the definition of this dogma by Pope Piux XII did come partly in response to numerous petitions from the faithful requesting him to make it a necessary article of belief.  That sort of thing is still going on today.

If you visit the EWTN website, you can print up and sign a petition that is asking the current pope to define as a dogma the notion that the Virgin Mary is “Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate of the people of God.”  While it is careful to point out that “co” means “with” and not “equal to,” it nevertheless states:

All the graces which flow from the redemption of Jesus Christ are granted to the human family through the motherly intercession of Mary. Mary mediated Jesus Christ, the Author of all graces, to the world when she agreed to be the human mother of God made man (cf. Lk 1:38). And from the cross at Calvary (Jn 19:26) and as the final gift to humanity, Jesus gives Mary as a spiritual mother to us all: “Son, behold your mother” (cf. Jn 19:26). For this reason, Vatican II refers to Mary as a “mother to us in the order of grace ” (Lumen Gentium, n. 62) and several twentieth century popes have officially taught the doctrine of Mary as Mediatrix of all graces, quoting the words of St Bernard: “It is the will of God that we obtain all favours through Mary.” The Mediatrix performs this task in intimate union with the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier, with whom she began the drama of our Lord’s Redemption at the Annunciation (cf. Lk. 1:35).

This situation is explained a bit further on another EWTN web page that offers several quotes from popes of the 19th and 20th centuries to support a case for this latest proposed exercise in doctrinal development:

Leo XIII, Encyclical, Octobri mense adventante, Sept 22, 1891, ASS 24, 1891, 196.
... it is right to say, that nothing at all of that very great treasury of all grace which the Lord brought us—for ‘grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ [Jn 1.17]—nothing is imparted to us except through Mary, since God so wills, so that just as no one can come to the Father except through the Son, so in general, no one can come to Christ except through His Mother.

- - -

St. Pius X, Encyclical, Ad diem illum, Feb. 2, 1904, AAS 36, 1904. 453-54.
Hence that never dissociated manner of life and labors of the Mother and the Son… . there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, not merely occupied in looking at the dreadful sight, but even rejoicing that ‘her only Son was being offered for the salvation of the human race; and so did she suffer, with Him, that if it had been possible, she would have much more gladly suffered herself all the torments that her Son underwent’ [St. Bonaventure I. Sent. d, 48, ad Litt. dub. 4]. Now from this common sharing of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she ‘merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world’ [Eadmer, De Excellentia Virginis Mariae, 9] and therefore Dispensatrix of all the gifts which Jesus gained for us by His Death and by His Blood…. But Mary as St. Bernard fittingly remarks [De Aquaeductu 4] is the ‘channel’ or, even, the neck, through which the body is joined to the head, and likewise through which the head exerts its power and strength on the body. ‘For she is the neck of our Head, by which all spiritual gifts are communicated to His Mystical Body.’ [St. Bernardine of Siena, Quadrag. De Evangelio aeterno, Sermo X, a. 3. c. 3.]

- - -

Pius XII, Radiomessage to Fatima, Bendito seia, May 13, 1946, AAS 38, 19465, 266.
... having been associated, as Mother and Minister, with the King of martyrs in the ineffable work of human Redemption, she is always associated, with a practically measureless power, in the distribution of the graces that derive from the Redemption…. And her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, since nothing is excluded from her dominion.

 
Under the rubric of “Marian dogmas, outside of—-everything,” I am going to ask what you think about all that and how you would go about demonstrating such an important role in the economy of salvation for the Virgin Mary using the Bible as a source.  Unless you disagree with the three popes quoted here and the contents of the petition and would want to counsel the Vatican against going any further than it already has with its Mariological doctrines.

Oh my goodness!  Sooo much here and I have so much to do!  It is peak time for students and I am on overtime literally teaching morning, afternoon and evening!

So I will be slow and answers will take days.  Please give me time, OK?

Just a couple of things.

Ref Matt on the perspicuity of the Bible…

>I think you’ve misunderstood the protestant understanding of perspicuity…as do many protestants. What you have provided below is just about right:
>>“The Bible is ‘perspicuous’ in the sense that it is decipherable (an utterly indecipherable book stands as no authority at all!) and that anyone get pick up the Bible and get the GENERAL SENSE.  But the Bible is NOT so perspicuous that anyoe can pick it up with no knowledge of Greet, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Middle East geography, or the culture, customs and conflicts of the time and understand the tenets of Christianity instantly.”
>So either you or Mark Shea has misunderstood the Protestant doctrine.

No. I put it to you that you have redefined the traditional Protestant definition of perspicuity.  Luther made reference to his famous ploughboy for a REASON!  Now you are starting to put caveats on Perspicuity as we shall see.  I believe Mark Shea was correct in tackling the classic understanding of perspicuity which Protestants like yourself are having to back away from – because it clearly does not work.

>The definition above puts you in a tight spot because if the bible is perspicuous in the way you suggest above then any believer who takes the time to learn the art and science of biblical interpretation (be he 12 years old or 55) can get it.
And that includes Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek (Biblical Greek, not common Greek) and the history geography and culture of the times?  It takes SEVEN YEARS to train a Catholic Priest and they have to pass exams in all the above, just so that they can read the Bible!

What you have just said is that the average Westerners, unlearned in the above CANNOT pick up the Bible in an English translation (of which, of course, there are many) and read and suddenly get the ENTIRE FORMAL rule of faith!  This is in TOTAL contradiction to classic Protestantism!  I mean, Luther really thought that his translation of the Bible into German would, when read by the masses, automatically led to complete agreement with his theology.

Oh, look, it did not happen.  Indeed, the fights between Luther, Calvin and Zwingli are the stuff of legend!  (And do not talk about primary versus secondary doctrines – they all excommunicated each other!)

Now, with this definition of ‘perspicuity’ a ploughboy CANNOT get the Bible just like that!  It also means that those versed in Greek, Hebrew, etc, etc can lay claim to a more accurate interpretation of the Bible.  That being the case, the plebian masses worldwide have to:

1)    Either flounder to understand the Bible on their own without the necessary knowledge with the inevitable result that they will get it wrong or…
2)  They are beholden to those who can interprete, er, translate for them.

Sounds to me that YOU have conceded!

—-

Episcopalianted…

>Although disagreements did arise from time to time in the early Church about the status of a few individual books, it was not somehow impossible to faithfully recognize and preserve the ones that came to us from the Apostles themselves prior to a Church council being able to decide that.  The end result is a canon of the New Testament that was identified early on and upon which we can all now agree.

Check your history.  The New Testament was compiled at the council of Hippo in 393 and ratified at the council of Carthage in 397.  A compiled NT did not exist before that time.  Eusebius’s history of the Church recounts the process and makes it clear that MANY of the NT books we have today were NOT regarded as canonical before including Hebrews, James and 3 John.  In addition, the Shepherd of Hermas was regarded as canonical scripture for ages!  Originally the writings of Clement and Linus were regarded as scripture.  Only by Anathesius do we get the canon we have today and only through Carthage do we have the NT ratified.  (Also, at the same time, the Hebrew scriptures which the Gentiles rejected were made binding on all Christians.  So the OT was up in the air at the same time!)

You cannot pitch the Church against the Bible!

As a note.  I attended a Bible study at a Baptist Church.  (The people were LOVELY God bless them.)  There was a, shock, surprise. Bible study.  It kinda came down against blood transfusion which caused confusion in the congregation but that was all right because the pastor said, “Of course, it is down to you to read the Bible yourself and decide for yourselves.”

“Pardon?”  I said to myself.  “Then what are we DOING here?  By this logic we should all be at home reading our Bible.  I mean, you’re no use to us finding out the truth!”  And that was YEARS before I went fully Papist!  Even the Baptists looked confused as why they were there!

—-

>I cited the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and papal infallibility and how they developed as examples of what he is talking about here.

Arrrgh!  When in conversations with a Protestant the odds of Mary becoming the subject of discussion reduces to 1.

Aiaiaiaiai!  These are all big topics. HUGE in their own right.  I am not sure how to approach here. Can I call time on the Marian doctrines but take up infallibility?  It’s just that when Mary comes up the conversation ALWAYS gets derailed and very wearying for the Catholic.

Development of doctrine as a concept can clearly be illustrated.  Whether the Catholic Church has corrupted doctrine is another matter but development cannot be denied and actually MUST be extra-biblical in the sense, at least, of adding a language that the Bible does not use.

The clearest example is the Trinity.  The word ‘Trinity’ is not used in the Bible.  So we, as Christian, had to invent the ‘non-Biblical’ word in order to describe a concept in the Bible.  However, the concept is there in scripture but not EXPLICITY and, furthermore, not described. No, really.  The relationship of the Father and the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit is not clearly defined – hence the ‘Filoque’ controversy!  Furthermore, the dual nature of Christ is not defined in the Bible.  That’s a very simple example.

And, please remember that us Heathen Catholic appeal to BOTH scripture and Tradition.  Ref the Marian Doctrine, all I will say now is that traditionally the position of Mary as the ‘New Eve was believed from the very beginning and the Catholic Church, rather than being quick to adopt a belief that ‘just popped up’ actually took centuries of consideration to accept the traditional beliefs.  So slow, by the time they became dogmas, the Protestants had rejected them.  C’est las vie.  But Mary is rooted in questions of perspicuity, Authority, Tradtion, et al so to go down there really is to put the cart before the horse.  I will give James WhIte this – although he has his facts wrong, he has at least charged where the fight is – in regards to authority.  (And please note that my mission is more to explain than defend – though I am defending the Catholic Church on perspicuity since the arrows cannot just fly in one direction! 

I will try and work through infallibility (personally, I think that is EASY to prove!) but I need serious time.  I in danger of handling perspicuity of scripture and perspicuity of the Magisterium and Papal infallibility and development of doctrine and the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary – all in between classes in peak teaching time with (involuntary) overtime AND travelling!

So let me prioritise and hold on the Marian stuff. It’s not that I do not believe the Marian Dogmas cannot be defended but it takes a LOT of time and requires answers to the previous issues FIRST!  Besides, my prayer is suffering and that has to be prioritized again.

That OK? I think it’s only fair.  I do think discussion perspicuity and the role of the Church in general is a VERY good starting point – and where I sought to understand the Catholic Church back in 1999.

Much obliged.  I’m not quitting – I’m just asking for the appropriate time and concentration!

Oh drat. I am late for Math prep!

Hi Jedinovice,

“Luther made reference to his famous ploughboy for a REASON!”

Precisely, you’ve just not cared to find out what that reason is. A ploughboy who can read and who can learn can understand the bible.

No caveats. You simply don’t grasp the doctrine you’ve been criticising. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer…none of them would have embraced the strawman you’ve erected because it is just that.

“What you have just said is that the average Westerners, unlearned in the above CANNOT pick up the Bible in an English translation (of which, of course, there are many) and read and suddenly get the ENTIRE FORMAL rule of faith!  This is in TOTAL contradiction to classic Protestantism!”

No it is in total contradiction of the strawman you have erected. Again, you’ve obviously not read the reformers on this question. Here’s Luther on the necessity of study in order to grasp the scriptures from Bondage of the Will

“I certainly grant that many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate, but that is due, not to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance; and it does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture.”

Here’s John Calvin:

“Since we ought to be satisfied with the Word of God alone, what purpose is served by hearing sermons every day, or even the office of pastors? Has not every person the opportunity of reading the Bible? But Paul assigns to teachers the duty of dividing or cutting, as if a father in giving food to his children, were dividing the bread and cutting it in small pieces.” (Commentary on 2 Tim. 2:15)

Calvin again

” None will ever be a good minister of the Word of God, unless he is first of all a scholar.” (from a sermon on Deuteronomy 5:23-27)

And once more, Calvin:

” . . . how many does one see who have only superficially glanced at Holy Scripture and are so pitifully poorly versed in it that with every new idea they change their views.” (Commentary on 2 Tim. 1:13, 14

Here’s the Westminster Confession:

“Westminster Confession of Faith (1.7)

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all (2 Pet. 3:16); yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them (Ps. 119:105, 130).”

Do you know what is meant by the “due use of ordinary means” refers too? It refers to 1. reading the bible as you would read any other work of literature 2. learning and employing the necessary interpretive methods for getting to the meaning of the authors…which would include learning the historical/linguistic studies.

Perspicuity does not and never has been…no study or hermeneutics necessary. It appears you have no idea what the classic Protestant doctrine of perspicuity means.

It also seems you are embarrassed because you actually articulated the classic Protestant doctrine of perspicuity in order to beat down your strawman of Protestant doctrine…and now that I have pointed that out you are trying to cover over that fact by claiming victory which is somewhat amusing.

Keep batting at your caricatures. Go ahead, but its not helping you.

The need for an authoritative magisterium goes well beyond the question of the “perpiscuity” vel non of Holy Scripture.  Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Bible is completely clear and understandable, it nevertheless must be acknowledged that there are numerous issues that the Bible does not purport to address.  And history has shown that some of these issues are important.  Examples:  (1) the identity of the New Testament canon; (2) whether in the Hypostatic Union each of the two natures of Christ continues unimpaired, untransformed, and unmixed with the other (Council of Chalcedon) ; (3)  whether Baptism can be validly administered by anyone, even by an unbaptized person.

jedinovice:

Check your history. The New Testament was compiled at the council of Hippo in 393 and ratified at the council of Carthage in 397. A compiled NT did not exist before that time.

OK, I’ve checked my history.  The first thing we have to notice about the councils of Hippo and Carthage is that they were both local in nature and therefore could not have arrived at any decision that was binding upon the whole Church.  But that’s just as well, because they didn’t even try to make one.  Both councils did provide a correct list of the 27 books of the New Testament (more about what happened with the Old Testament canon in a bit) which was reconsidered and approved by a later Council of Carthage held in 419 A. D. It was this council that sought even further approval of its Canon 24, the one pertaining to the list of canonical scriptures, in the following way:

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

The Boniface being addressed here rather simply as “our brother and fellow bishop” was in fact the Bishop of Rome.  Apparently, these African churchmen were not aware of any ability on his part to determine a correct canon of Scripture while relying on his own research and the charism of infallibility, something which would have made their efforts superfluous.  Nevertheless, they did seek his agreement with their conclusions, but only as part of a consensus that included “the other bishops of those parts.”  Very well, and fair enough.

The other point that stands out is the basis on which their decision was obviously arrived at: “for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”  If that was the case, then they had not hit upon a new discovery that had gone unnoticed during most of the first four centuries of the Church’s existence.  They simply confirmed what the “fathers” who went before them already knew, i. e., which books do in fact make up the New Testament, even if the list of those books in some parts of the Church was incomplete for a time.  It seems unlikely that this “fatherly” reference could have been to their contemporaries, or near contemporaries, who attended the councils that preceded their own during the previous quarter of a century.

