159 comments
Leave a comment »

1. Paul November 19th, 2011 7:31 pm :

   Interesting about the claim that the apostles – “the best they could do was appeal to Scripture just as any Chrisitan could.” What Scripture? I’m assuming the Old Testament as the New Testament didn’t exist yet.

2. David Charkowsky November 20th, 2011 1:10 am :

   I wonder how he arrived at his reading of Pentecost. The Pentecost of Acts 2 involved people speaking in *intelligible* languages that were understood by all the “God-fearing Jews” present. It was an event of supernatural coherence and unity (not confusion). The people that thought the Christian disciples to be drunk are presented as “some” and without the “God-fearing” qualifier and they are the only ones confused.

3. Michael Goodrich November 20th, 2011 8:25 am :

   Bryan said:

   Church history shows that heretical groups naturally treat the divine providence by which they were divinely permitted to fall into heresy as though it were instead the Holy Spirit supernaturally and uniquely leading their particular group into the truth that none of the other sects holds.

   What a fine statement. Without a visible and unified church authority, how can this kind of ‘Ecclesial Subjectivism’ be thwarted?

4. Brent November 20th, 2011 4:01 pm :

   I wonder how he arrived at his reading of Pentecost.

   The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is necessitated by an *evangelical* view of history. It goes like this:

   Since Evangelicalism exists and *is the way God intended it*, Acts 2 must be the cause of it. Since Evangelicalism is “massive confusion”, therefore Acts 2 must be “massive confusion”. It is the reading into the cause what they see in the effect (assuming causality, thus the fallacy).

   Evangelicalism is either a development from Acts 2 or a novelty. Or, as Galli tries to argue (and in a way is a part of all of the restorationist movements–Evangelicalism included), Evangelicalism is a fundamentalist re-rendering of that which was always broken–i.e., always primitive, less organized, etc. This is where Galli makes the interpretive error. He is doing a traditional Evangelical reading of early Church history (primitivism) and importing into that reading a view of the facts that mirrors best the current Evangelical situation. This movement is his “fight or flight” instinct in responding to the ecclesial confusion in Evangelicalism (and conversions to Catholicism), and worse his re-imagining of the early Church motivated by his desire to retain Evangelical ecclesiology. In other words, if there is an Apostolic Church in Acts that is orderly and authoritative then Evangelicalism–in its lowest common denominator and democratic form–is a prodigal son. While not wanting to turn to the Tiber, turning back to whence Evangelicalism came (traditional denominational Protestantism) is not a viable option given that in those communities you get both “chaos” and codified liberalism.

5. Bryan Cross November 20th, 2011 4:36 pm :

   In support of Galli’s article, Chris Armstrong, who teaches at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, writes:

   A comment of my own, in response to the comment of a Catholic (formerly evangelical Protestant) friend who posted in the CT online comments section of Mark’s article. My friend points out that Mark dodges the question of how we DO, in the absence of a magisterium, decide what exactly the Spirit is saying to the church.

   I recognize that that’s a problem, and that in fact Mark speaks with two voices when he starts talking about the development and acceptance of Trinitarian theology (if anything, the Exhibit A of the case for a magisterium!)

   I think Mark might say (I hope I’m not putting words in his mouth) that we simply need to live with the messiness, and not to seek certainty in post-canonical human pronouncements.

   I might frame this in an Eastern way: God is serious when he says that his thoughts are higher than ours, and that we see through a glass darkly. Paradox, confusion . . . suck it up: these are part of our heritage as children of the Massive Unimaginably Powerful and Smart Invisible God of Everything.

   I’ve been receiving Christian History for many years, and have always enjoyed reading Chris’s contributions to the magazine. But I think his reply here is problematic, for the reason I will explain. For Chris, God’s thoughts are so much higher than ours that we cannot know how to determine what exactly the Spirit is saying to the Church. But according to Chris we can know with certainty that “we need to live with the messiness.” We can know with certainty that we cannot be certain about any Church decision following the closing of the canon. And we can know with certainty that paradox and confusion are part of the heritage of the children of God.

   This reply raises a serious difficulty, however, because it has implications that Chris himself presumably would not embrace. The fundamental problematic implication is that it makes theological error and heresy utterly immune to refutation. To every refutation of error, contradiction, or heresy, the interlocutor could simply respond, “we need to live with the messiness.” Problems pointed out with a heresy could always be parried away by appealing to the unavoidability of messiness, paradox, confusion, etc. However, when St. Irenaeus wrote his Adversus haereses, Tertullian wrote his Against Marcion, St. Hippolytus wrote his Against Noetus, St. Athanasius wrote his Apologia Contra Arianos, St. Gregory of Nyssa his work Against Eunomius, St. Jerome his works against Jovinianus, Vigilantius, and the Pelagians, and St. Augustine his works against the Manicheans, the Donatists, and the Pelagians, they did not believe that all their work would be in vain if those heretics against whom they wrote could simply dismiss all the problems they were pointing out by responding with “we need to live with the messiness you are pointing out in our theology.” All Christians recognized that the “we need to live with the messiness” defense is not an excuse for bad theology. Otherwise, there would be no way to distinguish good theology from bad theology, orthodoxy from heresy, since the problems pointed out with any error could always be excused and covered over with “we need to live with the messiness.” And there would be no point in attempting to critique bad theology.

   That’s why the person making use of the “we need to live with the messiness” defense must provide with that defense a principled basis for distinguishing mere messiness from the deficiencies of bad, erroneous theology. In this particular case, if not being able to know what the Spirit is saying to the Church were in fact erroneous theology, and not just messiness Christ left for all Christians to live with, how would Chris know? For this reason, the “we need to live with the messiness” defense is not by itself a sufficient defense of Galli’s position, because without a principled distinction between ‘mere messiness’ and bad theology, this defense eliminates the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy, and therefore can never be accepted by itself.

   The second problem with Chris’s reply, in my opinion, is that he has no basis for his certainty that “we need to live with the messiness” of the chaos that supervenes upon a situation of biblicism and “solo scriptura” without a magisterium. Scripture does not say “we need to live the messiness.” Nor has any magisterium ever said this. So Chris has no basis for his certainty that we cannot know what the Spirit is saying to the Church, that we cannot be certain about any Church decision following the closing of the canon, and that paradox and confusion are part of the heritage of the children of God. In general, skepticism refutes itself when it dogmatize its certainty that we cannot be certain about anything except its skeptical dogma. And theological skepticism does the same. So that’s another problem with Chris’s defense of Galli’s thesis.

6. Brent November 20th, 2011 5:17 pm :

   Bryan,

   The “we need to live with the messiness” defense is not a defense. What we can see from history, Scripture tradition (and “T”), and reason is that “we need to live with the messiness” is valid in so much that it describes the human condition without grace. Christ is the definitive, revealed Word of God that demonstrates how his ways are not our ways (e.g., the Crucified-King). Nonetheless, we would say that His Way, while not our way, is “most fitting” (i.e., not against reason).

   To describe what God does as “messiness” is an excuse, motivated by the necessity to give a reason for the existence of Evangelical ecclesial messiness. The problem is, I think, a lack of focus, a too general way of thinking about theology, or lack of discipline. I think Galli and Armstrong would agree with the second sentence of my first paragraph. When Galli and Armstrong go from that idea to then use it to describe what God did in establishing His Church and the teleos of that Church aided by the third person of the Blessed Trinity–is theologically bizarre.

   Which reveals their underlying assumption that Christ established a Church that would forever be in confusion–not progressively growing in grace, perfection and holiness from glory to glory. However, I think the observation turns the other way: that the Evangelical is like those who found themselves in the desert before–not wanting to follow God’s way but instead insisting upon creating their own means of salvation (own Church). Which is just another way of saying what you said in Pentecost, Babel and the Ecumenical Imperative.

   By the way, today is my three year anniversary of coming into full communion with the Church Christ established. Praise God, its good to be home!

   Happy Feast of Christ the King to all! He is King of a Kingdom, not a “mess”.

7. Spencer November 20th, 2011 11:15 pm :

   Bryan,

   “Massive confusion.” He writes, “The Holy Spirit set the pattern for what church would be like at the day of Pentecost. And it looked like this: Massive confusion.” For Galli, the New Covenant introduced “radical leveling” such that there was no magisterium, and widespread doctrinal disagreements, often taking decades to resolve. No decisions by Apostles or councils were authoritative. The Apostles tried to use their authority to settle disputes, but the best they could do was appeal to Scripture just as any other Christian could.

   What seems especially ironic about this statement is that not only was Pentecost an event where, as you pointed out, there was a single unified message of the Gospel, but St. Luke records only one of the apostles speaking–and it just so happens to be St. Peter himself. It’s difficult to see how such a paradigm–St. Peter in communion with all the apostles, proclaiming a specific interpretation of divine revelation as being obligatory to be received de fide–could be more opposed to an ecclesiology in which we’re ultimately left to decide the truth for ourselves among a multitude of competing voices.

   Spencer

8. Mark Galli November 21st, 2011 4:16 pm :

   I am honored that you all would consider my little column worth engaging. I find the arguments here thoughtful if not compelling, :-) but I do appreciate the conversation–which I happen to believe is a product of the work of the Holy Spirit, so that we might engage one another to come, perhaps, to a deeper consensus! I cannot respond to every point, but two clarifications might be helpful.

   When I talk about a consensus, I really mean an historical consensus. Sometimes that consensus is helped by a church council (e.g. Nicea on the divinity of Christ) but sometimes the concensus just emerges (e.g. the canon). If wasn’t until the Reformation that the exact outlines of the canon were construed (and this has led to some differences, while agreeing on the vast bulk of what constitutes canon). I really mean a view that is held “always, and everywhere, by everyone”–granting the hyperbole of that phrase. The Trinity is not Christian doctrine because some council said so, but because age after age, the church continues afresh to affirm it by the leading of the Holy Spirit. Despite the many strong arguments against it age after age, Christians still adhere to it. To stop adhering to it is to cease to be a Christian in any meaningful historical sense–that is, as one connected historically and sacramentally with the church historic.

   Thus is it absurd for heretics who want to remain in the church to say they have their own consensus on, let’s say, universalism, when in fact, the church has by historic and theological consensus rejected it. Instead, the actual numerical and historical consensus is perfectly summed up in the Creed: “he shall come again to judge the living and the dead.”

   Second, I don’t believe that we are called to “live in the messiness.” We have no choice about that! Church life is always messy. We are called to engage one another in the messiness as we work toward a consensus. Liberals assume messiness is the goal. I do not. Truth is the goal. And the way we get there is through the Cross of messiness, not around it by declaring some things not even worthy of discussion because some council somewhere ruled on the issue. No, if people today really doubt some cardinal doctrine–which has come about through the work of the Holy Spirit as it has come to consensus–charity obliges us to engage the doubters and skeptics with arguments (from both Scripture and tradition and reason) to show the genius of the church’s consensus.

   At any rate, I doubt that my few words will prompt a reversion to Protestantism on this website, but I trust it will clarify what it is we disagree about.

   Mark

9. T Ciatoris November 21st, 2011 7:08 pm :

   Hi Mark,

   Thanks for your thoughtful response. I’m not sure if you’re wanting to engage any further in this combox, but I wonder if you could comment on when and why you think it’s appropriate to reject things that have emerged as historical Christian consensus, East and West. I’m thinking in particular of the rejection by (most) Evangelicals of the threefold hierarchy (bishop, priest, deacon), the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, public and fervent veneration of the Mother of God — I mean, the list goes on and on. I’d also want to bring up the novelty of justification by faith alone, but I don’t want to be going for the jugular, so to speak (see, I can kid, too ;-)). If you’ll forgive my frankness, it seems to me that your appeal to “historical consensus” is necessarily a wax nose of the worst sort.

   best,

   TC

10. John Thayer Jensen November 21st, 2011 7:22 pm :

    @Mark Galli:

    Thus is it absurd for heretics who want to remain in the church…

    Mark, probably I am just dense here, but I don’t see how, on your account, you can distinguish between heretics and the church. Can it just be sheer numbers – some sort of majoritarian criterion? But certainly that won’t work regarding the identity of the church itself, at least not today. There are surely far more people who call themselves Catholics than anything else. And I have read – don’t have a reference and maybe it isn’t true – but I have read that at one point in the Fourth Century, there may have been more Arians than Trinitarians.

    So … if ‘consensus’ means ‘a group of persons with the same opinion’ about some matter – how do you know, regarding any particular matter in question, which group’s consensus is that of the church, and which that of the heretics?

    jj

11. Bryan Cross November 21st, 2011 10:41 pm :

    Hello Mark,

    Thanks so much for your charitable response. We’re honored that you took the time to comment.

    Among the problems I pointed out in my post is that there is no way to begin to attain consensus, unless one first has a way of determining who are the persons among whom one is to attain consensus. Otherwise, all I have is “a consensus of those who agree with me,” which, as I pointed out above, is the sort of consensus every heretical group achieves within itself.

    I think your reply doesn’t get around that problem. Let me explain. You wrote:

    The Trinity is not Christian doctrine because some council said so, but because age after age, the church continues afresh to affirm it by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

    When you say “the church continues afresh to affirm it,” then, without a magisterium, your claim reduces to “those who affirm it continue afresh to affirm it.” If you don’t agree, then how, exactly, do you define “the church” in a non ad hoc, non-question-begging way, without implicitly taking to yourself a magisterial role and authority?

    Despite the many strong arguments against it age after age, Christians still adhere to it.

    Except for the ones who don’t. (The UPCI headquarters is right here in St. Louis; I drive past it all the time.) Here’s modalist T.D. Jakes on The Elephant Room this very month. And here’s Joel Osteen saying recently that Mormons (who believe that God the Father was a human) are Christians:

    The point is, you’re loading into the term ‘Christians’ here something that amounts to ‘those who mostly agree with the doctrines I think are essential.’ It just so happens that your definition is closer to what Catholics mean by it than Osteen’s, and Jakes.’ But without a magisterium there is no principled or objective basis for what all you are including and excluding from your criteria for who is and isn’t a Christian.

    To stop adhering to it is to cease to be a Christian in any meaningful historical sense–that is, as one connected historically and sacramentally with the church historic.

    How is “church historic” defined except by way of those Christians who followed the decisions of the councils? Without a magisterium, there is no objective and principled way to determine what is within or excluded from the “church historic,” except in the broadest, and therefore most unhelpful sense (e.g. people who deny or reject Christ are not Christians).

    Thus is it absurd for heretics who want to remain in the church to say they have their own consensus on, let’s say, universalism, when in fact, the church has by historic and theological consensus rejected it.

    Without a magisterium, the claim that the church rejected universalism reduces to the claim that those persons who called themselves Christians and who rejected universalism, rejected universalism. If, however, you are going by the beliefs of the majority of those persons who call themselves Christians, well, that would rule out Protestantism, because Protestants were (and are) among the minority of persons who call themselves Christians.

    So, I hope you see why I think the problem I mentioned in my post is still there, in your reply. Thanks so much for your patience, and willingness to dialogue.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

12. Aristocles November 22nd, 2011 10:36 am :

    I find so many Protestants, in defense of their doctrines, saying that they don’t “need ___” . Christians don’t need a magesterium, need a pope, need to pray to Mary, need works for salvation, need Tradition, need the Apocrypha . . . . But what is this concept of “need” doing? Aristotle introduced in his Metaphysics a notion of necessity (need) that he said meant “that without which a good cannot come about or an evil be avoided”. Hence, we need food and water to avoid the evil of starvation, we need friendship for the good of our hearts and minds, we need protection from the State and hence need civil authority, etc. When we ‘need x for y’ or ‘need x for not z’ we are saying two things. We are saying that x is good or z is bad and we are saying that without x we’ll not get y or we’ll not avoid z. So when I hear claims like “we don’t need a Magesterium” that means either, “Magesteriums” aren’t good (and so not needed) or the good they provide can be acquired by another means (and so aren’t needed). One good they provide mentioned by Galli is resolution in doctrinal disputes. But as you quote him “we don’t need premature closure…” and we do “need confidence in the Holy Spirit”. Why can’t premature closure be avoided and confidence in the Holy Spirit acquired by having a Magesterium? And isn’t denying the Magesterium’s Aristotelian necessity to avoid this bad and acquire this good entirely contrary to the empirical, historical evidence about the Christian communities through time?

13. Mark Galli November 22nd, 2011 10:47 am :

    Again, some strong points. A quick reply.

    We have to distinguish between ongoing issues that we are still wrestling with, and issues that have been settled. It seems clear to me that we have a consensus among Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox on matters like the Trinity, that Scripture is authoritative, that baptism is THE initiation rite, and not a few others. Not uniformity, but certainly a strong, overwhelming concensus. So on “Protestantism” vs. Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy there is no consensus. The church is still working through the matters that separate us. I am assuming we will, in fact, be able to work though some of those, and some of those differences will be with us until the parousia.

    Again, it’s not majoritarianism, but consensus, and consensus over time. Consensus means near unanimity (assuming that in this life, we will never get complete unanimity on anything). So the fact that the Arians were in the majority for a period–and they definitely were–suggests nothing about this argument from consensus. There was always a vigorous and outspoken minority–orthodoxy–that fought and eventually won on those points. But Arianism was never the consensus.

    It’s not a matter of what I believe or would like to believe that defines the consensus, but the actual, historical theological consensus that I submit to and give myself to. T.D. Jakes is not wrong on the Trinity because he is going against some magisterial pronouncement, but because he fails to grasp the biblical and theological arguments for the Trinity that have emerged, which the magisterium itself relies on to make its pronouncements.

    Otherwise you have to end every conversation with “Rome said it, I believe it, that settles it, end of conversation” If I can put it perjoratively :-) This strikes me as unbiblical in content and tone. I will grant that Catholics believe that the magisterium is led by the Holy Spirit, but I would argue that it is not biblically or historically coherent to put all one’s epistemological eggs in that one basket.

    But of course, we’re going to disagree on this matter because of our starting points. But if the basis of authority (institutional vs. dynamic) was easy to decide, we wouldn’t continue to have a split between Catholics and Protestants. In fact, I see strong and coherent arguments for both points of view, and I think we need both POVs in Christendom to keep us both honest. We will find out who was “right” when we meet Jesus–though I suspect we both are to some extent. In the meantime, I wish you all well.

14. Randy November 22nd, 2011 11:34 am :

    So what happened at the reformation?

    1. the reformation did not break any historical theological consensus

    2. The reformation is an exception to this rule about not breaking historical theological consensus

    3. the reformation was wrong

    Is there any other choice I have not thought of?

15. Andrew Preslar November 22nd, 2011 11:45 am :

    Mark,

    I also think that recognizing consensus over time, along the lines of St. Vincent’s canon (which you alluded to in your first comment), is a way that we can distinguish between authentic developments of doctrine and corruptions. I am intrigued that you refer to the “hyperbole” in the Vincentian Canon, and I agree (with what you seem to be implying) that it needs careful qualification in order to be useful. Otherwise, for example, anyone who disagrees with doctrines and practices within the ambit of hitherto prevailing consensus can come along, gather followers, and then proclaim that no consensus obtains on those matters. Obviously, this would render the appeal to consensus tautological, and therefore useless. There are other ways of rendering tautological the appeal to consensus, and I think that we should avoid those as well. Mike Liccione wrote about this a few years ago in his post, “Of what use is the Vincentian Canon?”

    We all have to end every conversation with something. With respect to defining the doctrinal content of divine revelation, that something can be called the “ultimate interpretive authority.” Yes, the ultimate interpretive authority for Catholics is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. We have tried to understand who serves as such an authority for the Protestant, and, on the whole, it looks like the buck stops with the individual Protestant. And I definitely would not put all my eggs in that basket. Maybe we do disagree on our starting points, but it seems to me that our different ending points, i.e., where does the buck stop in Bible interpretation, are even more critical. Along the way, we all want to consider all of the relevant data, and to be as objective as possible in so considering. Catholics try to do this no less than (though in a different mode from) Protestants. Its just that, when it comes time to make a stand, we ultimately rely on different interpretive authorities. (By the way, thanks for noting how the Magisterium takes into account the biblical and theological arguments, i.e., the work of exegetes and theologians, in its act of defining doctrine. Some folks seem to think that doctrinal definitions are made up out of thin air!)

    Andrew

16. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2011 12:21 pm :

    Mark, (re: #13)

    I agree with you that there is common ground between Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants on certain doctrinal issues. That common ground is something I’m thankful for, and it provides us with a shared resource for ecumenical dialogue. But without a magisterium, not only has nothing been settled, but nothing can be settled, because nothing can be authoritatively determined and defined. Taking Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants as constituting “the church” is arbitrary; it arbitrarily excludes all the other groups that are part of Christian history (see Diagram 2 and Diagram 3 in “Branches or Schisms?“). So there is no basis for claiming that what is common ground between Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants is settled, if there is no magisterium. You are making this common ground seem settled by consensus only by arbitrarily and magisterially excluding all other voices (except Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants) from who gets to count as having a say in what is and isn’t settled.

    If, for example, the later rise of iconoclasts in the sixteenth century means that the question of iconoclasm was not settled at the Seventh Ecumenical Council in Nicea in AD 787, then it is arbitrary to claim to Jehovah’s Witnesses that the question of the Son being homoousious with the Father was settled at Nicea in AD 325. You might reply that between the Seventh Council and the sixteenth century there was some very small minority of Christians who remained iconoclasts, but there have also always been Arians from the fourth century down to the present day, so that would preclude excluding Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    You wrote:

    Again, it’s not majoritarianism, but consensus, and consensus over time. Consensus means near unanimity (assuming that in this life, we will never get complete unanimity on anything). … It’s not a matter of what I believe or would like to believe that defines the consensus, but the actual, historical theological consensus that I submit to and give myself to.

    Consensus as a criterion for truth or for what has been ‘settled’ by the Holy Spirit is worthless unless there is some objective standard by which we first know among whom there is or needs to be a consensus. That’s because otherwise a consensus can be achieved simply by arbitrarily excluding those who disagree with one’s own position from among those who get to have a voice in the matter. So whenever you appeal to consensus, you always have to provide with it not only an answer to the “Consensus among whom?” question, but also a principled, non ad hoc basis for why those persons (and not others) are included among the “whom” within which there is or is to be a consensus. And you seem to be including among those who have a voice only Catholics, Orthodox, and most Protestants. The problem with making those three groups the set of persons who get to have a voice in the consensus is that it is entirely arbitrary, because it arbitrarily excludes many other voices (both in the present and in history) of persons who call themselves Christian.