However, this did not finally settle the matter, with or without the cooperation of Pope Boniface and the other bishops, not if the information contained in the Catholic Encyclopedia is as accurate as it is perspicuous.  Once again, it tells us that “The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.” (emphasis added)  The list referred to in the encyclopedia article is that of the Old Testament books, but it is taken from the same decree of the Council of Trent that also identifies the books of the New Testament.  A Church which supposedly had the ability to infallibly determine and define the canon of Holy Scripture did not do so for more than 15 centuries.  Whatever assurances Christians had as to its authenticity up until that time did not depend on the magisterial authority of the Roman Church.

Roman Catholic apologists are fond of pointing out that the lists of canonical books compiled by Hippo and Carthage include the apocryphal books from the Old Testament era which Rome has classified as “deutero-canonical” and having the same degree of inspiration and authority as the rest.  But the deliberations of these councils were roughly contemporaneous with St. Jerome’s commission from the pope to prepare the authoritative translation of the Holy Scriptures which we know as the Latin Vulgate.  St. Jerome did not accept the apocryphal books as canonical and his opinion had far more influence than the decisions of these councils. 

During this intermediate age the use of St. Jerome’s new version of the Old Testament (the Vulgate) became widespread in the Occident. With its text went Jerome’s prefaces disparaging the deuterocanonicals, and under the influence of his authority the West began to distrust these and to show the first symptoms of a current hostile to their canonicity.

- - -

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion.

At the time of the Reformation, the Church of England continued to adhere to the earlier Catholic consensus based on St. Jerome’s views.  In any event, the councils of Hippo and Carthage did not establish a canonical status for these disputed books.  Only the Council of Trent did that, and only for Roman Catholics.

Jedinovice wrote at #49,

“Protestantism tends to have a binary, “Either/or” mindset which pitchs one idea against another rather than harmonising.”

Yes, and all people with red hair love dogs.  Thanks for letting me know this, I shall sleep easier now that you have reduced the world to such simple terms for me. 

“since Luther cut down the role of the church”

No, he didn’t. Luther restored the church to the role it had with the apostles and the church fathers.

“anyone ‘guided by the Holy Spirit’ can pick up a Bible - in translation - and read out the True Gospel of Calvinism.”

No, anyone guided by the Holy Spirit can pick up a Bible and understand enough to come to salvation.  That is quite different to your hopelessly inaccurate understanding of “protestantism”

“After all, Protestantism holds that anyone, learned or unlearned, young or old, 1st century Christian or 21st Century Westerner can understand “the plain meaning of the Bible” without need of commentaries, the Church or extra-Biblical writings”

The “plain meaning”, yes, and that which is essential for salvation.  Since Christ held this belief, and his apostles held it, and the church fathers held it, that is who we believe.  I appreciate that you personally find it very hard to cope with the idea that an uneducated or poor person can find salvation in the scriptures without all of your learning, but you are just going to have to humble yourself and accept it. 

“(helpful though they may be - they are not NEEDED. Once they are NEEDED Protestantism ends up appealing to a form of Tradition and that kills Sola Scriptura.)”

You obviously have no idea what “sola scriptura” actually means.  Nor do you understand what protesants believe about tradition, nor even how many different things “tradition” can mean.

“So Protestantism sees the Bible as ultimate a simple, easy to read and understand book.”

No, it doesn’t.  You need to learn about protestantism before parading your ignorance of it.

“Not as bad as Wittgenstin but up there with, say Descrates. Now, Descrates is not indecipherable…”

Is this meant to be “Descartes”?

“The gist of the Gospel can be understood by the layman but NOT to the degree that every article of faith and morals can be extracted by the unlearned.”

Since this is not what protestants believe, why are you going on about it?

“Protestants argue that you need no education except the ability to read to get the Bible.”

Rubbish. How can we trust your assertions about Roman Catholics, when you so confidently assert completely wrong ideas about protestants?

“The meaning of the word such a ‘plough boy’ can understand the bible FULLY in terms of the Faith (normally ref: Calvinism” is not true.”

This just gets worse and worse.  Your use of the word “fully"just reinforces that you have no idea about protestants beliefs.  Furthermore, the ploughboy analogy was never used by Calvin - it was used by the bible translator William Tyndale (different place, different time) and it did not relate to understanding in the sense you mean, but to access - he wanted ordinary people to be permitted to read the bible in their own language.

“The unlearned have picked up the bible, have misunderstood the meaning and have produced thousands of competing denominations”.

The learned have picked up the bible, misunderstood the meaning, and blatantly disobeyed God’s laws.  Learning of itself does nothing - some of the worst crimes in history have been perpetrated by the most learned people - your uncritical worship of learning is a dangerous thing.  And no, protestant denominations do not “compete” - this is just another of your silly fairy stories about a protestantism that you do not in the least understand.

“The experiment of unleashing the Bible on the masses and saying “Go on then, read it for yourselves on your own and find the One true faith” has manifestly NOT worked!”

Since protestant haven’t done this, what are you talking about?  Please learn something about protestantism (anything, really) before posting about it.

“But Protestantism is saying that the Church is a barrier to understanding the Bible!”

Where do you get this rubbish?

“So, think of it in terms of scale. In Protestantism - roughly speaking, the Bible is 100% perspicuous (certainly in terms of ‘primary doctrines.’) Anyone can just pick up a Bible and ‘get it.’”

If you are talking about the essentials of the faith, of course protestantism teaches this.  It is the teaching of Christ, his apostles and the church fathers.  Now let’s see, will I follow them, or will I follow Jedinovice?  Hmmm, that’s a hard one…

The first line in my previous post is incorrect - it actually responded to Jedinovice’s post at #48.  This is a response to his post at #49:

“Huh? You mean to tell me that people do NOT know what the Church teaches in regards to Baptism, the Eucharist, the necessity of the Church, Tradition, Mary (EVERYONE know what we teach about Mary!) contraception, abortion, etc, etc?”

Of course.  One doesn’t have to know many Roman Catholics to realise that their beliefs on these issues and many others vary widely.  Very widely.  Or simply hang around some Roman Catholic blogs and watch the fur fly.

“Except that: a) It is circular”

No it isn’t.  The problem lies in your understanding, not the doctrine.

“b) Once works is added to the mix you end up virtually recreating the Catholic argument!”

Very likely.  They both spring from the same well so why should they be massively different?  What you have been presenting to us in your tirades is your personal vision of roman catholicism and your personal vision of protestantism.  But your personal visions do not necessarily equate to the reality of either.  And yes, both are quite close on many issues.

“Ah yes, we should follow the scriptures like the Early Church Fathers did – the Shepherd of Hermas, the epistles of Linus and Clement but definitely NOT Hebrews or Revelation (‘cause they aren’t scripture.) Just sayin’.  “

Oh really?  What is your evidence that the epistle of Clement, the epistle of Linus (are you serious?) and the Shepherd of Hermas were regarded as scripture by the Early Church?  And what is your evidence that Hebrews and Revelation were “definitely NOT” regarded as scripture by the Early Church?  Just askin’ :o)

Jedinovice wrote at #53,

“No. I put it to you that you have redefined the traditional Protestant definition of perspicuity. Luther made reference to his famous ploughboy for a REASON!”

Luther didn’t make any reference to a ploughboy.  And the idea that you know what the protestant concept of perpiscuity is, whereas Father Kennedy does not, is laughable.

“What you have just said is that the average Westerners, unlearned in the above CANNOT pick up the Bible in an English translation (of which, of course, there are many) and read and suddenly get the ENTIRE FORMAL rule of faith!”

Why would you believe a protestant to teach anything different?  Please try to understand at least something about protestantism before you comment on it.

“This is in TOTAL contradiction to classic Protestantism!”

You do not have the faintest idea what “classic protestantism” is.

“I mean, Luther really thought that his translation of the Bible into German would, when read by the masses, automatically led to complete agreement with his theology.”

Nor do you have any idea what Luther really thought.

“Check your history. The New Testament was compiled at the council of Hippo in 393 and ratified at the council of Carthage in 397. A compiled NT did not exist before that time.”

Every word of this is entirely wrong.  You don’t even understand the Roman Catholic teaching about the canon.

“Eusebius’s history of the Church recounts the process and makes it clear that MANY of the NT books we have today were NOT regarded as canonical before including Hebrews, James and 3 John.”

No it doesn’t. 

“In addition, the Shepherd of Hermas was regarded as canonical scripture for ages!“

No it wasn’t.

“Originally the writings of Clement and Linus were regarded as scripture.”

No they weren’t.

“Only by Anathesius do we get the canon we have today and only through Carthage do we have the NT ratified.”

Which entirely contradicts your asssertion above about the Council of Hippo, which I suppose should not surprise.  In any case, your assertion is wrong: Athanasius in his festal letter acknowledged what the church had always known. The regional council of Carthage did the same. It didn’t purport to bind the whole church, nor could it have done so.

“(Also, at the same time, the Hebrew scriptures which the Gentiles rejected were made binding on all Christians. So the OT was up in the air at the same time!)”

I think you might have mixed up your words here.  But the OT was not “up in the air”.  There had been heretical attacks on the canon of both testaments, sure, and yes some people and some groups had been led astray, but that is a different matter. Just because some people doubted whether this or that book was or was not scripture, doesn’t mean that the church as a whole was left in doubt.

“You cannot pitch the Church against the Bible!”

Why would we? We ARE the church; and we don’t fight the bible, we follow it!

“Then what are we DOING here? By this logic we should all be at home reading our Bible. I mean, you’re no use to us finding out the truth!”

You should be at home reading your bible.  And then you should come to church and listen to the teaching as well. Its not either/or. I strongly suggest that you read the teaching of your current Pope - he understands these things a lot better than you do.

“The clearest example is the Trinity. The word ‘Trinity’ is not used in the Bible. So we, as Christian, had to invent the ‘non-Biblical’ word in order to describe a concept in the Bible. However, the concept is there in scripture but not EXPLICITY and, furthermore, not described. No, really.”

No-one has said otherwise.  As usual, you have no idea what protestants actually believe.

“The relationship of the Father and the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit is not clearly defined – hence the ‘Filoque’ controversy!”

The filoque controversy was a dispute (and probably an unnecessary one) between the papacy and eastern prelates.  In the process the papacy did very little to edify or assist other Christians in their understanding of doctrine (although it did teach rather a lot about political squabbling).  The church had already had one major schism in the 5th century, and then the filoque issue was used as a pretext for a second Great Schism in the 11th century.  Both schisms still exist today.  And this is what the papacy is supposed to do for us?  Thanks, but no thanks.

“I will try and work through infallibility (personally, I think that is EASY to prove!) but I need serious time. ...”

Why waste our time? You have made confident pronouncements about protestantism on a basis of (apparently) boundless and invincible ignorance.  Why would we think that your pronouncements on infallibility actually reflect Roman Catholic doctrine?

Oh man, too much time spent on this.

Hi MichaelA.  Good to here from you.  Please, in the following piece, understand the limitations of typing, OK?

>Jedinovice wrote at #49,
>>“Protestantism tends to have a binary, “Either/or” mindset which pitchs one idea against another rather than harmonising.”
>Yes, and all people with red hair love dogs.  Thanks for letting me know this, I shall sleep easier now that you have reduced the world to such simple terms for me. 

Hey!  You guys set it up!  It’s not my fault.  Church versus Bible.  Faith versus works.  Sanctification versus justification…

>>“since Luther cut down the role of the church”
>No, he didn’t. Luther restored the church to the role it had with the apostles and the church fathers.
Let us agree on differ on that for the moment.   
>“anyone ‘guided by the Holy Spirit’ can pick up a Bible - in translation - and read out the True Gospel of Calvinism.”
No, anyone guided by the Holy Spirit can pick up a Bible and understand enough to come to salvation.  That is quite different to your hopelessly inaccurate understanding of “protestantism”
But what is Protestantism?  What is necessary for Salvation?  How come, if the above is the understanding Protestant understanding, that Luther split from the Catholic Church since the Catholic Church TAUGHT this?  (It denies FORMAL sufficiency of scripture.)

Besides, Protestants cannot determine what is essential for salvation.  You cannot tell me the true nature of Baptism (of which Protestantism has five camps) or the number and nature of the sacraments, or the nature and authority of the Church or whether the spiritual gifts continue today…  You talk of primary and secondary doctrines but cannot tell me which are which.  You agree only among yourselves in regard to what you agree with the Catholics on!  No offence intended.  ‘Tis facts!
And yet, I am told by Protestants that the Bible is clear on these matters!  “The main things are the plain things.”  So what are the main, plain things?
Furthermore, if Calvinism is not the Gospel – what is?  Matt and Carl and James White and my ex-prayer partner would definitely tell me that Calvinism IS the Gospel. Direct quote from my prayer partner – “Calvinism is not Calvinism. It is the Gospel.”  If Calvinism is not the Gospel, what was John Calvin writing in his Institutes? 

And, moreover, given that Protestantism holds to BOTH material AND formal sufficiency of scripture then how can the Bible NOT provide “all truth” since you make the Bible the final authority OVER the Church.  In terms of all things sufficient for Salvation – actually that’s the Catholic position – material sufficiency.  But classic Protestantism asserts *formal* sufficiency. 
So if I have it wrong – forgive me if I am confused.  But can you see I have room and reason to be confused here?!

>>“After all, Protestantism holds that anyone, learned or unlearned, young or old, 1st century Christian or 21st Century Westerner can understand “the plain meaning of the Bible” without need of commentaries, the Church or extra-Biblical writings”

>The “plain meaning”, yes, and that which is essential for salvation.  Since Christ held this belief, and his apostles held it, and the church fathers held it, that is who we believe. 

Believe what?  What is this Gospel?  Lutherism?  Calvinism?  Was John Zwingli right?  Is it John Wesley?  John Wimber even?  What is this plain meaning which divides into primary and secondary doctrines?

>I appreciate that you personally find it very hard to cope with the idea that an uneducated or poor person can find salvation in the scriptures without all of your learning, but you are just going to have to humble yourself and accept it. 
I *do* believe the poor and unlearned can find salvation from the scriptures!  Very much so!  In fact, I have been at *pains* to point this out. But I deny that a whole system of theology can be built on the principle of “Bible alone” without reference to history and without an authoritative Church.  BIG DIFFERENCE!  An individual may find Salvation through the Bible – sure!  Of that I have no doubt. Praise God!  But that individual can’t then throw aside 2000 years of Church history and establish his own theology in defiance of the Church.  Not that that has ever happened, of course.