    I don’t know why you think that a question being settled by the magisterium is “unbiblical.” That’s precisely why I pointed to the example of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The subsequent councils looked back to the Jerusalem Council as a biblical precedent. But if an ecumenical council could not possibly settle a particular question, how could emergent “biblical and theological arguments” in themselves settle any question once and for all? Any biblical or theological arguments, as such, could always potentially be overturned by ‘better,’ newer, biblical and theological arguments. That’s exactly how Protestants view Martin Luther’s ‘discovery’ of justification by faith alone. Alister McGrath has pointed out that the notion of justification by “faith alone” was unknown from the time of St. Paul to the Reformation, calling it a “genuine theological novum.” According to McGrath, the Council of Trent “maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process — the event of being declared to be righteous through the work of Christ and the process of being made righteous through the internal work of the Holy Spirit.” (Reformation Thought, 1993, p. 115) The point is that Protestantism as such depends for the very authenticity of its existence on the perpetual openness to the discovery of new biblical and theological arguments that overturn centuries of unanimous thought and practice, to take us back to what the Apostles themselves actually thought, but that had been lost through the centuries. So to claim that something can be settled by “biblical and theological arguments” seems to be incompatible with Protestantism itself.

    I would argue that it is not biblically or historically coherent to put all one’s epistemological eggs in that one basket.

    I would like to see that argument.

    We will find out who was “right” when we meet Jesus

    Indeed. But I hope we both share an urgency to seek out the truth regarding this question now, and not to wait until we stand before the Judgment seat of Christ, before whom we must give an account for all those whom we have aided in truth or misled. So much hangs on this. In light of the schisms that divide us, we need to be actively and diligently pursuing reconciliation for the sake of the unity of all Christians, and for the sake of our witness to the world regarding the truth and power of the gospel of Christ to unite men supernaturally in one faith, one baptism, and one visible ecclesial government — a city set on a hill, one flock with one shepherd. Thanks again for your time and willingness to dialogue. May Christ bring us into full visible unity, and may we be instruments in this work for His glory.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

17. Aaron Goodrich November 22nd, 2011 12:41 pm :

    Hello Mark,
    Thanks for being willing to interact with us here. I have a few questions regarding your post #13. It seems that you are investing something you refer to as the “consensus of the Church over time” with some kind of authority. Leaving aside the issue of who actually constitutes “the Church,” I am curious, is this “consensus of the Church over time” fallible? If it were in fact fallible (which I assume is your position?), then all Mr. T.D. Jakes has to say is that the doctrine of the Trinity is one (among others, presumably) of those “consensuses of the Church over time” that happened to be wrong; you would disagree and we are back to individual interpretation. This would seem to rule out any invocation of anything called “the consensus of the Church over time” as in any way determinative as to what is, as opposed to what is not, orthodox Christian belief.

    On another note, it seems to me, echoing what Mr. Jensen said in #10 above, that if the doctrine of the Trinity has been sufficiently settled by “the consensus of the Church over time,” then, other issues aside, the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine would have to by the same criteria be likewise sufficiently settled, no?

    Shalom,

    Aaron Goodrich

18. Jesse November 22nd, 2011 12:51 pm :

    One complication here is that many of the areas on which Protestants and Catholics agree (Trinity, Hypostatic Union) were areas of fierce disagreement among the early Church, while some areas where Protestants and Catholics disagree (Regeneration in Baptism, Real Presence) were consensus among the Early Church.

19. Chad Steiner November 22nd, 2011 1:31 pm :

    Mark (#13),

    Thank you for another thoughtful contribution. In my mind, your parting comment in #8 about getting clear about the particulars of our disagreement is spot on. If I or others here in the comments between have misunderstood your points, please do be forthcoming.

    I confess to wondering the same question Bryan implies:

    I don’t know why you think that a question being settled by the magisterium is “unbiblical.”

    It occurs to me that part of the reason you believe it is unbiblical has to do with assumptions you may be making about Jesus’ statement in John 16:12-13, coming as it does in the midst of his several-chapters-long discourse in the upper room. You allude to this statement (in John 16:12-13) in the subtitle of your own post at CT: ‘Why the Spirit, not the magisterium, will lead us into all truth.’

    John 16:12-13 12 ¶ “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”

    Here is a place where exegetical context and precision are especially key (Catholics and Protestants unite!). Jesus’ statement about ‘the Spirit leading you into all truth’ is not an annunciation directed toward the Church as a whole (though the way you are using the phrase in your subtitle implies that it is directed to the Church as a whole). The ‘you’ whom the Spirit will lead, if it includes the laity at all, does so include them only by extension. In the text, however, Jesus directs this statement expressly to the apostles who are with him in the upper room and to no one else, as they privately recline together at table. The most natural assumption, if we had no other text, would be to suppose that whatever development of doctrinal truth accrues to the wider Church, and especially the laity, does so specifically from the apostles and the successors they are authorized to appoint, as they dispense it, having received it themselves directly from the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus promised. When we do introduce other texts (e.g. the so-called “Great Commission” in Matt 28), these only corroborate the sequence of the transmission of doctrinal content: from those commissioned to those who are not.

    The upshot is that the biblical reference in your subtitle raises an exegetical point which seems to run across the grain of the main point of your article. The Holy Spirit will guide the magisterium into all truth, just as Jesus promises throughout John 14-16. When you then write,

    We don’t need a magisterium. We already have a Lord, who told us that not even the gates of Hades (whose landlord loves to sows confusion in the church!) will prevail against the church.

    this only begs a question about what else our Lord has also said, having said many other things. Answering such a question becomes difficult to the degree we should be committed to the very preceding statement in your article:

    Of course the center will hold, because at the center is not a doctrine, nor some human authority figure, nor a complete and inerrant statement of faith. There is only the Center, Jesus Christ.

    It is not the case, on the witness of the Bible’s own plain statements throughout John 14-16 that ‘[t]here is only the center.’ Jesus himself takes the authority he receives from the Father and gives it specifically to his apostles to lead the Church forward.

    I remain curious whether a closer look at the biblical text to which your subtitle appeals tempers your perspective at all. If I’m overlooking something, I’m sure you will set it right. Thanks again Mark for continuing this amicable exchange.

    Pax,

    Chad

20. Mark Galli November 22nd, 2011 1:33 pm :

    My last comment! :-)

    A reminder: Luther did not leave the Catholic church, the church excommunicated him, leaving him no choice but to challenge the medievel consensus outside the magisterium. It is interesting to note today how appreciative most Catholic theologians are of Luther and how he brought the church back to its senses in many ways. A perfect example of the Holy Spirit working in the church outside the magisterium it seems to me :-)

    And if I may speak frankly with brothers in Christ: this search for an “objective” standard of truth can easily become a form of idolatry and self-justification–instead of giving oneself in full and radical trust to Jesus Christ as he comes to us in the Holy Spirit. That he comes to us through Word and Sacrament in the body of Christ I do not doubt (and regularly teach). But I fear my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters so equate the authority of the church with the authority of God, the church has become an idol to some. Present company excluded, of course.

    Again, I grant that we may have to agree to disagree.

21. Mark Galli November 22nd, 2011 2:05 pm :

    Okay, one more comment! I have to say that I admire the depth and thoughtfulness of people on this blog. What a fine model of loving God with one’s mind. I trust you’ll continue to argue vigorously for the capital “C” Catholic faith, because the riches there are indeed deep and wide, and the rest of Christendom needs them.

    Blessings.

    Mark

22. Andrew Preslar November 22nd, 2011 2:07 pm :

    Mark,

    Thanks for dropping by. I have similar misgivings about how some conservative Protestants regard their own interpretation of Scripture. Thankfully, we are not caught in a dilemma between doctrinal skepticism and idolatry of either self or ecclesia. We can submit to divinely-appointed authority, and rest assured that in so doing we do not denigrate the majesty and authority of God. The question remains, when it comes to identifying the doctrinal content of Sacred Scripture, is the Church ultimately subject to private interpretation, or vice versa? In this light, we see that Luther did in fact have a choice. I agree that Luther had much to offer the Church, as is being recognized by many contemporary Catholic theologians. Would that he had offered it in submission to instead of prideful contempt of her authority.

    Andrew

23. Chad Steiner November 22nd, 2011 2:32 pm :

    Mark (#20),

    I second Andrew’s appreciation for popping by, though I truly hope it will not be your last comment. I suspect that we submitted #19 and #20 almost simultaneously. I tried to respond to the dichotomy in your second paragraph of #20 above in #19, and I’ll remain open to being shown whether I’ve mistaken your point.

    About the reminder in your first paragraph, I’m always a bit puzzled when I hear this popular caveat regarding the historical situation surrounding Luther, which simply misdraws the chronology of events. Luther adopted an epistemology (to say nothing of his tone) incompatible with the authority Jesus vested in the magisterium prior to his excommunication, as the publication of his 95 Theses in 1517 demonstrates. The fact of the matter is that he did have a choice about how to address the problems he (rightly) identified prior to his excommunication (which did not take place until 1521). But rather than take up the sacramental means of correction and healing Jesus has given the Church, he chose to arrogate to himself the prerogative to pursue it in an academic context outside of these. This decision constitutes a willful act to walk out from under the ‘one holy catholic and apostolic Church’ by discarding the very apostolic authority Jesus gave to those among whom Luther was not included, though Luther’s decision would not be formalized until much later (and after he had been given ample opportunity to back up).

    It was for his own leave-taking–not before his own leave-taking–that he was excommunicated.

    We get into this discussion a bit here, and in #106 and #129 and some of the comments in between.

    Lastly and as earnestly as I may, it should concern us when we decide to throw up our hands and ‘agree to disagree’, since our Lord wants his Church rather to ‘agree’ (1 Cor 1:10). I grant it’s slow, hard work, but let’s keep trying to get to the bottom of things, and specifically, to discern whether the counterstatements we offer to each other work (i.e. whether they respond to and resolve the objection), or whether they fail to work. If we should discover that they fail to work, then let’s come up with better ones and try again until we can’t come with ones that work, and then let’s change our minds.

    Pax,

    Chad

24. Fr. Bryan Ochs November 22nd, 2011 2:48 pm :

    Dear Mark,

    I’ve enjoyed this exchange. Thank you for your participation. I am one who recognizes the good that God pulled out of all that was bad in the protestant reformation. But that is what God does. He pulls good things out of bad things. Martin Luther’s protest was objectively bad. But, God pulled goodness out of it.

    One thing that repeatedly seems to pop up in your reasoning is this false dilemma that the authority of the magisterium is somehow opposed to the authority of God. That “Giving yourself over” to the objective standards that are found in the Catholic Church is opposed to “Giving yourself over” to Jesus Christ. Obviously, we Catholics don’t agree. We see that God has shared his authority with people in the Church. Just like God shares his own ability to create new life with men and women. Just like God shares his own ability to forgive sins with the disciples gathered at the end of John’s Gospel. Just like God shared his ability to speak with the men who wrote the Bible.

    Do you disagree that God shares some of his own works and abilities with people? What is your principled reason for distinguishing which of these works and abilities he has shared with those he hasn’t shared?

25. John Thayer Jensen November 22nd, 2011 2:50 pm :

    @Mark:

    Luther did not leave the Catholic church, the church excommunicated him, leaving him no choice but to challenge the medievel consensus outside the magisterium.

    Er… no choice at all? He didn’t have the possibility of submitting?

    jj

26. donald todd November 22nd, 2011 3:25 pm :

    Mark,

    First, I read your missive. I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically. I found that Acts was primarily about Peter and Paul and what they were doing. I found that consistent with Paul’s note that “first there are apostles.” I found the apostles doing things never before done (opening salvation up to everyone), under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Whose coming was guaranteed by Jesus, Who told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem until they were given power from on high.

    Once this occurred, I found the Church under the apostles fulfilling the dual needs of the temple (sacrifice and rites) and of governance (the kingdom), with the apostles in general as associate high priests and Peter in particular fulfilling the positions of chamberlain (the keys or governance) and chief associate high priest (the sacrifice and the rites) in service of our Lord. I determined that through scripture and saw the old covenant and its functions being perfected in the new covenant.

    Even as an evangelical I could not conceive of God being different from day to day or person to person. That was what made the incoherence of the yellow pages under Church so problematic. Your missive reminded me that my old position made God the author of chaos. He was put in the position of being responsible for different people and different organizations believing competing and incompatible things. Was God being truthful to me while lying to someone else? Hard idea to grasp if Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

    I continually look for the truth, and your explanation did not satisfy that hunger.

    You are the second person visiting this site who has tried to excuse Luther, at least in part by misrepresentation. I read Luther and the history of Germany when I was leaving evangelicalism and found his writings and conduct reprehensible. History notes that Luther left the Church long before he was excommunicated.

    Cordially,

    dt

27. David Anders November 22nd, 2011 3:29 pm :

    Fascinating!

    I find it interesting that Mark considers it is a form of idolatry to desire certainty concerning the content of the faith.

    I find that this contrasts rather sharply with what Calvin held.

    Consider the following excerpt from his Short Treatise on the Holy Supper:

    “As the holy sacrament of the Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ has long been the subject of several important errors, and in these past years been anew enveloped in diverse opinions and contentious disputes, it is no wonder if many weak consciences cannot fairly resolve what view they ought to take of it, but remain in doubt and perplexity, waiting till all contention being laid aside, the servants of God come to some agreement upon it. However, as it is a very perilous thing to have no certainty on an ordinance, the understanding of which is so requisite for our salvation, I have thought it might be a very useful labour to treat briefly and, nevertheless, clearly deduce a summary of what is necessary to be known of it.”

28. John Thayer Jensen November 22nd, 2011 4:43 pm :

    @Mark:
    I’m afraid I still don’t understand. You say:

    Again, it’s not majoritarianism, but consensus, and consensus over time. Consensus means near unanimity (assuming that in this life, we will never get complete unanimity on anything). So the fact that the Arians were in the majority for a period–and they definitely were–suggests nothing about this argument from consensus. There was always a vigorous and outspoken minority–orthodoxy–that fought and eventually won on those points. But Arianism was never the consensus.

    Near unanimity amongst whom. Amongst those who call themselves Christians? Like the Mormons? Amongst all men and women? Like the Muslims?

    Somehow, this just seems to me circular. If we are having a meeting in room, consensus, in your (perfectly reasonable) definition, obviously means agreement amongst us who are in the room.

    You also raise the point of timing. There was a time, apparently, when there was an Arian consensus amongst Arians – then there were fewer Arians. There certainly was a time when there was a consensus amongst self-named Christians on most Catholic doctrines, including the primacy of the Papacy – and then – again, amongst self-named Christians – there wasn’t.

    And, as I said, I don’t even know what the group of persons is that you think consensus must exist amongst. All men? All self-named Christians? All Trinitarians – but then, isn’t this circular? You have – arbitrarily, if consensus is the criterion – defined Christian as Trinitarian.

    As I said, I don’t understand, am perhaps just muddled – but I would love to know how you escape what certainly seems to me a radical and tight circularity in your usage of the criterion of consensus.

    jj

29. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2011 5:21 pm :

    Mark (re: #20)

    I don’t want to pile on, because I know it can feel overwhelming when many people express various disagreements and objections. Even if most of us are expressing some disagreement with you, please know that there’s no hostility — we really want to get to the bottom of this, as Chad put it. We embrace you as a brother in Christ (albeit separated), but we deeply want this separation to be over, to be something our children read about in the history books, no longer to be experienced when we go up to receive the Eucharist. It still pains me, five years later, whenever I receive, because of my Protestant brothers and sisters (and blood relatives) now separated from me. So our motivation for raising these objections is not to be belligerent or argumentative, but only to get to the bottom of what still divides us, and through the Holy Spirit, to remove those obstacles to reunion.

    You wrote:

    this search for an “objective” standard of truth can easily become a form of idolatry and self-justification–instead of giving oneself in full and radical trust to Jesus Christ as he comes to us in the Holy Spirit. That he comes to us through Word and Sacrament in the body of Christ I do not doubt (and regularly teach). But I fear my Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters so equate the authority of the church with the authority of God, the church has become an idol to some. Present company excluded, of course.

    I want to understand why you think that the search for objective [theological] truth, and trust in the magisterium of the Church, is (or can be) idolatrous. I included the word ‘theological’ because I assume you don’t think the search for objective mathematical truth is idolatrous, or the search for objective biological truth is idolatrous, etc. Rather, I presume you think that the search for objective theological truth is idolatrous when (1) it relies on some creature (whether human reason, or a magisterium) rather than relying on Christ alone, or (2) it seeks to try to know something that (in your opinion) Christ has not [yet] revealed. And in your mind, trust in a creature in the practice of religion, at least when that trust seeks to go beyond what God has revealed, is idolatrous. Is that an accurate description of why you think that the search for an “objective” standard of doctrinal truth and trust in the authority of the magisterium to adjudicate doctrinal questions, is idolatrous?

    If so, it seems to me that your claim depends on a Protestant way of conceiving of the authority of the magisterium and of the working of the Spirit in the development of doctrine. When the first Christians followed Christ by following the Apostles, they weren’t being idolaters, precisely because, as Jesus said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me.” (Luke 10:16) And “he who receives whomever I send receives Me” (John 13:20) So to listen to the Apostles, was to listen to Jesus, not because the Apostles were Jesus, but because He had authorized them to speak in His Name, i.e. with His authority, as His ambassadors. And given a Catholic understanding of apostolic succession (see the second footnote above), that authority was handed down to the bishops who succeeded the Apostles, and is handed down to this day, as they continue to exposit the deposit of faith, condemning heresy and defining orthodoxy, not introducing new revelation but plumbing the depths of the apostolic deposit in what we call the development of doctrine. (See our post on St. Vincent of Lérins’ teaching concerning the development of doctrine.) So if in the first century it was not idolatrous to obey the Apostles as an act of faith by which one obeyed Christ, then, given the truth of apostolic succession, it is not idolatrous to obey the successors of the Apostles (i.e. the magisterium) as an act of faith by which one obeys Christ. So, it seems to me therefore, that your idolatry objection depends on whether or not apostolic succession is true, and in fact depends on apostolic succession being false. Does that seem right to you?

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

30. Brent November 22nd, 2011 5:46 pm :

    Mark,

    I know this comment may go beyond the statute of limitation given your recent exit, but I will leave it for the sake of anyone else reading this discussion as well. I write as someone who always worshiped within “orthodoxy” inside the evangelical world (well, maybe…Do you consider evangelical Pentecostalism orthodoxy? How about non-denominational charismatic led by a former baptist minister?–maybe I’m introducing something precarious about this whole discussion). I may have leaned more Reformed in my theology, but I never worshiped with those communions. In turn, I find your attitude one of the reasons I began to question evangelical Christianity. The desire for truth is not a desire for objectivity in the modern sense of “objectivity” meaning an inhuman, scientific vantage free from all personal commitments, predispositions, etc. Instead, the desire for truth is grounded in love for God, who is Truth. It means when questions go unanswered, we knock, seek, and ask. For example, a question I found troubling was, “Why am I not Catholic?”

    In your comments, you seem to be demonstrating what I will call “excuse determinism”. Another phrase that would work is “false eschatalogical hope” or “modern deconstructionist theory lightening the cross”.

    What I mean is this: when one is faced with truth or a lie, saying “we will find out” is an excuse when one cannot make a good defense or commit one’s life to understand the defense of their position and/or the reasonableness of the counter-position. It’s the “I’ll-stay-at-home-it-is-safer” retreat (not defense). Moreover, to follow Christ to the end–to put one’s hand to the plow faithfully–isn’t to say “we will find out” in an unfalsifiable position of assumed certainty of uncertainty in the present that projects a course of apathy in the future. It turns our Lord’s words into: “You won’t know the truth, but hang in there, there’s a lot of freedom to be had on the journey”. It is the cause for your current emergent mess.

    Also, who is to say Protestants are a part of the “consensus”? You assume that Protestantism/Protestants existed for most of the history of which you rely upon as “history”. Your redacted list of the “always believed” doctrines are precisely due to your inclusion of Protestantism–for to remove them would be to include a whole list of doctrines you would resist. What becomes even more problematic is that the actual means of salvation is NOT a consensus in “Protestantism”–whatever that is (I agree with Belloc that it is not a “thing”). To be a Protestant is one thing: to reject the authority of consensus, history, or a hybrid that you are arguing for in favor of personal conviction regarding that which I think is Biblical teaching. Tell the fastest growing Christian sects in the world, sects who reject the necessity of baptism for salvation that they are “missing the consensus”. They will laugh and build another mega-church.

    The attitude of “excuse determinism” is like a Jew in the 1st century saying, “We follow G-d, so we shall see at the judgment what this Jesus fellow was about”. If the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded, then it is not some theory we are debating but the very mission and work of Christ.

    Lastly, your “institution vs. dynamic” dilemma is a false one. There is nothing about an institution that cannot be dynamic if it is established by Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit. I think the dilemma you are observing but inaccurately identifying is the Apostolic and Orderly vs. Non-Apostolic and Disorderly. Sin is in both, but the Holy Spirit is not, per se, interested in the success of both.

    Your separated brother,

    Brent

31. Herbert November 22nd, 2011 7:15 pm :

    Mark Galli- Just when things are getting interesting, you say “my last comment.” I am so interested to hear where this conversation could go. I would like to encourage you, for the sake of our witness to the unbelieving world, to remain open to dialoguing with the writers here at Called to Communion! Peace to you! Herbert Vanderlugt

32. alito de los santos November 23rd, 2011 5:19 am :

    I’m a ‘Filipino’ Catholic from the Philippines and I really find your conversation/dialogue very interesting. Thank you for having such conversations…

    In Christ,

    Alito

33. Mark Galli November 23rd, 2011 9:13 am :

    Herb and others, I do apologize if it seems like I’m running from the conversation. I mean no offense or petulance! But one only has so much time and the level of argument would require responses that would in turn require more reading and thinking. And I’m afraid right now other topics are demanding that type of attention from me at this time. I have no doubt that I would learn something in conversation with you all–and in fact have learned much already. I am glad to be aware of this website, and will surely pop in from time to time, and maybe even pop-off! If any of you are visiting the western Chicago suburbs, I’d love to have coffee and hear your story. Blessings!

34. David Meyer November 23rd, 2011 9:15 am :

    I second Herbert. My heart sank when I checked this morning and saw your “last” comment. Mark, I just converted to Catholicism last December. What drove me was the unity problem I see among Christ’s followers. You seem to also know the problem. I spent months trying to get answers from Protestant sources for my questions, and most often they do not want to discuss it because they think they won’t change my mind. I think that is a bad reason, and I have shown I can change my mind (as have most of the commentors on this site!) I have been Pentecostal, Reformed, and now Catholic, so I can change my mind.

    So please don’t give up. Engage Bryan Cross’ comment and do the real work of unity. Please don’t give it to the “we will find out in the end who was right” attitude. The unity of Christendom is too important to give up so easily. If you need a more practical reason, there are hundreds of people who “lurk” on this blog who are considering conversion to Catholicism and questioning things. They are looking for reasons to not convert from authorities from their tradition like you. Don’t let them down.

35. Brent November 23rd, 2011 11:36 am :

    Dear Mark,

    Thank you for being willing to dialog this far. We all understand that the internal dialog continues and hope you think more about what we have written. I assure you, the “firestorm” of responses were not motivated by any personal contempt but rather that your words in so many ways mirrored our own previously held beliefs and/or were reasons for questioning more deeply our presuppositions. In other words, these were the questions and/or responses we leveled against ourselves.