I repeat – us Catholics believe in the material sufficiency of Scripture!  We deny FORMAL sufficiency. You are describing what we agree on.  Good for you.  But Protestantism goes further than individual Salvation.  Your Churches are formed on the basis that the Bible is the final authority of all matters of Faith and morals. (I know, I signed such a statement as a member of the Christian Union at University.)  The Bible is master of the Church in Protestant thought.  It is the judge of the Church and the man on the street can – indeed must – be able to judge the Church by their own interpretation of scripture.  That’s not me that set the system up! It’s you!  Hence my illustration of the Baptist minister.  “You must go home, read the Bible for yourselves and decide what it means.”
>“(helpful though they may be - they are not NEEDED. Once they are NEEDED Protestantism ends up appealing to a form of Tradition and that kills Sola Scriptura.)”
You obviously have no idea what “sola scriptura” actually means.  Nor do you understand what protesants believe about tradition, nor even how many different things “tradition” can mean.
He he.  Like Sola Fide, no Protestant can clearly define Sola Scriptura.  If, by Sola scriptura, you mean the material sufficiency of the Bible such that an individual may be saved by reading it – we agree.  But Protestantism differs from Catholicism in that it holds that the Church can be based on Bible alone and that the Bible can judge the denomination – as Luther did with the Catholic Church (as such.)  And then Calvin did to Luther and Luther to Zwingli and gads, I forget the names of the rest!

I know how this is going to go…
Frankly, with Protestantism I tend find that Sola Scripture means Sola Scripture except where does not.  Sola Fide means Sola Fide, except that works are needed (except they’re not. But there will be works so they are, except they’re not…)  The Holy Spirit leads the Christian “to all truth” except for “Secondary doctrines” which Protestants can’t define, Protestants are united on the essentials but they split up the minute there is a disagreement…

You wonder why I get confused?

>>“So Protestantism sees the Bible as ultimate a simple, easy to read and understand book.”
>No, it doesn’t.  You need to learn about protestantism before parading your ignorance of it.
What IS Protestantism?  Protestantism is NOT a unified force!  I have been to the Baptists, the Methodists, the CoE, Bethany, the Pentecostals (taught there recently) the United Reformed, Vineyard, the Assemblies of God, the Coign and others I cannot even remember the name of!  Around my in my home town in Indonesia I have the Rock, Bethany, The Alpha and Omega Church and the United Reformed plus the Pentecostals to go to – all with different theologies!

As a result, I do not know – from ‘Protestantism’ the nature of Baptism, the Eucharist, Church Goverance, the nature (or need for) priests, Bishops or Pastorsm if the intercession of the saints is allowed or prohibited. I don’t know from ‘Protestantism’ whether the spiritual gifts continue or ceased; whether icons are allowed or forbidden.  I also get different definitions of Sola Scriptura!

Sure, it’s easy for the Protestant to say, “You do not understand Protestantism” because it’s virtually impossible TO understand!  As soon as I articulate one position, there will a dozen Protestants tell me that “I do not understand Protestantism!”

If the Bible is NOT a clear, easy to understand book then how the heck can you describe the Bible as perspicuous?  Perspicuous MEANS – clear, easy to understand!  And, furthermore, Protestantism DEFINITELY goes further than the Catholic Church in decreed FORMAL sufficiency of scripture. So the Bible has to be clear on all matters of faith and morals – or it is not perspicuous by Protestant standards.  If you say that the learned must aid others in understanding the scriptures than the Bible is not so perspicuous and you have an informal magisterium of the learned, surely?

>>“Not as bad as Wittgenstin but up there with, say Descrates. Now, Descrates is not indecipherable…”
>Is this meant to be “Descartes”?
Thank. I am terrible proof reader!  I hope you get my gist.

>>“The gist of the Gospel can be understood by the layman but NOT to the degree that every article of faith and morals can be extracted by the unlearned.”
>Since this is not what protestants believe, why are you going on about it?
Because what else am I to believe?!  At what point does formal sufficiency of scripture not mean this?  Why then did said Baptism minister tell people to go home, read the Bible for themselves and make up their own mind on the VITAL question of whether blood transfusions were permitted?  Do the Baptists not understand Sola Scriptura?  If the Bible is NOT so clear that anyone can pick it up and understand all essentials matters of faith and morals then why NOT have a magisterium?

>>“Protestants argue that you need no education except the ability to read to get the Bible.”
>Rubbish. How can we trust your assertions about Roman Catholics, when you so confidently assert completely wrong ideas about protestants?

Because I have to paint with a broad brush!  The moment that Protestantism differs from this then the door is open to some form of Magisterium! Besides, if the individual with his Bible can judge the Church – which MUST be the case logically for Sola Scriptura to operate – then this must be the case!  I have been on hundreds of Protestant websites who keep saying “Read the Bible – all wil become clear.” They do NOT say, “Go read up on the culture, customs, history of the time along with the Early Church Fathers and councils to learn while reading.”  I have read hundreds of Protestant ‘Statements of belief” that say, “The Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith and morals” and NOT “The Bible is the final authority on primary doctrines, while individuals are free to disagree on secondary doctrines which are established by the those who can read the Bible correctly with the proper training.”

My ex-prayer partner was angered that Church of England Bishops claimed that they could define doctrine.  “Only the Bible can do that.”  He was a VERY Evangelical member of the CoE!  His motto was simple.  “Word of man versus the word of God – no contest.”  No man, no Church could define doctrine – period!  The individual reading the Bible was his own Magisterium.  The irony was that he was CoE!

>>“The meaning of the word such a ‘plough boy’ can understand the bible FULLY in terms of the Faith (normally ref: Calvinism” is not true.”

This just gets worse and worse.  Your use of the word “fully"just reinforces that you have no idea about protestants beliefs.  Furthermore, the ploughboy analogy was never used by Calvin - it was used by the bible translator William Tyndale (different place, different time) and it did not relate to understanding in the sense you mean, but to access - he wanted ordinary people to be permitted to read the bible in their own language.

Actually, the ploughboy was in reference to Luther and not Tyndale.  The exact citation is hard to pin down though but lest anyone think I misrepresent Luther – it is in his “Bondage of the Will.”

http://www.archive.org/stream/martinlutheronth00luthuoft/martinlutheronth00luthuoft_djvu.txt

36 BONDAGE OF THE WILL.

PART I. made are God, or have a divine and necessary
- nature. So sure and stedfast is the invincible
aphorism, All things are brought to pass by the
unchangeable will of God : what they call
6 necessity of a consequence/ Nor is there any
obscurity or ambiguity here. He says in Isaiah
” My counsel shall stand ” and my will shall be
brought to pass. (Isa. xlvi. 10.) Is there any
schoolboy who does not understand what is meant
by these words ( counsel, ivill, brought to pass,
stand?

1 These
expressions do not make Scripture obscure, or
such as must be modulated according to the
varieties of the hearer; except that some people
are fond of making obscurities where there are
none. These are matters of grammar : the sen
timent is expressed in figurative words; but
those, such as even schoolboys understand. How
ever, we are talking about doctrines, not about
figures of speech, in this cause of ours.

A Schoolboy can understand the scriptures.  I will accept your correction on ‘Fully’ but it is hard to identify where the buck stops with Protestantism.  Luther defined the Church Entire with his interpretation of the Bible so there is precedent here! 

>>“The unlearned have picked up the bible, have misunderstood the meaning and have produced thousands of competing denominations”.
>The learned have picked up the bible, misunderstood the meaning, and blatantly disobeyed God’s laws.  Learning of itself does nothing - some of the worst crimes in history have been perpetrated by the most learned people - your uncritical worship of learning is a dangerous thing. 

I agree!  I do NOT worship learning! I am not making a comparison with learning.  Remember that I am ultimately supporting the place of a Magisterium and Tradition – not learning in its own right.  And 5,000 Protestant denominations (that’s creedal denominations, forget the 23,000+ organizational churches!) tells me that something more than just blatantly disobeying God’s laws is going on.  How do we know God’s laws if…?

a)  The Bible is our final authority but…
b)  The Bible must be read by the learned who can interprete the text correctly but…
c)  We cannot have a binding Magisterium who we can trust.

Who are the learned?  Who decides who is learned enough?  What is enough for Salvation? How do those who can only read in translation equate to those who can read the Greek?  Do they not?  How do they differ from an informal magisterium?
Finally, in regard to God’s laws:  according to Protestantism as a whole, what is the nature of Baptism?

>And no, protestant denominations do not “compete” - this is just another of your silly fairy stories about a protestantism that you do not in the least understand.

Ah!  So Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were good pals and had warm, friendly discussions down the local pub?  Come on!  They were at each others throats, mutually excommunicating each other!  The Pilgrim Fathers left England’s shores for America because of PROTESTANT persecution!  The Westminster Catechism threw the Arminians “under a bus!”  Besides, logically, if you have 5000 CREEDAL denominations – 4,999 of them must be wrong.  Yes, I know about the concept of “secondary doctrines” – so much for the Holy Spirit leading to “All truth” but then how come the number of protestant denominations contuse to INCREASE rather than you joining together by the ‘primary doctrines?’
I agree that the Protestant denominations operate kind of differently now but they continue to split and multiply!
Also, truth must compete with untruth.  There are five Protestant positions on Baptism.  Only one of them must be correct.  Which is it?

>>“The experiment of unleashing the Bible on the masses and saying “Go on then, read it for yourselves on your own and find the One true faith” has manifestly NOT worked!”
>Since protestant haven’t done this, what are you talking about?  Please learn something about protestantism (anything, really) before posting about it.

Then why did said Baptism minister say EXACTLY that in the service I attended?  At what point, therefore, is Protestantism NOT Sola Scriptura?  Why am I constantly being told by Protestants to turn to “read the Bible for yourself and find its plain meaning.”  Why did Luther kick back against the Catholic Church with his private interpretation of scripture?  Who is to judge between Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and how? 

Is Sola Scriptura not Sola Scriptura?  Is perspicuity not perspicuity?  If you are arguing for an individual being saved through their reading of the Bible alone – Alleluia! We agree!  If that is all Sola Scriptura means then let’s team up under the Papacy!  But I suspect you mean more than that in reality.
As it stands, what you are appealing too is virtually Catholic but I suspect you mean more than individual salvation here.  Sure, I am willing to be corrected but I am always ‘corrected’ by a Protestant who tells me that the last Protestant who spoke to me was wrong…

>If you are talking about the essentials of the faith, of course protestantism teaches this. 

WHAT ARE THOSE ESSENTIALS???!
How does this differ from the Catholic position of the material sufficiency of Scripture?
How does this understanding preclude a Magisterium?

>It is the teaching of Christ, his apostles and the church fathers.  Now let’s see, will I follow them, or will I follow Jedinovice?  Hmmm, that’s a hard one…

I am not asking you to follow me!  Totally the opposite!  However, if you want to follow the ECF’s then you are ready to embrace Mary ever virgin (believed even by the Early Reformers) the authority of the Church, the True presence in the Eucharist, Mary as New Eve, the saving necessity of Baptism, contraception is forbidden?

“Not when they differ from Scripture” I bet!

MichaelA asks for evidence ” that the epistle of Clement ...  and the Shepherd of Hermas were regarded as scripture by the Early Church”.

I am certainly no expert on any of this, but the evidence concerning the epistle of Clement and Hermas is easy to come by.

“We should note that the subapostolic writings, like 1-2 Clem., Didache, Hermas, and Barnabas, continued to be considered as Scripture even into the 4th and 5th cents.  The Alexandrian Fathers seem to have thought of 1 Clem as Scripture.  The 4th-cent. Codex Sinaiticus contained, along with the books we consider canonical, Barnabas and Hermas.  The 5th-cent. Codex Alexandrinus had 1-2 Clem.  And we can see why such works were highly valued.  Many of them bore names of disciples of the apostles, e.g., Barnabas was a friend of Paul; Clement was thought to be the Clement mentioned in Phil 4:3 and a successor of Peter at Rome.  Moreover, very early subapostolic works, like 1 Clem and Didache, may well have been written before a NT work like 2 Pt.  The real difficulty is not why such works were thought of as canonical, but why the Church did not finally accept them as canonical.”

James C. Turro and Raymond E. Brown, S.S., “Canonicity,” in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, Prentice-Hall, 1968, p. 530.

Jedinovice wrote at #61,

“How come, if the above is the understanding Protestant understanding, that Luther split from the Catholic Church since the Catholic Church TAUGHT this?”

I have no idea from this what you think “the protestant understanding” is, nor do I agree that Luther split from “the Catholic Church” - the RCC didn’t exist in any meaningful sense until Trent, when Rome rejected doctrinal reform.

“You agree only among yourselves in regard to what you agree with the Catholics on! No offence intended. ‘Tis facts!”

No offence taken because nothing you have written in the preceding section is “facts” , therefore no reason for offence… :o)

“And yet, I am told by Protestants that the Bible is clear on these matters! “The main things are the plain things.” So what are the main, plain things?”

I am surprised.  If you don’t know what are the main things about Christianity, then on what basis do you call yourself a Christian?  I assume you agree that I am also a Christian and also going to heaven (although there is such wide variety of belief among Roman Catholics that I suppose I shouldn’t assume anything) so ask yourself on what basis you believe that.  It is certainly not because I accept every word in the RC Catechism.

“Furthermore, if Calvinism is not the Gospel – what is?”

Is this supposed to be a response to something I wrote?  Please clarify, because I have no idea what you are getting at here.

“And, moreover, given that Protestantism holds to BOTH material AND formal sufficiency of scripture then how can the Bible NOT provide “all truth” since you make the Bible the final authority OVER the Church.”

I don’t know where you got your idea about “all truth” from - I suspect that you have misconstrued or misunderstood something told to you by someone else.  The Bible contains all necessary truth.  And of course it is the final authority over the church - when did Christ ever grant the Church the authority to speak equally with its leaders the apostles?

“Believe what? What is this Gospel? Lutherism? Calvinism? Was John Zwingli right? Is it John Wesley? John Wimber even?”

If you think the Gospel is the writings of a human theologian then you lack the most basic understanding of Christianity.

“What is this plain meaning which divides into primary and secondary doctrines?”

The only person on this thread who has referred to “primary and secondary doctrines” is YOU.  Why are you asking me to explain your own belief?

“I *do* believe the poor and unlearned can find salvation from the scriptures! Very much so! In fact, I have been at *pains* to point this out”

The tenor of your posts indicates otherwise.

“But I deny that a whole system of theology can be built on the principle of “Bible alone” without reference to history and without an authoritative Church.”

You may deny that the sky is blue also, if you wish.  Suit yourself.

“The Bible is master of the Church in Protestant thought. It is the judge of the Church and the man on the street can – indeed must – be able to judge the Church by their own interpretation of scripture.”