    The “why am I ______?” question is a question that is beginning to crop up amongst Protestants of all kinds. It is an existential question that is no longer nurtured by a Protestant culture that insulated itself from criticism and perpetuated itself with relative success over the last 200 years in the USA and abroad. This is not unique to Protestantism, for this is the exact question many asked almost 500 years ago and fled to Geneva or elsewhere. Yet the Catholic history will read something like this: Counter Reformation–>fragmentation of the Protestant rebels—>The Return of the glory of the Church right at the moment when the culture She raised up has been completely trampled under foot–just in time for persecution.

    We all (you and I) feel the pressure of that culture being extinguished (natural law, dignity of the family, credibility of the belief in God, the right to religious conscience, etc.), and in times like these–times of war, it is not normal for men to change footing. However, how can a good Christian stand? Must he continue to schism from his ecclesial body, watching it decay, so that he, himself, can be the securer of orthodoxy? No denomination within Protestantism seems immune from the poison of heresy which would necessitate such a sandy footing.. When the Universal pastor of the Church of Jesus Christ (Pope Benedict XVI) was here visiting just a few years ago, he said this to the religious leaders gathered:

    “Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions” that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia – communion with the Church in every age – is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

    He continues:

    For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living.

    The Catholic Church is the ark God has provided to weather the storm to heaven. We can make our own canoes and appear, at moments, to be afloat, to be riding the current above the storm. However, as the society closes in around us, no longer indifferent to our presentation of “objective truth” but instead putting forward a totalitarian regime of relativism–a certainty of uncertainty regarding the judgment of competing truth claims–the canoes will break; even the Ark will seem to teeter. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church is indefectible and infallible, empowered by the Holy Spirit and fed on the Body and Blood of Christ. Through that storm, she will emerge from the blood-bath of martyrdom–like her Head–glorious, rising to heaven to be with Her groom–without spot or wrinkle.

    Peace to you on your journey,

    Brent

36. Jason Stewart November 23rd, 2011 12:33 pm :

    Mark, I’m a former minister of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). I was pastor of a congregation in eastern Pennsylvania for just over five years. My wife and I entered into full communion with the Catholic Church at the beginning of 2011. If you’d be willing, I’m happy to take you up on that cup of coffee and conversation. We now live in Rockford, so meeting up wouldn’t be too difficult.

37. Brandon Vogt November 23rd, 2011 2:37 pm :

    What a great discussion! I know I’m jumping in too late for a response, Mark, and I hesitate to add more to the “objection pile”, but one of your statements in comment #13 left me confused:

    “Again, it’s not majoritarianism, but consensus, and consensus over time. Consensus means near unanimity (assuming that in this life, we will never get complete unanimity on anything). So the fact that the Arians were in the majority for a period–and they definitely were–suggests nothing about this argument from consensus. There was always a vigorous and outspoken minority–orthodoxy–that fought and eventually won on those points. But Arianism was never the consensus.”

    Even without challenging your paradigm for determining objective truth–which seems to be historical consensus–why wouldn’t this force you to the Catholic Church? Echoing TC (Comment #9), doctrines like the Real Presence of the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and (most important in this discussion) apostolic succession and magisterial authority, were accepted by the large majority of Christians through the large majority of history– the closest we have to “always and everywhere by everyone.”

    Likewise, if the sixteenth-century Reformers operated on the basis of historical consensus, they too would never have left the Catholic Church.

38. Hermonta Godwin November 23rd, 2011 5:14 pm :

    Hello,
    I am a Reformed Christian and have a couple on this discussion.

    1) It really seems like the argumentation given by the Catholics here and elsewhere only work on the assumption of a post modern worldview being the only option outside of Catholicism. The only objective reason to not be an Arian etc. is because the magisterium ruled on the issue. It cannot be that a reason to reject Arianism is that it cannot hold up to a sustained interrogation using General and Special Revelation. There is no way to gain access to reality, so one has to just trust that the magisterium is correct.

    2)My view of consensus is simply the view held after a period of argumentation. Consensus changes overtime as holes are shown in the majority opinion, and people begin to reject it looking for something else. The Holy Spirit guides the individual and the church as they work through the various arguments for or against some position.

39. Bryan Cross November 23rd, 2011 5:46 pm :

    Hello Hermonta,

    Welcome to Called To Communion. If the matters in question were knowable by the natural light of reason, or if the charism of illumination were given in equal measure by the Holy Spirit to all who named the name of Christ, then a magisterium would not be necessary. But, we are dealing not primarily with truth knowable by reason alone (e.g. 2+2=4), but with supernatural revelation, which is not knowable by the natural light of reason; grace is necessary for the intellect to assent, and this is why faith is a gift of God. Moreover, in His wisdom Christ set up His Church such that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church through an established hierarchy, rather than directly and immediately from heaven to the heart of each person. The Montanists of the late second / early third centuries erred in just this way, by assuming that they followed the Spirit directly, immediately, in their hearts apart from and independently of the magisterium. The fact that Christ did not set up His Church in the Montanist anti-magisterial manner is easily demonstrated by the widespread disagreement and incompatible beliefs held throughout Christian history by those who name the Name of Christ and claim to be following the Holy Spirit, whom Christ calls the Spirit of Truth.

    As for your claim about consensus, it suffers the same problem as Mark’s, pointed out both in the body of the post above, and in comments #11 and #16.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

40. John Thayer Jensen November 23rd, 2011 6:11 pm :

    @Hermonta – the problem of consensus is, consensus amongst whom? There is perhaps nothing on which every single human being on the face of the earth agrees – and certainly not on such topics as the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union. So unless you know in advance what group consensus must be found within – ‘consensus’ is circular.

    jj

41. Hermonta Godwin November 23rd, 2011 6:15 pm :

    Hello Bryan,
    Oh there have been multiple disagreements throughout church history is no question. The question is whether or not those disagreements can/are squashed when the magisterium say, “the discussion is closed”, or if the arguments that are the basis of the ruling does the heavy lifting?

    That various disputes get into issues that can only be known by special revelation, is only a problem depending on how much one can know by General Revelation and what that knowledge can rule out before even getting into what the Bible says.

    The problem of the Montanists (as far as a quick Wiki read says) was not that they were outside of the Magisterium, it was that they supported an unsupportable position.

    As far as I can tell, posts 11 and 16, are only a problem if one holds to a postmodern worldview being the case if one does not hold to Catholicism. I don’t believe such.

    One question for you is: On What basis do you believe that a large number of issues are undecidable outside of a magisterium. It seems that your position necessitates the claim that not only are various issues undecided, but that they are in principle undecidable.

    On a last note, I am not against hierarchy, teachers etc. I am Presbyterian. I do reject the belief that the job of the hierarchy is simply to tell us what to believe, but not to get into why that is the case.

    Thank you for the response,

    Hermonta

42. Hermonta Godwin November 23rd, 2011 6:23 pm :

    Mr. Jensen,
    In a way I agree with your position on consensus. Consensus is a symptom of the current philosophical and theological landscape. If one’s arguments hold, then the consensus will come. If they don’t then the consensus will fall apart. Simple trying to do a headcount is a fool’s game.

43. John Thayer Jensen November 23rd, 2011 6:33 pm :

    @Hermonta:

    In a way I agree with your position on consensus. Consensus is a symptom of the current philosophical and theological landscape. If one’s arguments hold, then the consensus will come. If they don’t then the consensus will fall apart. Simple trying to do a headcount is a fool’s game.

    Probably I’m not understanding you, Hermonta, but what I meant was that consensus – which means general agreement – presupposes the group within which that ‘general agreement’ exists in order to call it ‘consensus.’ So … when you talk about consensus, you mean ‘general agreement’ within some group. What I don’t think I understand is how you define that group. Supposing the right view on the Trinity to require consensus. Within what group would you require agreement on the Trinity to exist in order to constitute consensus? There are many – the modern Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the “Jesus Only” crowd, the Muslims and the Mormons, would certainly not agree on the Trinity.

    jj

44. T Ciatoris November 23rd, 2011 6:43 pm :

    Hermonta,

    Your objections to the magisterium and its claim to be divinely authorized would make sense if the magisterium gave us the fides and then prohibited us from seeking intellectus. But that’s just what theology is: fides quaerens intellectum. The magisterium both encourages this and itself participates in it.

    But, like St Augustine said, “do not try to understand in order to believe, but believe in order to understand” (Homilies on the Gospel of John 29.6). There are things that the teaching office of the Church proposes that I believe out of submission to Christ. Some of these I have come to understand as well after wrestling with them. Some I’m still wrestling with. But the cart mustn’t come before the horse.

    best,
    TC

45. Hermonta Godwin November 23rd, 2011 6:53 pm :

    Mr. Jensen,
    I am not deriving my beliefs based on consensus being defined narrowly or being defined broadly. Let us imagine that 40% of the entire planet believes in the orthodox conception of the Trinity. That does not make me doubt the belief in the slightest. Either the position is true or it is not. Either the arguments for it, hold or they do not. If the arguments for it, answer the objections, then eventually that 40% will increase.

    Hermonta

46. Bryan Cross November 23rd, 2011 6:59 pm :

    Hermonta, (re: #41)

    You wrote:

    The question is whether or not those disagreements can/are squashed when the magisterium say, “the discussion is closed”,

    Yes, when the magisterium definitively determines a doctrine, then the question is closed by that authoritative act. See Lumen Gentium 25.

    or if the arguments that are the basis of the ruling does the heavy lifting?

    No. As I pointed out in my previous comment, the matters about which we are dealing are supernatural, and therefore human reason cannot by itself attain to them, or stand over them in judgment, let alone come up with definitive knock-down arguments that persuade all those who name the Name of Christ.

    The problem of the Montanists (as far as a quick Wiki read says) was not that they were outside of the Magisterium, it was that they supported an unsupportable position.

    If they supported it, then it wasn’t unsupportable. Seriously, though, every heresy and schism is ‘supportable’ in some respect, or it would have no attraction whatsoever. And the same is true of Montanism, which survived for a long time, and deceived even one of the Church’s best apologists, so much so that we have no evidence he recanted before he died. Theological questions are not merely logical problems or intellectual puzzles; they typically have all kinds of implications, both moral and spiritual. And sinful man can impose on the process of theological inquiry and deliberation a priori assumptions based on what he wants the result to be. Sin clouds the intellect. For that reason among other reasons, we should not assume that whatever the majority of scholars say is the truth about the matter.

    As far as I can tell, posts 11 and 16, are only a problem if one holds to a postmodern worldview being the case if one does not hold to Catholicism. I don’t believe such.

    Nope. The arguments I make in those two comments in no way depend on a ‘postmodern’ worldview.

    One question for you is: On What basis do you believe that a large number of issues are undecidable outside of a magisterium. It seems that your position necessitates the claim that not only are various issues undecided, but that they are in principle undecidable.

    First, Christ wouldn’t have established a magisterium if it weren’t necessary. Second, because what underlies the doctrinal disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is not an exegetical dispute to be cleared up eventually by just pointing out the exegetical errors in the other side’s work, but more fundamental principles that lie under the different hermeneutics, such as Sola Scriptura and the role of Sacred Tradition, as I have explained in “The Tradition and the Lexicon.” Third, we’ve been conducting a five hundred year experiment to see how convergence regarding theological disagreements works without a magisterium. It is called Protestantism. The disagreements have only grown, and the fragmentation accelerated to the point where now the fragmentation is so severe that people are abandoning denominations altogether and each person forms an eclectic mix of beliefs that he likes. (We discussed this somewhat in “A Reflection on PCA Pastor Terry Johnson’s “Our Collapsing Ecclesiology”.”) The claim that all doctrinal questions can be resolved by reason alone, without a magisterium, has been refuted by this five hundred year experiment. If you don’t agree, then how many more centuries of continuing fragmention and theological disagreement would it take to falsify the claim? If you can’t answer that question, then this shows that it is not a grounded claim, but a mere assumption without an empirical basis.