Garbled, but near enough.  That was also the belief of Christ, his apostles and the early church fathers.  On what basis do you think Athanasius defied the church of his day even after he was deposed?  If you have a problem with it, so be it.  That is not my problem.

“He he. Like Sola Fide, no Protestant can clearly define Sola Scriptura.”

On the contrary, it is well understood - my point was that YOU can’t define Sola Scriptura, yet you make confident assertions based on your ignorance.

“If, by Sola scriptura, you mean the material sufficiency of the Bible such that an individual may be saved by reading it – we agree.”

Good, however that has never been the meaning of Sola Scriptura.

“But Protestantism differs from Catholicism in that it holds that the Church can be based on Bible alone and that the Bible can judge the denomination – as Luther did with the Catholic Church (as such.)”

“alone”?  You still don’t get it.  Let’s take this one step at a time:  From where do you think the doctrine of Sola Scriptura originates?

“Frankly, with Protestantism I tend find that Sola Scripture means Sola Scripture except where does not.”

Right. Meaning that you have done this before - made confident pronouncements based on your own erroneous caricature of protestant doctrines.  When Protestants shake their heads and say “You don’t have a clue what we believe”, you respond the same way: “I KNEW it - those evil protestants are departing from their belief as I Jedinovice have defined it. You just can’t trust them!”

“Sola Fide means Sola Fide, except that works are needed (except they’re not. But there will be works so they are, except they’re not…)”

So you don’t understand the doctrine of sola fide either.  Augustine wisely wrote about invincible ignorance.

“What IS Protestantism? Protestantism is NOT a unified force!”

Neither is Roman Catholicism. And it is abundantly clear that you do not understand either.

“Sure, it’s easy for the Protestant to say, “You do not understand Protestantism” because it’s virtually impossible TO understand!”

Then why make confident assertions about it, as though you were the only person who understood it? 

“As soon as I articulate one position, there will a dozen Protestants tell me that “I do not understand Protestantism!””

I know this is hard for you to accept, but just have a think - is there any chance that those dozen protestants might be right?  And is the flip-side also possible - that you might actually be wrong?

“If the Bible is NOT a clear, easy to understand book then how the heck can you describe the Bible as perspicuous?”

Who said it wasn’t clear and easy to understand - on the things that matter?  You appear to have some concept in your head that any book can only be EITHER (i) totally clear and simple OR (ii) only able to be comprehended by a PhD.  I don’t know where you have got that idea - not from Protestants I expect and certainly not from the Bible itself nor from the Church Fathers.  They all understood that the Bible is both simple and yet also very complex, at the same time.  “Profound” is one way I have heard it described.  But so long as you are fixated on your either/or dichotomy, you will never understand that.

“If you say that the learned must aid others in understanding the scriptures than the Bible is not so perspicuous and you have an informal magisterium of the learned, surely?”

If you want to call it that, but it bears no relationship whatsoever to the concepts that you have been putting forward as Roman Catholic belief, so why do you care?

Jedinovice wrote at #61,

“Why then did said Baptism minister tell people to go home, read the Bible for themselves and make up their own mind on the VITAL question of whether blood transfusions were permitted?”

Why is it a “VITAL” question?  Are you seriously suggesting that a person’s view and practice on blood transfusions affects their salvation?

“Because I have to paint with a broad brush!”

No, that is not an excuse for confident sweeping assertions based on ignorance. 

“They do NOT say, “Go read up on the culture, customs, history of the time along with the Early Church Fathers and councils to learn while reading.””

Since you yourself very obviously have not done that, nor do you appear to be have been taught by anyone who has done so, why do you lay such a burden on others?

“My ex-prayer partner was angered that Church of England Bishops claimed that they could define doctrine. “Only the Bible can do that.””

Precisely.  And if a Pope should dare to define doctrine contrary to scripture, he would also be wrong.

“No man, no Church could define doctrine – period! The individual reading the Bible was his own Magisterium.”

No, that was not said nor even implied in what you quoted.  As you write, he was CofE and therefore had no problem being in the church and being subject to it.  But when the Church of England teaches something that is clearly contrary to scripture he won’t follow it.  Good.  Nor should he. 

“Actually, the ploughboy was in reference to Luther and not Tyndale. The exact citation is hard to pin down though but lest anyone think I misrepresent Luther…”

You do misrepresent Luther and you appear to have no shame when you are caught out in such matters.  Luther never (so far as I am aware) made reference to a ploughboy.  The reference at the period you are writing of was by Tyndale, and what I wrote was correct:  It was not a reference to taching authority, but to access to the scriptures in the ploughboy’s own tongue - at that particular point in English history, it was not permitted by the church.

“A Schoolboy can understand the scriptures. I will accept your correction on ‘Fully’ but it is hard to identify where the buck stops with Protestantism.”

Thank you.  It is equally hard to identify in the case of Roman Catholicism, nevertheless the principles are clear enough, or should be.  To suggest that protestants (and Anglicans in particular since they are the only ones whose views I am here to defend) take the view that everything in the scriptures is 100% crystal clear is just nonsense.

“And 5,000 Protestant denominations (that’s creedal denominations, forget the 23,000+ organizational churches!) tells me that something more than just blatantly disobeying God’s laws is going on.”

Why should it?  When the population of this world is double what it is now, there will probably be twice as many organisations, and none of this has anything to do with Christ’s teaching on unity.  Back in the 2nd century there were hundreds of churches, and they were not in a single organisation - why should they be now?  Indeed, by the 5th century such organisation as there was was irrevocably split, and further splits followed, long before protestantism existed.
I have no interest in being organisationally united with baptists, but they are my christian brothers and sisters and we have true fellowship and communion with each other whenever required.  The same goes for the christians in thousands of other churches overseas.  I will probably never meet more than a tiny fraction of 1% of them in my life, but I am nevertheless in spiritual communion with them, and when we all go to glory then we will all know each other fully.  I need nothing more.

“Who are the learned? Who decides who is learned enough? What is enough for Salvation? How do those who can only read in translation equate to those who can read the Greek? Do they not? How do they differ from an informal magisterium?”

These are nothing more than excuses.  You have the word; Read it and obey it.  In the event that there is something you truly do not understand, then by all means seek assistance, and you should in any case sit under the teaching of ministers learned in the scriptures and doctrine.  But I have found that something like 95% of my issues with the bible are not over working out what it is saying, but over *obeying* it.  All the Greek in the world won’t help me with that.

“Ah! So Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were good pals and had warm, friendly discussions down the local pub? Come on! They were at each others throats, mutually excommunicating each other!”

For heavens sake - I make a comment about modern protestants and you dredge through the centuries to find any examples of past fights that you can.  And yet you will be the first to whine, cry and complain of unfairness if someone brings up any issues with Roman Catholicism in the past.

“Besides, logically, if you have 5000 CREEDAL denominations – 4,999 of them must be wrong.”

Rubbish.  Even the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t suggest that everything taught by every other church is wrong.  Pope Jedinovice on the other hand…

“Yes, I know about the concept of “secondary doctrines” – so much for the Holy Spirit leading to “All truth” but then how come the number of protestant denominations contuse to INCREASE rather than you joining together by the ‘primary doctrines?’”

No, you don’t know the first thing about “secondary doctrines” nor about “all truth”, that much is plain.  And why would we want to “join together” at all? 

“I agree that the Protestant denominations operate kind of differently now but they continue to split and multiply!”

Everyone splits and multiplies, including the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholics etc etc.  We are just honest about it.

“Also, truth must compete with untruth. There are five Protestant positions on Baptism. Only one of them must be correct. Which is it?”

All of them, in the essentials.  In the peripherals, quite possible none of them. Which of the Roman Catholic positions on any doctrine is correct?

“Is Sola Scriptura not Sola Scriptura?”

What is the point of such a question when you have never, in your thousands of words on this thread, ever bothered to sit back and define the term?  How about you do so, now?

“If you are arguing for an individual being saved through their reading of the Bible alone – Alleluia! We agree!”

Why would I be arguing that?  Whilst I agree that it is true, I don’t think it is covered by the doctrine of sola scriptura, and nor would the theologians who have taught sola scriptura from the 13th century on.

Jedinovice wrote at #62,

“WHAT ARE THOSE ESSENTIALS???!”

Oh give me a break.  The essentials are the things that a person needs to know to be saved.  Remember I am responding to your ignorant caricature of protestantism, that we believe (according to you) that an uneducated person can pick up the scriptures and understand every single point of doctrine and every depth or shade of meaning in it.  That was an absurd proposition, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of protestantism would have known (and yes, I have read your claim to have shifted from one protestant church to another - but that doesn’t mean that you learnt anything during your time in them).

“How does this differ from the Catholic position of the material sufficiency of Scripture?”

Not a great deal I suspect.  Who said that it did?

“How does this understanding preclude a Magisterium?”

How does it require one?

“However, if you want to follow the ECF’s then you are ready to embrace Mary ever virgin (believed even by the Early Reformers) ... “Not when they differ from Scripture” I bet!  “

Not even when they differ from each other, which they often do!

Slcath wrote at #63:

“I am certainly no expert on any of this, but the evidence concerning the epistle of Clement and Hermas is easy to come by.”

I am glad you did not try to defend Jedinovice’s assertion about the Epistle of Linus, which was utterly indefensible!

“We should note that the subapostolic writings, like 1-2 Clem., Didache, Hermas, and Barnabas, continued to be considered as Scripture even into the 4th and 5th cents.”

By whom?  That’s the important bit that your source left out.  It is clear that at one time or another, different parts of the church tried to argue for an apostolic origin for each of these works, but this was never accepted by the church as a whole.

“The Alexandrian Fathers seem to have thought of 1 Clem as Scripture.”

“seem” to have? Its not even that clear.  But in any case, the criterion that the church as a whole kept returning to was, is this book written by an apostle, or under apostolic authority?  Note the patristic testimony:

“We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters.” [Tertullianus: Contra Marcionem IV.2]

“How can you thus do injury to your own souls? Where will you find any authority, if not in the Gospel and apostolic writings? How can we be sure of the authorship of any book, if we doubt the apostolic origin of those books which are attributed to the apostles by the Church which the apostles themselves founded, and which occupies so conspicuous a place in all lands, and if at the same time we acknowledge as the undoubted production of the apostles what is brought forward by heretics in opposition to the Church, whose authors, from whom they derive their name, lived long after the apostles?” [Augustine: Contra Faustum Manichaeum 33.6]

1 Clement was written in apostolic times, but there was no evidence that it was written under the authority of an apostle, hence the assertion by some that 1 Clement should be included in the canon was rejected.

“The 4th-cent. Codex Sinaiticus contained, along with the books we consider canonical, Barnabas and Hermas.”

The fact that other books were bound together with scriptural books did not mean that they were all considered scripture, any more than the fact that modern study bibles contain commentaries mean that the commentaries are considered scripture.

“Many of them bore names of disciples of the apostles, e.g., Barnabas was a friend of Paul; Clement was thought to be the Clement mentioned in Phil 4:3 and a successor of Peter at Rome.”

Precisely.  The only basis on which these books could have qualified as scripture was if they were written by or under the authority of an Apostle.  Once that couldn’t be proved, they had to be rejected.

“The real difficulty is not why such works were thought of as canonical, but why the Church did not finally accept them as canonical.””

Its not difficult at all, with all due respect to Messrs Turro and Brown:  Barnabas was almost certainly not written by the NT Barnabas.  As for Shepherd of Hermas, the following comment in the Muratorian fragment gives us a pretty good indication as to why it was rejected:

“But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.”

2 Clement was not written by Clement, nor is it from apostolic times.  Only two of the works cited by Jedinovice were from apostolic times (Didache and 1 Clement) and despite various claims made for them, the church was unable to find evidence that either were written under apostolic authority.  So those who wanted to include them in the canon failed to make their case.

jedinovice:

Individual Bishops can make all kinds of errors. (The Bishops of England and Wales have, quite frankly, been liberal wussies who have actively denied Church teaching in public until Pope Benedict started kicking heads… almost literally.)

BWA-HA-HA!

Indeed, they can easily fall into error, but the current bishops may be able to cite 19th century precedents for that sort of thing, although “wussie” isn‘t the first term that comes to my mind in describing them, no matter which century is under discussion.   

In Papal Infallibility Becomes Dogma, Michael Whelton gives us some idea of how far the earlier ones managed to go off the rails, except that the relevant section of track was still under construction, making an occasional derailment practically inevitable. 

Even in 19th century England and Ireland, Papal Infallibility was still denied as an article of Catholic belief. In 1822, Bishop Baines, Vicar Apostolic in England, wrote that Bellarmine and some other divines, chiefly Italians, have believed the Pope infallible, when proposing ex cathedra an article of faith. But in England or Ireland I do not believe that any Catholic maintains the infallibility of the Pope8 In 1825, a British Parliamentary Royal Commission was established in view of the forthcoming Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. Some of the questions put to Roman Catholic Bishops are as follows:

Question to Bishop Doyle

Q: Is the authority of the Pope in spiritual matters absolute or limited?

A: It is limited.

Questions to Bishop Murray

Q: Is that (Papal) authority under the control of General Councils?

A: That authority is limited by the councils and canons of the Church; he is the executive power of the Church, appointed to preside over it and enforce its canons or laws. Those canons vest in individuals, for instance in Bishops, certain rights, which of course is the duty of the Pope to protect and not violate; his authority is thus limited by those canons.

- - -

Question to Dr. Oliver Kelley

Q: Do the R.C. clergy insist that all the Bulls of the Pope are entitled to obedience?

A: The Roman Catholic doctrine in respect to Bulls from the Pope is that they are always to be treated with respect; but if those Bulls or Rescripts proceeding from the Pope do contain doctrines or matters which are not compatible with the discipline of the particular Church to which they may be directed, they feel it their duty then to remonstrate respectfully, and not to receive the regulations that may emanate from the Pope.

Question to Bishop Doyle

Q: Can you state in what respect the national canons received in Ireland, or any particular construction put upon the general canons, differ from those which are received in other countries?

A: For instance, a particular church, or the canons of a particular church, might define that the authority of a general council was superior to that of the Pope: Such canon may be received, for instance in Ireland or France, and might not be received in Italy or Spain.

Question to Bishop Murray

Q: Is the decree of the Pope valid without the consent of the Council?

A: A decree of the Pope in matters of doctrine is not considered binding on Catholics, if it have not the consent of the whole Church, either dispersed or assembled by its Bishops in Council. 9

As it turns out, Mr. Whelton was also able to get his hands on a copy of Keenan’s Catechism and he recounts the same story as Dr. Salmon about its original contents.  Perhaps the bishops who explained Roman Catholic doctrine to the members of the Royal Commission got their hands on it too, or at least something similar to it while they were in seminary.  Either that, or they “wussied out” because the cause of Catholic Emancipation was too important to be sacrificed in the interests of a doctrine that was still undergoing . . . development.

I don’t know how many heads were kicked at Vatican I a mere 45 years later, but it does seem clear that Pope Pius IX took aim at a few consecrated derrieres, and with great success.  His efforts make what happened at the Vatican Council sound remarkably similar to what remaining conservatives have to put with these days when the current leaders of the Episcopal Church meet in Executive Council or stage manage a General Convention.  (And, of course, we have more than a few “wussies” of our own.)

Strenuous objections were voiced at the Council regarding the lack of freedom due to the manner of the agenda. Dom Butler admits to the Popes control over the Council when he writes, In all things the Pope kept to himself the complete mastery. Things which at Trent had been left in the hands of the Fathers - settlement of claims to take part in the Council, appointment of officials, regulation of procedure, etc. - were all now fixed by the personal act of the PopeThe bishops were invited and exhorted to suggest freely anything for deliberation that they thought would be for the general good of the Church. But such proposals or postulations must be submitted to a special Congregation, nominated by the Pope, for dealing with such postulates, to consider them and report its advice to the Pope, with whom the decision would lie as to whether the thing be brought forward at the Council or not. 24

- - -

In spite of the unequal representation and Pius IX using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father.30 This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the immense authority figure of the Pope - a presence unknown in the councils of the Early Church.

Thus lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. A belief that could not possibly meet the Vincentian canon of Universality, Antiquity and Consent, and in fact a belief not universally shared by Catholics even within living memory of the Council that solemnly defined it.

The good news is, Parliament did not see fit to repeal the Roman Catholic Relief Act just because some mitered heads were out of the loop a few decades earlier about a doctrine that was “received from the beginning of the Christian faith” and should have been there all along, even in Great Britain, and gave the Royal Commissioners the wrong answers to their questions.

The members of Parliament probably don’t care anymore, but if a bunch of liberal bishops try to tell anyone who’s interested these days that the idea of the Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix is “a Protestant invention,” they’ll be able to do a “heads up” this time around and check with Rome to see how much more of “inventive Protestantism” the Vatican may be willing to accept in the near future. 

Gosh!  Here is too much here.  I am packing 11 hour days 6 days a week – sorta.  In teaching it’s confused.  I was DEAD on Sunday.

I certainly don’t have time to respond to al of this.

MichaelA is pumping more than I tackle!

However, I want to step back a bit.

First, I must apologise. I am going too far.  I am pushing too hard.  I am intending to offend.  I get tired of Protestants telling me what I believe, I should not to likewise. 
As I say, put it down, in part, to currently working 11 hours shifts six days at week.  I am not at my best!  (I have two week flu as well!)
However, lest it seem I am makings things up, some data on the development of the canon if I may – just for information’s sake and to establish that I reason for my comments on the canon.

Quickly:  Re the shepherd of Hermas- even wikipedia agrees with me.

The Shepherd of Hermas (Greek: Ποιμήν του Ερμά; Hebrew: רועה הרמס‎; sometimes just called The Shepherd) is a Christian literary work of the 1st or 2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus.[1][2] The Shepherd had great authority in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.[3] It was bound with New Testament[1] in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it was listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus.

Irenaeus was taught by the Apostle John so he should have known better. If Irenaeus is not an early Church Father than who was?  I haven’t even mentioned the Didicate (which was used for early Catechesis and is FAR from Protestant!)

> Nor do you have any idea what Luther really thought.

I just quoted him in my last piece.  However, I will accept that I am not demonstrating understanding of the differentiation between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura.  Does that help?

> Every word of this is entirely wrong.  You don’t even understand the Roman Catholic teaching about the canon.

Then how come when I look up a Catholic apologetics website at random I get this?

http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.shtml

“The Bible came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century. ( No small feat! ) The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D.,and later, Carthage 419 A.D., ( along with the Traditional Bible or Latin Vulgate ( LV ), 406 A.D., by Saint Jerome ),gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as Catholics know it today.
…
The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris.”

In terms of the development of the canon…
Re: Eubesius:
> No it doesn’t.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html

On a website giving us the text…
3. Among the disputed writings, 10 which are nevertheless recognized 11 by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James 12 and that of Jude, 13 also the second epistle of Peter, 14 and those that are called the second and third of John, 15 whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

And a summary here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Eusebius
Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, was one of Origen’s most eminent disciples, a man of wide erudition. In imitation of his master he divided religious literature into three classes:
•  Homologoumena, or compositions universally received as sacred, the Four Gospels, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, Hebrews, Acts, I Peter, I John, and Apocalypse. There is some inconsistency in his classification; for instance, though ranking Hebrews with the books of universal reception, he elsewhere admits it is disputed.
•  The second category is composed of the Antilegomena, or contested writings; these in turn are of the superior and inferior sort. The better ones are the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, II Peter, II and III John; these, like Origen, Eusebius wished to be admitted to the Canon, but was forced to record their uncertain status; the Antilegomena of the inferior sort were Barnabas, the Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd, the Apocalypse of Peter.
•  All the rest are spurious (notha).
Eusebius diverged from his Alexandrian master in personally rejecting Apocalypse as an un-Biblical, though compelled to acknowledge its almost universal acceptance.

Regarding Clement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Christianity

“Apostolic writings, such as I Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas, were considered scripture even within the orthodoxy through the 5th century.”

And from a Catholic source online:
http://www.staycatholic.com/the_canon_of_scripture.htm

The book of 1 Clement was considered inspired by most in the early Church (Eusebius, The History of the Church 3:16, 325 AD). We also know that the book of Revelation was disputed by many at the time. And yet Revelation made it into the canon and 1 Clement didn’t. That’s because the Church set the canon of Scripture, and she did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just as God worked infallibly through men in writing the Bible, He worked infallibly through men in communicating exactly which books comprised it.

That’ll do for now.

> The regional council of Carthage did the same. It didn’t purport to bind the whole church, nor could it have done so.

Already dealt with.

> I think you might have mixed up your words here.  But the OT was not “up in the air”.

The Gentiles rejected the Hebrew scripture originally.  The councils of Hippo and Carthage made them binding.  That’s what I meant.  I actually agree that the OT was not undefined but it was the Septuagint that was accepted at the councils and included the ‘deutero-canonical’ books which the Jews regarded at Jamnia, er, mainly because they were too Christian.  Wisdom gives one of the clearest prophecies of Jesus in the old of the (Catholic) Old Testament. But it shows that the Christian Church by then had diverged from the Jews.  I agree the OT was not ‘up in the air’ but it needed to be imposed on the Gentile Christians and needed differentiation from the Jewish compilation – which Luther then adopted.

Now, let’s try and turn the heat a bit here, OK?  I was originally being rather tongue in cheek about the Canon in reference to your comment on the ECF’s.

Let’s step back and agree a working Protestant definition of sufficiency of scripture.  ~is that I OK.  I prose the following: 

“The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation and is the FINAL authority on all matters of faith and morals.”  (This replicates what I agreed at University in the Christian Union.)  It is not the only authority and the Church is necessary for the instruction of the faithful.  Sola scriptura is not Solo Scriptura.”

That do?  Have I understood correctly?

I’ll try again in regards to perspicuity. 

Protestantism holds that anyone can understand the Bible on all matters relating to Salvation, even in translation, but the Bible is not clear all details.  However, “The main things are the plain things.” 

Again, have I understood correctly?

I am always willing to learn.  Dialogue must be two way!  I have shown my confusion.  Show me then how to resolve the confusion.  I accept, I do not like it when Protestants tell me what my church so I am willing to accept correction.  But please understand, I do get a different message from differing denominations!

Anyway, let’s try and tone down the heat perhaps – myself included = though I promise I am not as assertive as the raw text may sound.

However, MichaelA has giving soooo much respond to – I can’t deal with all.  There is, however a key point I think we must follow.

I asked what the essentials for Salvation are.  I also cited the issue of blood transfusion.  In addition, I presented the five opposing positions on Baptism.

Now, this is CRITICAL!  If the Bible is clear on all ESSENTIAL doctrines for Salvation then I must press on this matter.  What are these items? How do I explain them to a Muslim?  (I live in a Muslim country. I must be able to articulate what the Gospel is.)

Baptism is regarded by some denominations as regenerative and ESSENTIAL for Salvation.  (Catholics hold to this.)
However, the Salvation Army denies the necessity of ANY sacraments.  They do not baptize.  Period. (Though they allow baptism from another denomination if someone feels they need it but the SA approach to Baptism is ‘What the heck.’
How can not knowing the nature of Baptism NOT be an essential if one group say it essential for salvation and another says it is not?
In relation to the issue of blood transfusion – it is vital in terms of someone’s life.  If the issue is NOT essential to salvation (which I grant in a waaaayyyy is not, though if someone allowed someone to die by not allowing them a permissible blood transfusion there is room for grievous sin) why was the issue to be resolved at said Baptist Church by a means other than scripture?
In regard to the essential for Salvation, I still need to know from a Protestant perspective.
Example:  Sola Fide is regarded as a central tenet of faith in regards to all the founding fathers of the Reformation. However, many Protestants (John Wesley comes to mind) have since denied it.  Is Sola Fide the Gospel or not?  What do I tell the Muslims?

>In relation to my prayer partner and his beef with the CofE Bishops, I must quote, “As you write, he was CofE and therefore had no problem being in the church and being subject to it.  But when the Church of England teaches something that is clearly contrary to scripture he won’t follow it.  Good.  Nor should he. “

But that’s exactly the issue.  Who then decides that the Church is opposed to Scripture?  I mean, are women priests permissible?  The CoE says “Yes.”  Is that unscriptural?  Does my good friend get to make up his own mind?  He was very confused on the matter!

In relation to Luther, Calvin and Zwingli – sorry this is vital!  I know you may be talking about modern Protestantism but the reason for bringing up the Early Reformers is:

a)  They were your founding fathers – at least in regards to return to us the original Gospel, free from Rome’s innovations.
b)  The disagreements with each other were theological in nature – not political.
c)  The disagreements were not trivial and led to huge bust ups!
d)  Each side argued ‘Sola Scriptura’ and made appeal to scripture to back up their case.  (Ref: Luther’s famous argument with Zwingli over John 6.)

Seems to me that appeal to the perspicuity of Scripture did not work even in Luther’s lifetime.  I agree that modern Protestantism has settled down by Protestant history is important here. 

The reason why I cited the issue of Primary and Secondary doctrines is that I understand this to be how, eventually, Protestantism resolved the battles.  So the nature of Baptism, tis seems to me, to be to be a secondary doctrine since, you state, all five views of Baptism (including “Not required at all”) so that the battles settled down.
Do I have this wrong?

If I can clarify my position on the nature of Scripture, I am actually NOT claiming that the Bible must be completely clear on everything or utterly obscure. (My bad for giving that impression.)  I believe that is where James White goes wrong. I do hold that the Bible can bring an individual to Salvation.  I do NOT hold that the Bible is utterly indecipherable.

However, I hold that the Bible is INSUFFICENT to resolve disputes, even on critical matters of Salvation, on its own.  Bible verse arguments I have found resolve nothing.  One must appeal to history and Tradition as well in order to resolve doctrinal disputes.  I hold that the Bible is akin to Descrates for reading. Understandable but takes some thinking about.  It is not like Wittgenstein which really is indecipherable. I hold that the Bible is less clear that, say, Neiszche which is COMPLETELY clear (and horrific!) It is quite possible for people to misunderstand Descartes but that does not make the text indecipherable.  That help? 

That is why I cite Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.  If Luther was restoring the true nature of Church, why these bust up from the very beginning?  I mean, what is the true nature of the Church?  Hierarchical?  Congregational?  Lay only (like the Brethern?)  Are priests needed or just ministers or laity only (Brethern)?  All of these became issues right after the Reformation.

Sorry if I am confused.  Enlighten me. 

Hi Episcopalianated!

I continue to pray for you guys!

Thank you for your well humoured postings.

>>Indeed, they can easily fall into error, but the current bishops may be able to cite 19th century precedents for that sort of thing, although “wussie” isn‘t the first term that comes to my mind in describing them, no matter which century is under discussion.

Quite!  I describe the current (or, at least, very recent) bunch as Quislings.  Cormac letting Tony Blair become Catholic under Tony’s terms of was despicable.  Pope B16 accepted the ‘conversion’ (He had not choice) but shoved Cormac downstairs to the Library basement as fast as he could.  I used to admire Cormac.  We live in dark times.  I am telling people that we are actually living in the 1930’s all over again – the momet in which the West went (goes) mad.  War is coming.  :-(

Now, Forgive me if I am being dim.  I find your case a little hard to follow.  (Good news- you guys will DEFINITELY have the last word.  I have until Thursday to any kind of internet access AT ALL.  After that comes Idul Fitri and, although in theory I have internet access at home, it has COMPLETELY died.  So I will be offline for ten days.  Truth be told, I could with the rest and watching Korean Drama.  These things are good BTW!  If you want a break from Nihilistic western movies and TV I can give great recommendations!  Stuff to lift the spirit and not shrivel the soul.)  Anyway, I am sorry if I am being dim. My time is VERY constrained right now and I spending far more time here than I should!  Come November it will be easier.

I think you are tackling development of doctrine and arguing, basically the following:

a)  How come the Catholic Church has come up with what appear to be CLEALY unscriptural dogmas – esp. the Marian dogmas.
b)  How come the Church claims infallibility when it has contradicted its own teaching, esp. ref infallibility?

Do I have this correct?

Assuming I do, let me try and explain.  Please bear in mind that my main point is build understanding and not walls.  I didn’t understand this lot either years ago!

Very quick – The Marian dogmas came late because the Church was busy on Christology. Having defined the ‘New Adam’ the Church then turned to the ‘New Eve.’  The historical evidence for Early Church belief on Mary as the ‘New Eve’ is very strong.  It was from the logic that Mary was a ‘New start’  - a new choice and this time one of obedience rather than disobedience (unlike, alas, my poor, sinful self) that she was free, by the grace of God from original sin so that she could make that free choice, and by warrant of her supreme obedience, merit Heaven without death “since the wages of sin are death” the converse must also be true.
Yes, The Marian dogmas are NOT drawn scripture and do come more from popular belief!  However, these beliefs are rooted in HISTORY!  The development is “What does this belief mean?”