    On a last note, I am not against hierarchy, teachers etc. I am Presbyterian. I do reject the belief that the job of the hierarchy is simply to tell us what to believe, but not to get into why that is the case.

    I understand. But the Catholic notion is that the authority of teachers over oneself is not based on their agreement with oneself. Anyone can pick ‘an authority’ on the basis of that authority’s agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. But that’s not authority; that’s accumulating to oneself ear-itchers, who sometimes might itch in ways that one didn’t expect or don’t always like. The Catholic notion of magisterial authority is that this authority comes from Christ, through the Apostles, and then to those bishops the Apostles ordained, then to the bishops those bishops ordained, down through the centuries in an unbroken continuity to the bishops of the present day. (See footnote 2 in the post.) And if those bishops say that the job of the hierarchy is, among other things, to tell us what to believe concerning the deposit of faith, then that’s what their job is, and we aren’t going to second guess them about their job, because we don’t have apostolic authority.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

47. Hermonta Godwin November 23rd, 2011 7:03 pm :

    Hello TC,

    Let us imagine that I was born in a majority Muslim nation. Everyone I know is a Muslim. My elders give me this Augustine quote. How do you think this would turn out?

    As far as not knowing everything, I understand completely. I am the same way with Westminster. I have come to understand some things after struggle while other things I currently trust as I work them out.

48. John Thayer Jensen November 23rd, 2011 8:25 pm :

    @Hermonta:

    Mr. Jensen,
    I am not deriving my beliefs based on consensus being defined narrowly or being defined broadly. Let us imagine that 40% of the entire planet believes in the orthodox conception of the Trinity. That does not make me doubt the belief in the slightest. Either the position is true or it is not. Either the arguments for it, hold or they do not. If the arguments for it, answer the objections, then eventually that 40% will increase.

    Excellent! We are making progress. Neither do I base my belief in the Trinity on consensus.

    So … the question now is, on what do you base your belief in the Trinity?

    jj

49. Hermonta Godwin November 23rd, 2011 8:30 pm :

    I hope the formatting works.

    Bryan, (re: #46)

    The question is whether or not those disagreements can/are squashed when the magisterium say, “the discussion is closed”,

    Yes, when the magisterium definitively determines a doctrine, then the question is closed by that authoritative act. See Lumen Gentium 25.

    My question concerned the difference between squashing an idea or just removing it from your premises and allowing people to present that idea elsewhere.

    or if the arguments that are the basis of the ruling does the heavy lifting?

    No. As I pointed out in my previous comment, the matters about which we are dealing are supernatural, and therefore human reason cannot by itself attain to them, or stand over them in judgment, let alone come up with a definitive knock-down argument that persuades all those who name the Name of Christ.

    The ability to differentiate between the different supernatural claims are based on what is revealed in natural revelation/reason. Therefore certain supernatural claims can be ruled out due to what God has cleared revealed by the created order (Romans 1). So you would need to make a further argument that “this or that” claim is somehow completely unrelated to what is known by General Revelation.

    The problem of the Montanists (as far as a quick Wiki read says) was not that they were outside of the Magisterium, it was that they supported an unsupportable position.

    If they supported it, then it wasn’t unsupportable. Seriously, though, every heresy and schism is ‘supportable’ in some respect, or it would have no attraction whatsoever. And the same is true of Montanism, which survived for a long time, and deceived even one of the Church’s best apologists, so much so that we have no evidence he recanted before he died. Theological questions are not merely logical problems or intellectual puzzles; they typically have all kinds of implications, both moral and spiritual. And sinful man can impose on the process of theological inquiry and deliberation a priori assumptions based on what he wants the result to be. Sin clouds the intellect. For that reason among other reasons, we should not assume that whatever the majority of scholars say is the truth about the matter.

    No doubt, we should not call assign the title of truth to whatever a group of scholars, no matter how large, says.
    My point was that it was ultimately unsupportable. Various ideas can be prima fascia supportable for a while, but when one kicks the tires, flaws are exposed. We are responsible to know when the shepherd is speaking.

    As far as I can tell, posts 11 and 16, are only a problem if one holds to a postmodern worldview being the case if one does not hold to Catholicism. I don’t believe such.

    Nope. The arguments I make in those two comments in no way depend on a ‘postmodern’ worldview.

    I have yet to see a reason to change my position.

    One question for you is: On What basis do you believe that a large number of issues are undecidable outside of a magisterium. It seems that your position necessitates the claim that not only are various issues undecided, but that they are in principle undecidable.

    First, Christ wouldn’t have established a magisterium if it weren’t necessary.

    If by magisterium, you mean preachers, teachers, elders etc. then okay. If you mean some infallible group, then that is something under dispute.

    Second, because what underlies the doctrinal disagreement between Protestants and Catholics is not an exegetical dispute to be cleared up eventually by just pointing out the exegetical errors in the other side’s work, but more fundamental principles that lie under the different hermeneutics, such as Sola Scriptura and the role of Sacred Tradition, as I have explained in “The Tradition and the Lexicon.”

    Oh the dispute does hit a lot of issues. The main issue is whether or not, it can be adjudicated on some basis other than, “if you don’t do what I say then you can have no certainty.”

    Third, we’ve been conducting a five hundred year experiment to see how convergence regarding theological disagreements works without a magisterium. It is called Protestantism. The disagreements have only grown, and the fragmentation accelerated to the point where now the fragmentation is so severe that people are abandoning denominations altogether and each person forms an electic mix of beliefs that he likes. (We discussed this somewhat in “A Reflection on PCA Pastor Terry Johnson’s “Our Collapsing Ecclesiology”.”) The claim that all doctrinal questions can be resolved by reason alone, without a magisterium, has been refuted by this five hundred year experiment. If you don’t agree, then how many more centuries of continuing fragmention and theological disagreement would it take to falsify the claim? If you can’t answer that question, then this shows that it is not a ground claim, but a mere assumption without an empirical basis.

    I don’t see the problems of the past 500 years as a refutation of relying on reason. It is a refutation of relying on Aquinas’s version of what can be done known by reason etc. Most things were pretty stable until the Enlightenment took off. When Descartes, Hume, Kant etc. attacked, neither the Protestants or the Catholics responded properly. Before all the problems are placed on the Protestants, one needs to remember that people didnt just exit Protestantism and head directly to Rome. If Rome had all the answers, then that is where people would have headed.

    On a last note, I am not against hierarchy, teachers etc. I am Presbyterian. I do reject the belief that the job of the hierarchy is simply to tell us what to believe, but not to get into why that is the case.

    I understand. But the Catholic notion is that the authority of teachers over oneself is not based on their agreement with oneself. Anyone can pick ‘an authority’ on the basis of that authority’s agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. But that’s not authority; that’s accumulating to oneself ear-itchers, who sometimes might itch in ways that one didn’t expect or don’t always like. The Catholic notion of magisterial authority is that this authority comes from Christ, through the Apostles, and then to those bishops the Apostles ordained, then to the bishops those bishops ordained, down through the centuries in an unbroken continuity to the bishops of the present day. (See footnote 2 in the post.) And if those bishops say that the job of the hierarchy is, among other things, to tell us what to believe concerning the Apostolic of faith, then that’s what their job is, and we aren’t going to second guess them about their job, because we don’t have apostolic authority.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    My position is that one can know truth and not just what one agrees with another concerning a matter. Remember my position, is that the world outside of Roman Catholicism is not Post Modern.
    I do not believe that Bishop are without integrity in their beliefsl; I simply believe that they are wrong.

    – Hermonta

50. T Ciatoris November 23rd, 2011 9:15 pm :

    Hermonta,

    Let us imagine that I was born in a majority Muslim nation. Everyone I know is a Muslim. My elders give me this Augustine quote. How do you think this would turn out?

    I’m not aware that Muslims are accustomed to appealing to St Augustine as an authority ;-) But seriously, this is a conversation about faith and reason among Christians who, I take it, agree that we are not and should not be either fideists or rationalists. I’m not going to play ball on a hypothetical like this unless you give me a good reason to.

    I am the same way with Westminster. I have come to understand some things after struggle while other things I currently trust as I work them out.

    Why would you submit to Westminster about anything that it hasn’t demonstrated to you? Where did it get that kind of authority over your mind? This seems to run counter to your skepticism about the Catholic magisterium, which, whatever else you might say about it, at least claims to be divinely ordained. Westminster makes no such claim, and should therefore on its own terms ward you off from placing such trust in it until you’ve been duly convinced by scripture of its accuracy.

    best,
    TC

51. Hermonta Godwin November 23rd, 2011 9:31 pm :

    TC,
    My point with the Augustine quote was simply that it cannot be used to cut off all dissent. As far as Westminster goes, I do not give it the title of infallible. Do I have to give it that title in order to trust them on the things that I have not fully investigated after agreement concerning the things that I have?

52. Bryan Cross November 23rd, 2011 9:40 pm :

    Hermonta,

    You wrote:

    My question concerned the difference between squashing an idea or just removing it from your premises and allowing people to present that idea elsewhere.

    That isn’t a question, but if you’re intending to ask a question, I don’t understand what you’re asking.

    The ability to differentiate between the different supernatural claims are based on what is revealed in natural revelation/reason.

    If by ‘differentiate’ you mean ‘determine the truth of’ then I do not agree. St. Paul writes “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Cor 2:14) If the truths of supernatural revelation could be known by the natural power of reason, and verified by the natural power of reason, then it would not require grace to understand them, and there would be no difference between special revelation and what you are calling “general revelation.” One of the fundamental errors of Protestantism is an implicit denial of the distinction between nature and grace, as though they are both on the same level. See “Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark.”

    My point was that it was ultimately unsupportable. Various ideas can be prima fascia supportable for a while, but when one kicks the tires, flaws are exposed.

    Well, here’s the Catholic Church, still around after two-thousand years of people kicking her tires, and growing at 34,000 people per day. Feel free to expose the fatal flaw. If your great trust in human reason’s reach into supernatural matters is right, and if all the theological disputes presently dividing us can be settled without relying on a divinely established magisterium, then not only should you be able to refute the errors of Catholic theology, but you should be able by reason alone (i.e. without relying on any magisterial authority) to persuade all the Catholic participants in this discussion that your Presbyterian position is correct. Start any time you wish.

    I have yet to see a reason to change my position.

    Then don’t. Anyone can assert, as you have, that an argument presupposes postmodernism. It is quite another thing altogether actually to show which premise of my argument presupposes postmodernism.

    If by magisterium, you mean preachers, teachers, elders etc. then okay. If you mean some infallible group, then that is something under dispute.

    I had in mind the Apostles. If Christ’s ecclesial setup was that each Christian has a direct, unmediated pipeline to God regarding the truth of the content of the gospel and the proper interpretation of Scripture and the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, such that there was no need for Apostles and elders but something like Montanism were true, then Christ wouldn’t have chosen, trained, authorized and commissioned Apostles. Instead, on the day of Pentecost each person would have been zapped by the Holy Spirit directly, and there never would have been a Jerusalem Council, because the Holy Spirit would have already guided all Christians to the same position, so the resolution of the dispute at the Council would have been unnecessary. In fact, you and I wouldn’t be in disagreement right now, because the Holy Spirit would have already guided us into the very same unity of the faith. Presumably, your response will be that either I’m not listening to the Holy Spirit, or that I’m not being reasonable, one of the two. Well, if you think I’m not being reasonable, feel free to show where and how. But if you think I’m not listening to the Holy Spirit (but you are listening to the Holy Spirit), then we need to talk about how we know who is really following the Holy Spirit, and who is (as I explained in the body of the post at the top of this page) co-opting the Spirit to support their own opinion.