The classic example of this comes from the hypostatic union. I do believe that the Scriptures are clear enough to prove the Trinity and that Jesus was the Son of God.  However, the scripture do not describe the hypostatic union.  So I hold that it is hard, nay, impossible to fully refute (for instant) Nestorianism from the scriptures ALONE!  I hope that makes my position clear. I deny the Bible is indecipherable but I do not hold that is SUFFICIENT to refute heresy.  I hold that the Protestant try and make the Bible do something it cannot.

BTW, I was shocked to read the ECF’s on Mary.  They were more Catholic that the Pope!

Anyway, in relation to the development of infallibility please bear in mind the following:

a)  Where the Church has NOT decreed something the individual is as liberty to discuss it.  So some ECF’s denied, for instance, the immaculate conception.  That was not a problem at the time.  When the Church defined it – that was the end of discussion. 
b)  Up to Vatican I Papal infallibility was not formally defined.  Even Newman initially battled against the initial wording of the statement to be presented (though not the concept.) 
c)  However infallibility as a CONCEPT was absolutely believed by the Church.  Personally, I suspect you may well be presenting an interview with a liberal Bishop here.  The current Bishops if England and Wales have been WORSE and, frankly, quislings until very recently.  Only now, that it is too late, do the Bishops grow a spine.
d)  It was always assumed that the Church was infallible.  The question was, “In exactly what WAY was it infallible?”  Just like, “Jesus is God and Man, but exactly how?” was asked in ages past.

Obviously, you wish to say that the Catholic Church’s ‘development’ is corruption. I understand that.  Really, I do! I used to believe the same! It takes a lot of explaining!

Suffice to say that for a teaching to be proven to be corrupt it would have be shown to be in direct defiance to scripture (but NOT directly proven from scripture) or Tradition.  Please bear in mind that Tradition equals the consensus of the Church so some dispute is allowed. 

Er, if I may be so bold… While you laugh at individual Bishops – the Catholic Church has the ability to rail them in. JPII, God bless him , was brilliant at doing this for Eastern Europe but totally lost it on the West.  Pope Benedict has his eye on the West and is kicking arse.  But we are slow, I accept.

>if a bunch of liberal bishops try to tell anyone who’s interested these days that the idea of the Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix is “a Protestant invention,” they’ll be able to do a “heads up” this time around and check with Rome to see how much more of “inventive Protestantism” the Vatican may be willing to accept in the near future.

Fair comment!  And I do like your humourous style!  I accept where you are coming from. I do love well humoured debate.  (I could never be an apologist though. I lack the temperament. I am far too emotional!)

Anyway!  I understand.  In a way, all manner of development is POSSIBLE.  Arguments can abound when a dogmas has yet to be defined.  You do not ‘get’ the Catholic Church on matters where the dogma is not defined.  It is if we define something one way and then define it another.  In the example you cited – infallibility as a CONCEPT was not DENIED!  The way in which operated was disputed and led to local catechisms with differing definitions.

Seeing the PROBLEM of such confusion, an ecumenical council was held and the matter decided! Done.  Finished.  Now all Catechisms refer to PAPAL infallibility.

We can resolve disputes.  Erring Bishops can be brought to heel.  In Protestantism, nothing is able to prevent someone who makes an appeal from scripture from jumping and forming their own denomination – especially as membership of any particular denomination is not explicitly deemed as essential (while the Catholic Church holds different.)

So in terms of corruptions, what does “Believe and be bapitised” mean?  Protestantism has five schools of thought on this matter.  Four of them must be wrong – essential or not (and, personally, I think it IS essential!)  The Catholic Church may have gone off the rails. OK.  Sure. It may be defining dogma it has not right do.  Fair enough.  But even if we have institutionalized error, at least we can!  We can clearly explain our beliefs!

Now how does Protestantism resolve disputes?  How does it go about developing doctrine. I mean, it has to.  The Trinity is not in scripture.  The Bible was originally without a table of contents.  The hypostatic Union is not clearly defined in scripture.  All three of these developments are accepted by Protestants.

Now, us Catholics can come together, have an ecumenical council – as in Jerusalem Acts – define the matter, express it and make it binding on all Church members.  Now, what do you when there is a doctrinal dispute?  What about the matter of Baptism?

On a lighter note – Korean dramas are well worth it!  I had forgotten what it was like to watch a TV series that lifted my spirit! 
God bless, and thanks again for the gentle spirit. I appreciate it!

“Quickly: Re the shepherd of Hermas- even wikipedia agrees with me.”

No, its just that your research is of a wikipedia standard ...

“The Shepherd had great authority in the 2nd and 3rd centuries”

Except that that is not what wikipedia’s source says.  I don’t know who wrote the article, but they haven’t checked their facts carefully.  The original writer says it was a very *popular* work in C2 and C3.  But as to being “of great authority”, that depends on whether it was Scripture or not.  For a while some thought it was, even including Irenaeus, but eventually all had to concede that it wasn’t of apostolic origin, and therefore not scripture.

“If Irenaeus is not an early Church Father than who was?”

The many other church fathers who disagreed with him about this work, for starters.  Why should we accept a single line in Irenaeus’ long treatise, against the opinion of so many others that Hermas was not of Apostolic origin?  Or do you just pick and choose whichever of conflicting opinions in the church fathers happens to agree with the theology that you personally find most congenial?

“However, I will accept that I am not demonstrating understanding of the differentiation between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura. Does that help?”

I suggest doing a short course in latin grammar.  Then, if you are really interested in the basis of the doctrine of sola scriptura, I suggest reading the works of medieval Augustinians: start with Alexander of Hales then move on to Grossteste, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Wyclif, Luther and Calvin.

“Then how come when I look up a Catholic apologetics website at random I get this?”

I am not in the least surprised that you are getting your material from “random web-sites”.  However, what you are getting from them is often very wrong.

“The Bible came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century. ...”

Random web-sites will make basic errors like this.

“‘No, it doesn’t’
Eusebius…”.

Thank you for citing a web-site which proves my point entirely.  Your original post was simply wrong, and you still don’t appear to realise it. You wrote: “Eusebius’s history of the Church recounts the process and makes it clear that MANY of the NT books we have today were NOT regarded as canonical before including Hebrews, James and 3 John.” As the web-site you link acknowledges, the most that can be said from Eusebius is that some in his time “disputed” that these books were scripture.  This is a long way from your allegation that they were “NOT regarded as canonical before”.

I should add that Eusebius provides a fair reflection of the chaos induced in the church after two centuries of sustained attacks on the canon by Marcionites and other heretics who sort to remove from the canon the books they did not like, or add spurious books.  But the orthodox fathers always returned to the same principle: a book could only be accepted as scripture if it had been written in the first century under apostolic authority and so accepted by the early church. 

Hence Athanasius wrote in his 39th Festal Letter: “the God-inspired scripture, concerning which we have attained to a sure persuasion, according to what the original eye-witness and ministers of the word have delivered unto our fathers”.  In other words, the principle used by him and the rest of the church was that only those books which had been originally accepted as scripture in the apostolic church could be in the canon. The same principle was followed by Augustine and by Tertullian two centuries before.

“Apostolic writings, such as I Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas, were considered scripture even within the orthodoxy through the 5th century.”

This is a quote from an anonymous wikipedia article.  Did you think to check for a source?  (no, it doesn’t cite one) It is clearly wrong. 

“The book of 1 Clement was considered inspired by most in the early Church (Eusebius, The History of the Church 3:16, 325 AD).”

??? Shortly before this point you cited from a web-site which lists the works included in scripture by Eusebius and makes no mention of 1 Clement, not even as a disputed book - didn’t you spot the contradiction between that site and this one?  Eusebius says that 1 Clement was highly regarded in many parts of the church, but he doesn’t say it is scripture.

“We also know that the book of Revelation was disputed by many at the time. And yet Revelation made it into the canon and 1 Clement didn’t. That’s because the Church set the canon of Scripture…”

No, its because the church recognised that Revelation had been written under Apostolic authority, and 1 Clement hadn’t.  Once that truth was recognised, the Church had no option, but to recognise Revelation as scripture and reject 1 Clement.  The church only had power to recognise Apostolic authority, not to decide for itself.

“Already dealt with.”

You have not cited any evidence against my original statement: “The regional council of Carthage did the same. It didn’t purport to bind the whole church, nor could it have done so.”

“The Gentiles rejected the Hebrew scripture originally. The councils of Hippo and Carthage made them binding.”

The regional councils of Hippo and Carthage did not make anything “binding” nor did they have authority to do so.  All they did was recognise what was known from apostolic times.

“I agree the OT was not ‘up in the air’ but it needed to be imposed on the Gentile Christians”

No-one imposed anything except Christ, who accepted the Old Testament scriptures and everyone else after followed him.

“....Baptism is regarded by some denominations as regenerative and ESSENTIAL for Salvation. (Catholics hold to this.)
However, the Salvation Army denies the necessity of ANY sacraments….”

No, I’m sorry but this is just a waste of time. I don’t have to defend the teachings of every church that I don’t belong to, whether its the Sallies, the Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholics, the Methodists, the Eastern Orthodox or anyone else!

“Example: Sola Fide is regarded as a central tenet of faith in regards to all the founding fathers of the Reformation. However, many Protestants (John Wesley comes to mind) have since denied it. Is Sola Fide the Gospel or not? What do I tell the Muslims?”

Tell them the truth - that Roman Catholics disagree on doctrine just as much as Protestants.  As do the Eastern Orthodox, and the Old Catholics, and the Oriental Orthodox, etc etc.  If the muslims make uniformity of belief the basis of turning to Christianity, they will never be saved. 

“But that’s exactly the issue. Who then decides that the Church is opposed to Scripture? I mean, are women priests permissible? The CoE says “Yes.””

Precisely, just as the Roman Catholic Church could say Yes.  But I would not agree with the RCC if it said so, just as I do not agree with the CofE on that issue.  We have already been through this.

“but the reason for bringing up the Early Reformers is: a) They were your founding fathers ...”

Who says? My “founding fathers” are the Apostles, then any among the early church fathers and later theologians who are true to apostolic teaching.  I follow the Reformers because they were true to those who came before them, not because they had special authority of their own. 

“... Seems to me that appeal to the perspicuity of Scripture did not work even in Luther’s lifetime.”

Why?  Your criterion for “work” appears to be: “No disagreements”.  What makes you think that God ever promised us that would be the case? You don’t appear to have thought this through.

“However, I hold that the Bible is INSUFFICENT to resolve disputes, even on critical matters of Salvation, on its own.”

Neither is a magisterium, so your point goes nowhere.  Roman Catholics (by your definition) have gleefully slaughtered each other through many centuries of bloody European warfare, and often using theological pretexts (look at the wars over who should be Pope, or what his powers should be, or how far medieval reform should go).  Disputes are “resolved” if all men are willing to listen to God.  If they aren’t, then a magisterium accomplishes precisely nothing beyond what Scripture accomplishes.  Never has, never will.  But by all means live in a fools paradise if you wish!

“One must appeal to history and Tradition as well in order to resolve doctrinal disputes.”

By all means - WE do. But we recognise God’s ordained truth that the writings of Christ, his Apostles and Prophets have greater authority than either history or tradition - sola canonica scriptura.

“I mean, what is the true nature of the Church? Hierarchical? Congregational? Lay only (like the Brethern?) Are priests needed or just ministers or laity only (Brethern)? All of these became issues right after the Reformation.”

Even if this were true (you appear to have a completely unrealistic view of church history), so what? 

Sorry if I am confused. Enlighten me. 

I can’t assist with self-inflicted confusion, sorry. 

“But by all means live in a fools paradise if you wish!”

“I can’t assist with self-inflicted confusion, sorry.”

and others… I wonder if these comments, which I think most people would agree are sarcastic,  violate some sort of policy on civility—would they have prompted a “reprimand” if made by someone taking a position in disagreement with the original post, rather than supporting it?  I think this is a question that needs to be answered in all sincerity. Honesty is the first requirement for a true exchange of views and information.

Same for “No, its just that your research is of a wikipedia standard ..”—BTW MichaelA—what are your sources for your rather global conclusions? 

Also—“Tell them the truth - that Roman Catholics disagree on doctrine just as much as Protestants.” That is not the truth at all.  People who are Catholics may disagree as individuals, out of ignorance of Church teaching, an erroneous understanding, pride, or for other reasons—but if they are speaking as Catholics, they cannot disagree on defined doctrine.  Of course, there are many issues on which the Church has not, by her Teaching Authority, spoken, and Catholics are free to disagree on those issues.

And Matt, at 1:01 p.m.: “One can conclude those texts conflict with sola fide only if one is confused.”

If you’re defining anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Holy Scripture as “confused”—aren’t you your own self-appointed “magisterium”?

Clare, I don’t object at all to being held accountable for the tone and graciousness (or otherwise) of any of my posts.  However, the one-sided nature of your comments indicate that you might have a bit of self-examination to do also! 

A number of comments have been made about Anglicans which are actually quite derogatory of us as a church (even some of them strongly implying that we aren’t actually a church).  I suggest a more measured reading of the whole thread.

“...but if they are speaking as Catholics, they cannot disagree on defined doctrine.”

Of course they can’t, but they do all the time.

“If you’re defining anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Holy Scripture as “confused”—aren’t you your own self-appointed “magisterium”?”

In other words, anyone who has an opinion of their own which is different to yours is “their own self-appointed magisterium”.  Excuse us if we don’t have a lot of time for arguments along such lines.

Clare: when a thread like this starts with a quote from James White, you must realize the shark has already been jumped, and that when MichaelA is still in full-throttle minutia-rant mode, he is not able to render a “measured reading” of the thread he has contributed much to. The tone of his last comment is overweeningly rude, but he does not see it.

Asking MichaelA if those that disagree with him are “confused” is like asking the producer of that episode of Happy Days where Fonzi jumps the shark if he might be “stretching it a bit”. In the throws of producing that episode, I’m sure the producer was quite confident. In retrospect, though, it, was in fact an indicator creative decline.

An honest answer, a truly honest answer instead of schoolboy “reverse the question back on to you” tactic would simply be some form of “yes”, which is implied. He’s implying “well, you do it, so I can do it too” because he sees no difference. This could be, possibly, due to “self-inflicted confusion”. MichaelA is confused about the RCC on numerous points, given a measured reading of the thread, as I have just read it all.

It would be refreshingly wonderful to hear an honest Protestant say, lightheartedly, “Yes, in a way, each Christian acts like their own kind of Magisterium. Sure - why not”. The sky would not fall. No ground would be yielded. It would have great integrity. In fact, many Catholics would in no way “condemn” a person who holds that position in good faith with charity. I know I wouldn’t. But many Protestants, including MichaelA, don’t fully understand what he is reacting to so vociferously, no matter what he says to the contrary. He really seems lost in a feigned world of dogma-intrigue he has fashioned and or adopted from various sources. I’ve hung around here long enough to know he does NOT deviate from that script.

James White has been, at times, nearly off his rocker with an obsession to “take down” Rome. His book “The Roman Catholic Controversy”, for an example, is an attempt to hijack “The Catholic Controversy” by St. Francis de Sales which is the record of his conversion of an entire city back to Catholicism from Protestantism. He puts himself forward, in his mind at least, into circles he does not belong. He fancies himself someone, so it seems at the least, as someone who will write “that book” that will “save the city” from the RCC, and he’ll do it wearing a bookwormish bowtie, playing the part of the “scholar” (though his PhD was not from an accredited school). It’s a kind of overly-binary, black and white egoism that has to resolve every theological point personally with algebraic precision. James White is overly-preoccupied with the RCC, though he does not understand much of what he goes on and on about. That spirit has co-opted this thread from the start. And that’s my 2 bits.

Hi.  My last coment.  It wil HAVE to be!  I don’t even have time to read the preceding comment.  I aid you would get the last word.

He only internet access I have is at my school.  Right now, the internet at home is deceased.  I have classes today but none tomorrow – I did not now that.  So I get an 11 day break.  But no access to the internet so my posting stops now for a good looonnnnnggggg time.  I reckon you will be grateful.

So only time for a brief summary and then I gotta go. I am posting because my student wll be 15 mins late.  She’s just texted me.

So only a few sentences.  I content that James White is incorrect on two points:

a)    The Catholic Church does not teach that the Bible is totally indecipherable.  Indeed, we hold that individual;s may be saved by it. However, we contend that the Bible alone is not sufficient to resolve disputes. For that, an authoritative Magisterium is needed.
b)  The Magesterial documents that are used for teaching rather than pure theology are NOT unclear as Jame’s claims.

This alone disproves James’ cliam.  Everthing else I discussed (badly in places I admit) was just relating to issues pertaining to perspicity as a whole. I note that no-one was able to any unclear pssages from the Catechism.  Arguments pertaining to development of doctrine, yes but not lack of perspecuity.

I do contend that Sola Scripture is not enough to resolve disputes.  Some kind of binding authority is needed.  That’s it. I really am outta time and internet access.  So you all get to have the last word.  I also have three kittens to look after!

God bless one and al.  Catch you after the long holiday here.  I plan lots of sleeping and watching Korean dramas!

“Clare: when a thread like this starts with a quote from James White, you must realize the shark has already been jumped, and that when MichaelA is still in full-throttle minutia-rant mode, he is not able to render a “measured reading” of the thread he has contributed much to.”

As it happens, I have never read anything by James White (apart from the above brief extract by Fr Kennedy).  My posts essentially responded to an insistence that only Roman Catholics knew what Protestants actually believe – an interesting concept. 

“Asking MichaelA if those that disagree with him are “confused” is like asking the producer of that episode of Happy Days…”

Except that the “confused” comment was by Matt Kennedy, as Clare correctly noted. 

“MichaelA is confused about the RCC on numerous points, given a measured reading of the thread, as I have just read it all.”

Evidently not well enough to realise who was responding to whom, nor to realise who was making most of the confident (and wrong) assertions about the beliefs of others!

Jedinovice wrote,

“Hi.  My last coment.  It wil HAVE to be!  I don’t even have time to read the preceding comment.  I said you would get the last word.”

Fair enough, then here it is: Have a good trip and enjoy the Korean dramas!

Hi Clare

“If you’re defining anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Holy Scripture as “confused”—aren’t you your own self-appointed “magisterium”?”

Nope. No more than the person who says: “if you do not believe that the earth is round then you are confused” is acting as his own magisterium.

The bible is not a wax nose to be twisted according to our own subjectivity. My comment was an appeal to the actual text not to my interpretation of the text…just as the comment above is an appeal to a correct observation of the roundness of the earth rather than to the person’s subjective interpretation of the roundness of the earth.

The fact that you have missed that distinction tells me you have not been paying much attention to the argument up to this point and have chosen merely to regurgitate Roman boilerplate.

By the way…not sure who brought “tone” into the conversation. But there will be no tone police at Stand Firm. The moderators determine when or whether a post or comment is out of bounds.

Secondly, I posted an article by James White. I will most likely post more articles by James White if I find them interesting and accurate as I found this one. This is our blog. We post what we like. If you do not like that, you are free not to comment. You are not free to comment on your feelings about the appropriateness of our posts. That is standard SF policy and has been for years.

The is a warning to the entire thread. Bannings will commence when/if the policy is transgressed.

Matt,

“The fact that you have missed that distinction tells me you have not been paying much attention to the argument up to this point and have chosen merely to regurgitate Roman boilerplate.”

I humbly disagree with your assessment of my comment. It was a sincere question. 

As to paying attention to the argument, in fact, the comment that I commented upon was the very second comment (slcath on 7-30-2012 at 12:51 PM). 

And I do not understand how dismissing 17 citations to Holy Scripture (which, on their face, to a non-Biblical-scholar, do seem to make the point that “sola fide” may not be the whole story) as “confused” is equivalent to stating, at this point in scientific knowledge,  that the world is round.

Although you may not have had time to address each of the passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans,  Galatians, Hebrews, James and Revelation, you must admit that there are Biblical scholars who hold the view presented by slcath in his comment.  Surely these scholars would not be equivalent to a scientist who appeared at a professional conference to state that the world is not round.

Clare,

I had a look at the posts you are talking about, which were before I joined the thread. Slcath made a very short post at #2 about sola fide (despite the 17 verses, he/she was really just making one point).  Matt’s response at #3 was equally short.  Either of them could have taken it further, but they both chose to move on to other things.  I think that’s understandable because the White article (which I have now read) isn’t really about sola fide, despite the headline.  He never attempts to defend it, or define it.

To a classical protestant, slcath’s question is incomprehensible - why would any of those verses be incompatible with the doctrine of sola fide? are we talking about the same thing?

Hi Clare

“I humbly disagree with your assessment of my comment. It was a sincere question.”

I don’t doubt your sincerity. But the question has already been addressed. 

“As to paying attention to the argument, in fact, the comment that I commented upon was the very second comment (slcath on 7-30-2012 at 12:51 PM).

And I do not understand how dismissing 17 citations to Holy Scripture (which, on their face, to a non-Biblical-scholar, do seem to make the point that “sola fide” may not be the whole story) as “confused” is equivalent to stating, at this point in scientific knowledge,  that the world is round.”

The scripture is quite clear that we are “justified by grace through faith apart from works so that no man may boast”. The texts cited by sclath cannot and do not contradict that text since God himself is not confused.  It does not take a biblical scholar to grasp that truth.

“Although you may not have had time to address each of the passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans,  Galatians, Hebrews, James and Revelation, you must admit that there are Biblical scholars who hold the view presented by slcath in his comment.”

Surely these scholars would not be equivalent to a scientist who appeared at a professional conference to state that the world is not round.”

There are scholars who believe that space aliens built the pyramids. The question is, of course, which scholars. Roman Catholic scholars are committed to reading scripture in accordance with the teachings of the Magisterium so, of course, there are “many” - I would say “all” - who believe that the New Testament is antithetical to sola fide and who marshal arguments to prove this point. The same could be said of Orthodox scholars…which is only to say that if you’ve arrived at a conclusion prior to studying a text you will find, shockingly, that the text verifies your conclusion.

MichaelA,

To me (again, a non-Biblical-Scholar) the verses seem to address directly the question of “sola fide” (or, in English, “only faith” or “faith alone”) (as opposed to recognizing the value of good works). 

To pick one at random: Rom 2:6-8:

6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”[a] 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

Can you explain why this doesn’t relate to “sola fide”—or, in the alternative, why it supports “sola fide”?

Thank you.

Hi Clare,

Rom 2:6-8 is part of a long argument beginning in Romans 1:18 and ending in Romans 3:20. The point of the argument being - No One “by persistence in doing good seeks glory, honor and immortality…”

See the summary in Rom 3:10-20

Matt,

“There are scholars who believe that space aliens built the pyramids.”

Really? Who have teaching positions at major universities?

So Catholics read one thing in the cited passages, Orthodox another, and Protestants still another?  But it’s very obvious what the passages say?

“...God himself is not confused.  It does not take a biblical scholar to grasp that truth.”

I assure you, I never entertained the thought that God is confused.  I think the extent of Biblical scholarship, extending to archaeological and linguistic discoveries even in the present, testify to the fact that these texts, especially those which appear to conflict with other texts in Holy Scripture, do not always present an easily discernible message.  Hence the Teaching Authority of the Church (or the Magesterium).

Also keep in mind that we’re looking at translations from ancient texts in another language.

[comment deleted—off topic; as has been stated so clearly and so repeatedly, there will be no comments on tone]

Hi Clare

“Really? Who have teaching positions at major universities?”

You’d be surprised what tenured professors at major universities can and do believe

“So Catholics read one thing in the cited passages, Orthodox another, and Protestants still another?  But it’s very obvious what the passages say?”

Yes. Indeed. Precisely. Again, two of the groups you have named embrace another source of special divine revelation outside of the bible and one embraces the infallible interpretive power of the Church to provide the correct interpretation of the bible. Both groups believe the teaching of the Church disallows sola fide and so both groups come to the text with a system in place. It’s not at all difficult to see how they arrive at their conclusions.

“I assure you, I never entertained the thought that God is confused.”

Good for you.

“I think the extent of Biblical scholarship, extending to archaeological and linguistic discoveries even in the present, testify to the fact that these texts, especially those which appear to conflict with other texts in Holy Scripture, do not always present an easily discernible message.”

Discernable, yes, but not all “easily” discernible I certainly grant.

“Hence the Teaching Authority of the Church (or the Magesterium).”

Non-sequitur. That there are difficult things to understand in the bible does not mean that there must necessarily be an infallible teaching authority to deliver infallible interpretations of the bible that must then be understood and argued over.

“Also keep in mind that we’re looking at translations from ancient texts in another language.”

True and irrelevant

RE: “To me (again, a non-Biblical-Scholar) the verses seem to address directly the question of “sola fide” (or, in English, “only faith” or “faith alone”) (as opposed to recognizing the value of good works).”

Uh oh.

Clare—would you define what you mean by the doctrine of “sola fide”?

Good question Sarah…it does seem as though Clare may be a bit confused about what exactly Protestants mean by sola fide.

Clare at #83,

“...the verses seem to address directly the question of “sola fide” (or, in English, “only faith” or “faith alone”) (as opposed to recognizing the value of good works).”

Thank you, I think I better understand where you are coming from.  Before I answer that, here is one of the best short summaries of Sola Fide that I have seen, in context of a discussion of James 2:24:

1. A sinner is saved by faith in Christ and not on account of his own works;
2. True, saving faith always produces good works;
3. Mere assent and profession of faith alone, without works, do not save.

Note the word “always” - sola fide necessarily requires good works to be shown - but they don’t save us.  The good works are consequent on salvation, not the cause of it.  That same discussion had an interesting quote from the Jerome Bible Commentary on James 2:24, and I agree with it: “As is clear from the context, this does not mean that genuine faith is insufficient for justification, but that faith unaccompanied by works is not genuine.”

So, that said, on to Romans 2:6-8:  It is all true and correct in its terms - those who persist in seeking after righteous will be saved.  The trouble is that no human being is capable of doing that without God working within them.  As Fr Matt observes, Paul comes to that in his argument later on in Romans, where he uses the term “faith alone”: 

“Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith.  For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.” [Romans 3:28]

And yes, once justified they will do good works.  Its just not those works that save them.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the midst of its lengthy section on Grace and Justification (1987-2029), states:  “Since the beginning belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.”  (2010)

In citing 17 passages from the Bible in my above post, I was operating under the assumption that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide denied that in any sense a Christian can “merit” eternal life, or that eternal life in any sense could be considered a “reward. “  If my assumption was mistaken, I would be happy to be corrected.

slcath, I agree that the expression “sola fide” is short hand for a doctrine (or perhaps a bunch of closely related doctrines, take your pick) that denies we can merit eternal life, in the sense of: “I have complied with Your law in all necessary respects, so by Your own law You must let me in”.  We are granted eternal life by grace alone, from first to last; and therefore we necessarily are granted it by faith alone, from first to last.

[And, just to draw in and reiterate my comment above to Clare, this doesn’t mean that good works are not involved.  In fact they are essential, but not because they earn us our salvation]

But I wouldn’t agree that protestants teach that eternal life cannot “in any sense” be considered a reward.  Scripture frequently refers to us receiving eternal life as a reward - for example, when Jesus says in Matthew 5:12: “great is your reward in heaven”, I would have thought he is clearly referring to (or at least including) eternal life.  The word translated “reward” is misthos, the basis meaning of which is “wages”, so yes, Christians are paid wages.

But that doesn’t mean we believe that the wages are *merited* - this is where I think we differ.  We say that Christ and his Apostles teach us that we receive our wages in spite of what we have done (or not done), not because of it.  See e.g. the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20) where the later workers are given a full days wage as a free gift, or in Luke 17:10: “So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unprofitable servants; we have only done our duty’”, or in the many passages where Christ uses a parable of forgiveness of a debt to describe salvation (e.g. Matthew 18:24).  The debt is simply unrepayable - the master forgives him out of pity, not because there is even an outside chance in future that a fraction of the debt will be repaid.  And so long as even one denarius is owing, prison is the merited reward. 

So the principle is that we get our wages and forgiveness in spite of what we have done, not because of what we have done.

There is no suggestion in scripture (that I can think of) that this situation changes after conversion.

It may be worth noting that the doctrine of salvation by faith alone (sola fide, for those theologians who like using latin shorthand!) is viewed as the flip-side of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone (sola gratia).  If we are saved by grace alone, then it is not because we merited it.  Paul is quite explicit that if works are relied on at all, even partly, then there is no grace:

“So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.  And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” [Romans 11:5-6]

Section 2007 of the Catholic Catechism addresses the relationship among grace, works, and merit:

2007 “The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.”

Thanks to slcath and Already Gone for providing the quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I had planned to do.

Hi Already gone…the problem is, it remains the fact that justification is not “apart from works” as Paul claims that it is in Eph 2 and the synergism of RC soteriology leaves a little island for men to boast.

Very interesting discussion. Enjoying it and hopefully the civil discourse can continue.

But I have a sincere question for some of our resident Catholics. The Protestant position is that sincere faith is the salvation event. Would the Catholic position imply that faith alone is insufficient to fully merit God’s grace and forgiveness? Let me give you an example: the mass murder who accepts Christ before his execution. What would be the Catholic position on his salvation? If salvation is based on faith and works, can one ever be assured of salvation?