    I don’t see the problems of the past 500 years as a refutation of relying on reason. It is a refutation of relying on Aquinas’s version of what can be done known by reason etc. Most things were pretty stable until the Enlightenment took off. When Descartes, Hume, Kant etc. attacked, neither the Protestants or the Catholics responded properly. Before all the problems are placed on the Protestants, one needs to remember that people didnt just exit Protestantism and head directly to Rome. If Rome had all the answers, then that is where people would have headed.

    Wow. I’ll leave that one alone. Feel free to kick the tires and expose the fatal flaw.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

53. T Ciatoris November 23rd, 2011 9:53 pm :

    Hermonta,

    My point with the Augustine quote was simply that it cannot be used to cut off all dissent.

    Fair enough.

    As far as Westminster goes, I do not give it the title of infallible. Do I have to give it that title in order to trust them on the things that I have not fully investigated after agreement concerning the things that I have?

    I’m not in a position to comment about what you “have” to do. But if it were me, and matters of divine faith were at stake, then I’d say yes. But that’s just me. I’m not much of a daredevil.

    best,
    TC

54. Chad Steiner November 23rd, 2011 10:45 pm :

    Hi Hermonta,

    In #49, you wrote:

    If Rome had all the answers, then that is where people would have headed.

    Is it because Christianity does not have the answers that some people have not “headed to” Christianity, or might there be other reasons?

    I wonder if wrestling around with this question a bit may help us to be more precise about what is at stake when magisterial authority is eschewed.

    Pax,

    Chad

55. Hermonta Godwin November 23rd, 2011 11:18 pm :

    Hi Chad,

    Hi Hermonta,
    In #49, you wrote:

    If Rome had all the answers, then that is where people would have headed.

    Is it because Christianity does not have the answers that some people have not “headed to” Christianity, or might there be other reasons?
    I wonder if wrestling around with this question a bit may help us to be more precise about what is at stake when magisterial authority is eschewed.
    Pax,
    Chad

    I would say that Christianity has not dug down and presented the proper answers to the questions instead of saying that it has no answers to the questions. If the proper answers are presented then the consensus will come. My model of intellectual development can be found here – https://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/myth_of_the_closed.htm

56. Hermonta Godwin November 24th, 2011 1:11 am :

    Bryan re to #52

    My question concerned the difference between squashing an idea or just removing it from your premises and allowing people to present that idea elsewhere.

    This isn’t a question, but if you’re intending to ask a question, I don’t understand what you’re asking.

    You are right, that wasnt as clear as it was in my head. What I was trying to get at, was the situation after a ruling comes down on an issue. The magisterium can excommunicate the heretics, but they cannot prevent the heretics from operating outside the church. If the church decree is doing the heavy lifting, then the one should see the heretics (who are well within their intellectual rights) begin to propogate their errors outside of the normal church structure. The only exception would be when the church has the power of the state/sword on its side. If reason is doing the heavy lifting, then the heretics will not be able to propogate their beliefs, regardless of the state power of the church. I am not exactly sure how I would propose a test but I’ll think a bit more on the issue.

    The ability to differentiate between the different supernatural claims are based on what is revealed in natural revelation/reason.

    If by ‘differentiate’ you mean ‘determine the truth of’ then I do not agree. St. Paul writes “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Cor 2:14) If the truths of supernatural revelation could be known by the natural power of reason, and verified by the natural power of reason, then it would not require grace to understand them, and there would be no difference between special revelation and what you are calling “general revelation.” One of the fundamental errors of Protestantism is an implicit denial of the distinction between nature and grace, as though they are both on the same level. See “Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark.”

    The lecture and book by Feingold look to be very interesting. Thanks for pointing them out.
    Natural/General Revelation reveals truths about God and how he wants us to act. We are without excuse if we deny these truths. If a supernatural claim is made that denies one of those truth, then it is to be rejected. As far as I can tell, to deny such is to attack the inexcusability of the rejection of natural revelation or put another way, to attack the clarity of natural revelation. This does not attack the view that there are things revealed in the Bible about God, that cannot be read from Natural Revelation.
    Calvin’s Extra comes to mind.

    My point was that it was ultimately unsupportable. Various ideas can be prima fascia supportable for a while, but when one kicks the tires, flaws are exposed.

    Well, here’s the Catholic Church, still around after two-thousand years of people kicking her tires, and growing at 34,000 people per day. Feel free to expose the fatal flaw. If your great trust in human reason’s reach into supernatural matters is right, and if all the theological disputes presently dividing us can be settled without relying on a divinely established magisterium, then not only should you be able to refute the errors of Catholic theology, but you should be able by reason alone (i.e. without relying on any magisterial authority) to persuade all the Catholic participants in this discussion that your Presbyterian position is correct. Start any time you wish.

    How many of the 34k are like this – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY9Pzaq2rG0
    My view is not that I can/should be able to persuade you in the next couple days. Next couple decades is a different story.

    I have yet to see a reason to change my position.

    Then don’t. Anyone can assert, as you have, that an argument presupposes postmodernism. It is quite another thing altogether actually to show which premise of my argument presupposes postmodernism.

    I am still in shock that you somehow deny this? You consistently maintain that without an appeal to the Catholic Magisterium, one cannot know which way is up, and it is simply a case of everyone doing whatever is right in their own eyes. That this is equivalent to saying that outside the Catholic church, the situation is a postmodern one, seems like a slam dunk.

    If by magisterium, you mean preachers, teachers, elders etc. then okay. If you mean some infallible group, then that is something under dispute.

    I had in mind the Apostles. If Christ’s ecclesial setup was that each Christian has a direct, unmediated pipeline to God regarding the truth of the content of the gospel and the proper interpretation of Scripture and the distinction between orthodoxy and heresy, such that there was no need for Apostles and elders but something like Montanism were true, then Christ wouldn’t have chosen, trained, authorized and commissioned Apostles. Instead, on the day of Pentecost each person would have been zapped by the Holy Spirit directly, and there never would have been a Jerusalem Council, because the Holy Spirit would have already guided all Christians to the same position, so the resolution of the dispute at the Council would have been unnecessary. In fact, you and I wouldn’t be in disagreement right now, because the Holy Spirit would have already guided us into the very same unity of the faith. Presumably, your response will be that either I’m not listening to the Holy Spirit, or that I’m not being reaasonable, one of the two. Well, if you think I’m not being reasonable, feel free to show where and how. But if you think I’m not listening to the Holy Spirit (but you are listening to the Holy Spirit), then we need to talk about how we know who is really following the Holy Spirit, and who is (as I explained in the body of the post at the top of this page) co-opting the Spirit to support their own opinion.

    So there are only two options:
    1)Every person has an infallible direct pipeline to God
    2)The few (the magisterium) have an infallible direct pipeline to God while everyone else just spins there wheels
    I’ll go with
    3)The infallible pipeline does not exist. God sends heresies when the church is not digging down deep into his natural and special revelation to know Him better. The Church works hard to deepen its understanding. Based on this deeper understanding, a decision is rendered. If it is comprehensive, then the heresy will die. If it is, then it will morph into another form, to be fought later. Rinse and Repeat.
    —-
    I am not sure why you believe the Holy Spirit can only work through a direct pipeline or not at all.
    Lastly, reason and its use is not a 1 or 0 proposition. I would say that the Holy Spirit vs. proper reason is a false dichotomy. The Holy Spirit works through our reasoning individually and corporately, just as He operates when He bring us to faith.
    I have no reason to believe that you are being unreasonable, by willingly holding contradictory views, or reason to believe that the Holy Spirit is not working. The issue is whether or not you hold to beliefs that are contradictory but you don’t know it yet. If you seek the Lord, he will be found.

    I don’t see the problems of the past 500 years as a refutation of relying on reason. It is a refutation of relying on Aquinas’s version of what can be done known by reason etc. Most things were pretty stable until the Enlightenment took off. When Descartes, Hume, Kant etc. attacked, neither the Protestants or the Catholics responded properly. Before all the problems are placed on the Protestants, one needs to remember that people didnt just exit Protestantism and head directly to Rome. If Rome had all the answers, then that is where people would have headed.

    Wow. I’ll leave that one alone. Feel free to kick the tires and expose the fatal flaw.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Okay. Thank you very much for the discussion.
    Hermonta

57. Chad Steiner November 24th, 2011 1:32 am :

    Hermonta (re: #55),

    If it is the case that the reason some people have not “headed to” Christianity is not because the answers to their questions are unavailable, then you’ll need an additional premise before concluding that the reason some people do not “head to” Rome is because Rome doesn’t have the answers.

    Put another way, you’ve granted that the absence of a component (having answers) is not a sufficient condition to explain why some people do not head to Christianity. But just above, you concluded that the same absence of the same component was sufficient on its own to explain why some people have not headed to Rome.

    Perhaps there are reasons other than that Rome does not have the answers, in the same way there are reasons other than that Christianity does not have the answers. Because if we are not justified concluding that Christianity does not have the answers simply because some people have not headed there, neither are we justified concluding that Rome does not have the answers simply because some people have not been received into the Church Jesus established, which we have been calling ‘Rome’. Perhaps the magisterium of the Church Jesus established does have the answers at its disposal, and we should expect, as you assert about Christianity, that as the magisterium of the Church continues to sharpen its answers, a consensus [larger than what already has obtained] will emerge.

    Or, might there be other mitigating factors? We have to be careful here, because if we decide there are other factors which mitigate the path to communion with the Church for some people (which it appears we must do), we will have in front of us factors which also mitigate the impulse to dismiss the claims of the Church on the basis of dissent. That is, we’ll need to provide better reasons–objective reasons–for resisting communion than simply, ‘I disagree.’

    Pax,

    Chad

58. Bryan Cross November 24th, 2011 2:19 am :

    Hermonta,

    You wrote:

    What I was trying to get at, was the situation after a ruling comes down on an issue. The magisterium can excommunicate the heretics, but they cannot prevent the heretics from operating outside the church. If the church decree is doing the heavy lifting, then the one should see the heretics (who are well within their intellectual rights) begin to propogate their errors outside of the normal church structure. The only exception would be when the church has the power of the state/sword on its side. If reason is doing the heavy lifting, then the heretics will not be able to propogate their beliefs, regardless of the state power of the church. I am not exactly sure how I would propose a test but I’ll think a bit more on the issue.

    Ok, I think I get what you are saying here. But, I think it supports the Catholic position. Among people who call themselves Christian, there are all kinds of incompatible beliefs, and these have continued for many years, even centuries. But two incompatible beliefs can’t both be true. So if, as you put it, “reason were doing the heavy lifting” then all the false beliefs would not be able to be propagated. But, they can and are propagated. Look at the way Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses have grown over the last century. (I use them as an example, because we both agree that they are wrong.) Or even look at the way Pentecostalism has grown. The test you propose seems to show that beliefs you believe to be wrong are quite capable of propagation.

    Natural/General Revelation reveals truths about God and how he wants us to act. We are without excuse if we deny these truths. If a supernatural claim is made that denies one of those truth, then it is to be rejected. As far as I can tell, to deny such is to attack the inexcusability of the rejection of natural revelation or put another way, to attack the clarity of natural revelation. This does not attack the view that there are things revealed in the Bible about God, that cannot be read from Natural Revelation.
    Calvin’s Extra comes to mind.