Matt, you write [#87] that, with respect to Sola Fide, the Catholic Church “come[s] to the [Scriptural] text with a system in place.”

Do you have any evidence that the Catholic Church arrived at its doctrinal conclusions about Sola Fide before it consulted the Scriptures?

Hi sclath,

I was referring to contemporary scholarship. I have plenty of evidence that contemporary Roman Catholic scholars must arrive at this conclusion. To arrive at any other conclusion would be to cease being Roman Catholic. It would be to reject the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

Matt, I am pretty sure that you also read Paul through the lens of a theology.  I am not sure it is possible to read Scripture otherwise than through a tradition. To be a Christian is to be in a Christian community, in which one naturally learns how the leaders of that community understand Scripture, so I am not saying that this is reprehensible.  I just think it is undeniable.  And our own “lenses” are just what we find the hardest to see; they are pretty much invisible to ourselves.
Susan

Festivus,

Yes, the murderer who repents sincerely at the last moment before execution may be saved.  Why do you think there was always a priest on the scaffold?  But if the murderer repented with perfect contrition, that is, motivated purely by love of God and rejection of the evil of sin,  he would be saved even without receiving absolution. Not so easy to do though, after a lifetime of hardening the heart.  With the ministry of the Church,  even a repentance based only on the fear of hell,  (imperfect contrition)  can be saving.  And of course Christ is the source of all grace, the grace which enables the murderer to repent, the grace in the Church’s absolution. 

Now, such a person has a lot of changing yet to do before he would even really want to be in heaven.  Like the changing for the better that we do in this life, it can only be done by God in us, not by ourselves.  So those who have repented but are not ready to be in heaven are changed by God.  And that changing might be painful-as change here sometimes is, since it is a dying to self.  (See the story of Eustace in the Dawn Treader. Eventually Aslan himself has to claw the dragon skin off of him.)  That is what Purgatory is about.  It is the antechamber of heaven.  And although we can’t help thinking of it as having an extent in time,  time isn’t really a relevant concept in eternity. So if what Protestants think is that God instantly does something to make us fit for heaven when we die,  well,  are you sure that will not be a painful stripping away of our dross?  Is there such a thing as a joyful pain?  I think so. 

Catholics really don’t like the formulation “faith and works.”  It makes it sound as if the works are something of our own which we add to faith.  Rather,  any good works we do are the result of God working in us.  Since they are God’s works in us, they can be truly good, and as truly good, they by nature have “merit”  but it is all really God’s merit.  However, there is some element of our cooperation.  We have to let God work in us. We can say no.  We can resist God’s grace. (Of course, He lets us resist;  it is not that His power is not infinite, but that He leaves us free enough to say no. )  So no, we can’t be certain of salvation.  We can trust in the mercy of God, we can ask Him to make His power perfect in our weakness,  we can have a confident hope in Him,  but we cannot presume.  It would be presumption to choose to sin knowing that He will forgive. It would be presumption to delay repentance. It would be presumption to fail to make use of the means of grace.  It would also be presumption to “boast” of any works we have, since they are all the work of God in us, and in any case very small compared to His holiness.  The more holy people are the less they are inclined to boast and the more they see themselves as sinners in need of God’s mercy. 

Susan Peterson

Matt, thank you for the clarification [#97].

As you know, the Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification, which states the Catholic Church’s position on Sola Fide and other related issues, contains dozens upon dozens of Scriptural references and quotations.  I think most fair-minded Protestants, upon reading the Declaration on Justification, would acknowledge that the Declaration’s doctrinal conclusions are based in very large part on a good-faith reading of Holy Scripture.

I will readily acknowledge that your doctrinal conclusions on these topics are likewise based in very large part on a good-faith reading of Holy Scripture.

So have we reached an impasse on these matters?  We have, unless we can discover a reliable teaching authority (aka magisterium).  Without such a reliable teaching authority, we simply cannot achieve reasonable certainty as to these important doctrinal matters.

“Matt, I am pretty sure that you also read Paul through the lens of a theology.  I am not sure it is possible to read Scripture otherwise than through a tradition.”

Every human reads everything through a lens.  On this basis, modernists deny that we can have certainty about the true meaning of every document in the world, including the Creeds and the Roman Catechism.  This is just liberalism taken to its logical conclusion.

Furthermore, calling this lens a “tradition” broadens the latter word to the point where it has no meaning, certainly quite different to the way it is being used in this debate. 

As it happens, I disagree that a “lens” is relevant, because I believe that human beings are capable of reading and discerning objective truth, however imperfectly. 

In particular, when God reveals objective truth (as he promises us he has done in Scripture, but never promises in relation to documents like the Roman Catechism), humans are capable of understanding it.  Further, when led by the Holy Spirit humans are capable of coming to saving faith through such revealed truth.

Citing a “lens” doesn’t overcome the fundamental problem that God promises us that scripture is reliable, but doesn’t make the same promise for a Church Catechism.

The final irony is that “tradition” is notoriously uncertain and unreliable, far more so than scripture.

“I think most fair-minded Protestants, upon reading the Declaration on Justification, would acknowledge that the Declaration’s doctrinal conclusions are based in very large part on a good-faith reading of Holy Scripture.”

Why does that conclusion follow? Anyone can quote scripture, just as they can quote any other authority – it doesn’t mean they are doing so correctly (note that I am not at this point arguing that the Declaration is incorrect in its interpretation of scripture, just arguing that your point does not logically follow). 

I understand why the Declaration cites scripture – it is after all the highest authority for Christians.  But whether it is cited correctly, is a separate issue.

“So have we reached an impasse on these matters?  We have, unless we can discover a reliable teaching authority (aka magisterium).”

This *assumes* without any proof that the magisterium is a “reliable teaching authority”.  That actually contains two assumptions: (i) that the magisterium has authority from somewhere, and (ii) that the magisterium is reliable in its teaching.  So far I have seen no reason to accept either assumption. 

“Without such a reliable teaching authority, we simply cannot achieve reasonable certainty as to these important doctrinal matters.”

Except that it is yet to be shown that the magisterium is either reliable or an authority, nor can I see how it has led to any real certainty about important doctrinal matters, beyond what Scripture gives.

Already Gone at #93 and Clare at #94, thanks for citing the RC Catechism.  I agree that it differs from the Protestant position on that particular issue.

Matt, you state in comment #95 that “it remains the fact that [in Roman Catholic theology] justification is not ‘apart from works’ as Paul claims that it is in Eph 2 and the synergism of RC soteriology leaves a little island for men to boast.”

What you write is not what the Catholic Church teaches, as can be seen in the following paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1987   The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism….

1989   The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel:  “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high.  “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”

1990   Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin.  Justification follows upon God’s merciful initiative of offering forgiveness.  It reconciles man with God.  It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals.

1991   Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ.  Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love.  With justification faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.

1992   Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men.  Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith.  It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.  Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life….

1993   Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom.  On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity and the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent…..

1994   Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit….

1996   Our justification comes from the grace of God.  Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God…..

1998   This vocation to eternal life is supernatural.  It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself.  It surpasses the power of the human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.

2001   The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace.  This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity….
 
2002   God’s free initiative demand’s man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him.  The soul only enters freely into the communion of love.  God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man….

2007     With respect to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man.  Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008   The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace….  [T]he merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful.  Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2010   Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life….

2011   The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God….

[Footnotes omitted; emphasis omitted]

Hi friends,

I think you’ve all apparently misunderstood the point I was making above. I do not deny that all come to the bible with a “lens”.

But Roman Catholic scholars come with more than that…a predetermined dogma. One cannot be a Roman Catholic New Testament scholar and affirm sola fide. The Church teaches that sola fide is an error…the Roman Catholic scholar is “obligated” therefore to read scripture in a way that is consistent with this dogma or leave the church.

Hi sclath,

Yes, I’ve read it. It illustrates my point nicely. I am aware that Rome affirms sola gratia. But because she understands the grace of justification to involve the grace infused work of men…then justification according to Rome cannot be said to be “apart from works that no one can boast.” It certainly includes works done by grace empowered men who then, on the basis of those grace infused works are justified. That’s synergism. So, again, thanks for demonstrating the point.

Also, its not enough just to use the word “grace” - we have to be using it in the same sense used by Christ and his apostles, or else we are actually talking about something else.  Hence the point made by the Apostle Paul:

“So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.  And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” [Romans 11:5-6]

Matt, so the Catholic Church teaches justification “on the basis of” “grace infused works”?  Really?

I don’t know how the Catechism can be any clearer:  “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.”  (2010)

If that’s justification by works, words have pretty well lost their meaning.

Hi sclath

“Matt, so the Catholic Church teaches justification “on the basis of” “grace infused works”?  Really?”

yes.

“I don’t know how the Catechism can be any clearer:  “Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.”  (2010)”

Right…but for Rome initial justification is just that. Initial. If you die right after you are baptised or receive absolution…Awesome. If not Final justification hinges on cooperation with the righteousness of Christ poured into your heart. The cooperation is, of course, empowered by grace…but no one is declared apart from his cooperation with grace which, necessarily includes good works.

“If that’s justification by works, words have pretty well lost their meaning.”

No they haven’t you’re just confusing your own church’s teaching about the instrument of initial justification (baptism) with final justification…or are you suggesting that the text you quoted above establishes sola fide as well as sola gratia?

Or if you don’t like my rendering of it, simply, read what you posted above:

“2008   The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace….  [T]he merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful.  Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2010   Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life….”

As I said: “it remains the fact that in Roman justification is not ‘apart from works’ as Paul claims that it is in Eph 2 and the synergism of RC soteriology leaves a little island for men to boast.”

Matt, you are lumping a lot under the heading “justification.”  For example, you are including “sanctification.”

As stated in the passages I quoted in #105 above, the Church teaches that after the grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion, “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.”  (2010)

I see that you disagree with this teaching, but the teaching is supported by innumerable passages of Scripture, including the 17 passages I cited in #2 above.

Hi Sclath

“you are lumping a lot under the heading “justification.”  For example, you are including “sanctification.”

Precisely…because this is the crux of the difference between Rome and the Reformers with regard to justification. For the reformers it is grounded in the righteousness of Christ imputed to sinners and therefore once one is justified his eternal destiny is no longer in question. Sanctification follows necessarily from justification but the works of sanctification are not involved in God’s declaration that one is just. Justification is grounded in the merits and work of Christ alone imputed to the sinner. 

For Rome “initial justification” (note that is not my wording) is the infusion of Christ’s righteousness through the instrument of baptism. But the final divine declaration that one is just necessarily includes the works accomplished by the person (through grace) during the process of sanctification. Since a person’s cooperation with justifying righteousness during sanctification is generally imperfect, most will spend time having their venial sins purged, before entering into heaven. Others will kill off justifying grace by committing a mortal sin and either go to hell or enter a confessional before death and have justifying grace restored. But either way no one is finally justified apart from works.

“As stated in the passages I quoted in #105 above, the Church teaches that after the grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion, “Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.”  (2010)”

slcath, in this you are agreeing with Fr Kennedy’s point about where the difference lies between protestant teachings of sola fide and sola gratia, and the RC teaching.  When the RC Catechism states, “we can then merit for ourselves”, it changes the meaning of the word “grace” from what is meant by that word in scripture .  In other words, we say that the RC Catechism at this point is using the same word “grace” but with a different meaning to us. 

As soon as grace is said to be “merited”, it ceases to be grace (on our reading of scripture). 

This is precisely the point made by Paul in Rome 11:5-6 where he talks about grace ceasing to be grace.  As soon as you say that something is merited, grace in the Pauline sense vanishes.

Of course the RCC is entitled to teach whatever it likes, but to suggest that there is not a substantial difference between us on this point is a huge stretch!

“I see that you disagree with this teaching, but the teaching is supported by innumerable passages of Scripture, including the 17 passages I cited in #2 above.”

But how do any of those passages support the idea that we *merit* our heavenly reward?

As I wrote in #92 above, many of your 17 verses refer to us receiving a reward.  But I can’t see anywhere in those passages where it is stated that we receive that reward because we merit it.  Rather, we are told repeatedly in scripture that we are given a reward or ‘wages’ that we do not deserve (i.e. merit)!

MichaelA,  The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2007   With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man.  Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008   The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace.  The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful.  Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009   Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.”  The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due….Our merits are God’s gifts.”

(Footnotes omitted; emphasis omitted)

The 17 verses of Scripture I cited above (#2) are totally consistent with this concept of merit.

Perhaps it would be good to quote a couple of those passages:

Matthew 16:27:  “For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.”

Romans 2:6:  “For he will render to every man according to his works….”

Revelation 22:12:  “‘Behold I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.’”

These passages speak of more that a general reward.  No, they use the vocabulary of recompense, repayment.  I guess you can try to spin that as not constituting merit as defined in the CCC, but I think to do it you have to overlook the obvious sense of the passages.

Slcath,

I appreciate all your quotes from RC Catechism ¶¶2007-2009 about how the actions we do are preceded by God’s grace, but that doesn’t mean that the Catechism is using “merit” in any different sense to normal, i.e. something that we deserve because we earned it.

This is made clear in ¶2010, where the distinction is made between the initial grace of forgiveness (which we don’t merit), and the attainment of eternal life (which we do – at least according to RC Cat).

That is a concept that I don’t see anywhere in scripture.  Not only are both forgiveness and eternal life unmerited, but any attempt to make grace dependent on merit means that its not really grace anymore.

“2010: Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.”

The Catechism can play free with definitions as much as it likes, but it still runs counter to the apostolic teaching that eternal life is an unmerited gift.

“These passages speak of more that a general reward.  No, they use the vocabulary of recompense, repayment.”

Isn’t that precisely what I wrote above at #92?  That is why I emphasised that the word often translated “reward” is Greek “misthos”, the primary meaning of which is “salary” or “wages”.  Thus my argument above was predicated precisely on “the vocabulary of recompense, repayment.”

I then went on to explain (still at #92) that Scripture teaches that we Christians receive a wage (or a “recompense” or “payment” – I agree your words express the point just as well) which we don’t deserve (i.e we don’t merit it). 

That is the point of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, that those who came last (the specific ones that Christ uses as an analogy for Christians) receive wages that they did not work for.

You then refer to the statement in Matthew 16:27:

“For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.”

This is entirely true.  Christ will come and repay every man for what he has done.  If you stand in your own righteousness (merit) on that day, you will receive what you deserve – death.  If however you abandon all claim to merit and instead rely only on God’s unmerited gift (grace), you will live eternally.

“I guess you can try to spin that as not constituting merit as defined in the CCC, but I think to do it you have to overlook the obvious sense of the passages.”

Not from my perspective, rather the reverse.  Those verses mean exactly what their “obvious sense” says.  They just don’t tell the whole story, nor do they purport to.