    I agree that natural/general revelation reveals truths about God and how He wants us to act, and I agree that we are without excuse if we deny these truths. But our awareness of general revelation cannot allow us to verify actual supernatural revelation, because otherwise supernatural revelation could never exceed general revelation, and that would be a form of rationalism. Given your comment on the extra Calvinisticum, I think we don’t disagree on this point.

    How many of the 34k are like this

    I’m not exactly sure what you saw in the video that concerned you. Syncretism distorts or corrupts the Christian faith. But catholicity allows for great flexibility and receptivity in the form and expression of the Christian faith. What might appear like syncretism could in fact be the catholicity of the Church. To know for sure in the scene in the video, we would need to know more than what is stated [in English] on the video. Grace perfects nature, and so it has the power to transform older pagan festivals and rituals into Christian festivals and rituals. Terms can be redefined and applied in a Christian way. We see God as providentially in control, and therefore providentially preparing all these people groups for the gospels. So their pagan rituals, though distorted and erroneous, typically contain some precursor of truth that is fulfilled in the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that is why these pagan practices can be baptized and redeemed, so that what is true in them can be preserved and elevated, while what is intrinsically evil in them is removed and cast away.

    My view is not that I can/should be able to persuade you in the next couple days. Next couple decades is a different story.

    Ok. I hope you’re willing to engage in that kind of lengthy, long-term dialogue.

    I am still in shock that you somehow deny this? You consistently maintain that without an appeal to the Catholic Magisterium, one cannot know which way is up, and it is simply a case of everyone doing whatever is right in their own eyes. That this is equivalent to saying that outside the Catholic church, the situation is a postmodern one, seems like a slam dunk.

    I think there is a misunderstanding. You asserted that my arguments to Mark regarding “consensus” in comments #11 and #16 depended on a postmodern worldview. But they don’t. My point there is that you can’t talk about a meaningful consensus unless you establish in advance who gets to participate in the process. Otherwise, you’re just forming a consensus “among those who agree with you.” And even the heretics do that. Nothing about that argument presupposes postmodernism.

    Now, your concern, I think, is that the notion that Christian doctrine cannot all be worked out from Scripture through reason alone, without the aid of a magisterium, presupposes a lower view of reason, and is in that respect characteristic of postmodernism. Ok, I hear what you’re saying. But my response is that I’m not presupposing a lower view of reason at all; rather, in Catholic theology we’re talking about something much higher than human reason. So it is not a lowering of human reason, but rather the staggering height of something so far above human reason, because is it precisely supernatural, above our natural capacity to know. See comment #61 in “Nature, Grace and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark.”

    So there are only two options:
    1)Every person has an infallible direct pipeline to God
    2)The few (the magisterium) have an infallible direct pipeline to God while everyone else just spins there wheels
    I’ll go with
    3)The infallible pipeline does not exist.

    If you’re going to use reason to resolve the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, then you can’t just assert your position. You need to back it up. You would have to prove that the Catholic doctrine of magisterial infallibility is false — because the Protestant in separation from the Catholic Church has the burden of proof; see “Trueman and Prolegomena to “How Would Protestants Know When To Return?”.” (The doctrine of magisterial infallibility is summarized in Lumen Gentium 25.)

    I am not sure why you believe the Holy Spirit can only work through a direct pipeline or not at all.

    I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit “can only work through a direct pipeline or not at all.”

    Lastly, reason and its use is not a 1 or 0 proposition. I would say that the Holy Spirit vs. proper reason is a false dichotomy. The Holy Spirit works through our reasoning individually and corporately, just as He operates when He bring us to faith.

    I agree.

    I have no reason to believe that you are being unreasonable, by willingly holding contradictory views, or reason to believe that the Holy Spirit is not working. The issue is whether or not you hold to beliefs that are contradictory but you don’t know it yet. If you seek the Lord, he will be found.

    Amen. May God lead us to the truth, and show us any errors that we might presently hold.

    Happy Thanksgiving to you!

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

59. Needing the Church’s Magisterium « Maude's Tavern November 25th, 2011 12:27 pm :

    […] Cross concludes a posting about why we need the Church’s magisterium over at Called to Communion with: Faith, by contrast, “believes and professes all that the holy Catholic Church believes, […]

60. Authority and the Magisterium « Catholicus nascens December 3rd, 2011 1:37 am :

    […] just read a wonderful piece by Bryan Cross that Kristen shared from Called to Communion (a blog I have never read before, but which I think will now become a favorite), addressing the […]

61. guy December 19th, 2011 3:00 am :

    Maybe you’ve covered this somewhere else already–if so, forgive me.

    But why isn’t the Catholic interpretation of the magisterium itself subject to the same “agreement among whom” or “no non-arbitrary way to discern heritics” arguments you’ve made against Galli’s position?

    –guy

62. Andrew Preslar December 19th, 2011 11:52 am :

    Guy,

    Good question. The short answer is that the Magisterium, being comprised of visible persons, can continue to answer questions about its own teaching as those questions arise. Catholics must of course interpret Magisterial teaching, but it is the Magisterium itself that provides the authoritative interpretation of its own teachings. Imagine being in a classroom with a teacher: You fail to understand a point in the lecture, and ask for clarification. But something in the clarification remains obscure, and so you ask for further explanation, until you understand the original point. At no point in this process does the student reckon that his own interpretation of either the lecture or the teacher’s answers to his questions the lecture can trump the teacher’s self-clarification (Imagine saying to the teacher: “No, that’s not what you meant”!). Nor does the student believe that the way to gain clarification or come to a resolution is to take a poll among the other students regarding what the teacher meant. Such polls may be useful and informative, but not nearly so much so as consulting the teacher.

    A more extensive answer to your question has been given in Bryan’s post, The Tu Quoque, and a related matter is addressed in my piggy-back post, Son of a tu quoque.

    Andrew

63. Herbert December 19th, 2011 2:50 pm :

    Guy- I would say that the answer to your question has everything to do with episcopal succession. The Magisterium traces its origin to the very Apostles themselves. Historically speaking there aren’t numerous MagisterIa in competition with one another. There is simply one. Thanks. Herbert Vanderlugt

64. guy December 20th, 2011 12:28 am :

    Andrew/Herbert,

    i started the articles Andrew posted which are addressing precisely what i was asking.

    But another curious question: Does the Eastern Orthodox Church present a competing magisterium to that of the RCC?

    –guy

65. Herbert December 20th, 2011 6:27 am :

    Guy- Great question. The short answer is “no.” Based upon what I’ve read here and elsewhere I’d respond by saying what we call Orthodoxy is comprised of something like 14-16 (I can’t remember exactly b/c which groups one categorizes as Orthodox depends upon certain factors which are themselves open to disagreement) autocephalous churches who, by virtue of their valid Apostolic lineage do retain an ecclesial status significantly different from that of Protestant communities of faith- but are at the same time in an interesting bind due to the fact that they are not in a position which allows them to uphold that essential mark of the Christian faith, unity, due to their fragmentation. For example, (and someone correct me if I’m wrong!) I’ve read that what we think of as the Orthodox haven’t the means to convene a council to settle a doctrinal issue even if they wished to do so.

    As i understand it, the Magisterium of the universal Church, made up of the Bishop of Rome and all the Bishops in communion with him, is unique in the world, being among the oldest institutions in existence. There is no similar structure to be found in the world. It’s one of the things that allows the Catholic Church to retain those essential 4 marks (Unity, Catholicity, Holiness, Apostolicity). There are certainly others who are more qualified than I to respond to ya! But the beauty of this type of interaction is that my understanding of things is right out there in the open ready to be corrected or modified by those who are more knowledgeable than I.

    Great conversation, Guy! And a Merry Christmas to you!
    Herbert Vanderlugt

66. charles allan January 28th, 2012 11:58 am :

    In Revelation are the seven “different” churches not allowed. Thyatira (the catholic church) gets a good commendation apart from those who follow or tolerate Jezebel.
    Thyatira advised to continue until Jesus comes back.
    Philadelphia is the best – wesley spurgeon etc – era up until today.
    What perplexes me – do you see any mention there of doctrinal differences eg on communion and the
    veneration or worship of Mary.
    eg – Since everyone in the Catholic Church takes communion and often in a different manner from Philadelphia why is it this does not appear to be a problem in the letters to the churches.

    Do any of you see Mary worship in the seven letters.

67. Michael Goodrich January 28th, 2012 12:24 pm :

    Charles,

    I doubt anyone here would be willing to stipulate your analysis of the section of the The Revelation of Jesus Christ dealing with the letters, but that aside, why do you say that the Catholic Church worships Mary?

    -Mike

68. charles allan January 28th, 2012 12:45 pm :

    Many theologians agree with each other on the seven church types and church periods in Revelation.

    Which means that Thyatira – with its emphasis on transubstantiation (which I believe in ) and the
    prayers to dead saints , statues and OK veneration of Mary is running alongside the Philadelphian
    type churches (until the return of Jesus) which mainly don’t have these characteristics.

    I thought this was relevant since it implies there is not full agreement on their doctrinal differences
    but they were both commended whereas the church of Sardis (early Protestant) was not – apart from those who had not soiled their garments.

    Therefore I think the seven churches are relevant to the question – is there only one true church.

    Ps – One could be a Philadelphian church member of say Sardis – it is about types and historical periods.

69. Randy January 28th, 2012 1:14 pm :

    Many theologians agree with each other on the seven church types and church periods in Revelation.

    Really? What percentage of Christendom does that make up? Not the Christians you have chosen to listen to but all Christians. The next question is how old is that particular reading of Revelation? How many years do we have to accept that the church just missed the true meaning of these passages?

    The seven churches are not Jesus declaring He has somehow given up on church unity. That would be silly. Before the schism of 1054 there was great unity in the church. Why would He give up on the idea in the first century? The 7 churches are describing 7 different dynamics that could go on in local churches. That were going on then and have strong parallels in other time and places.

    Even as a protestant I would object to saying Thyatira is the catholic church. That would be giving myself a pass. I would no longer have to find the parallels to Thyatira in my church. I could write off the words of Jesus as being for someone else when they might well be meant for me. So I, and the protestant teachers I tended to listen to, didn’t buy that exegesis.

70. Fred Noltie January 28th, 2012 1:27 pm :

    Charles,

    We can of course speak of the different parts of the body, but they are all necessarily parts of the body. So there is certainly a sense in which we can and do speak of different particular churches. But particular churches are necessarily all parts of the one visible Church, which is the Body of Christ. So the fact that the Lord Jesus addresses seven particular churches does not imply anything about whether there is in fact one Church.

    As an aside, the fact that some number of theologians share an opinion does not imply anything about the nature of the Church. For the Catholic, theology is an attempt to understand what has been revealed by God and not to declare what He has revealed: it is faith seeking understanding. To say that theological understanding dictates the content of the Faith is to reverse the formula: understanding seeking faith. But the content of the Faith is not measured by or defined by what men understand.

    Thus necessarily for the Catholic how we understand the book of Revelation must necessarily be guided by the Faith, and not the other way around.

    I hope this helps.

    Fred

71. mateo January 28th, 2012 1:44 pm :

    charles allen asks: In Revelation are the seven “different” churches not allowed …

    Charles, let me ask you a question. Suppose a man living today wrote a letter to, say, New Life Lutheran Church in Norwalk, Iowa; Glen Avon Presbyterian Church in Duluth Minnesota; Calvary Chapel On the Horizon in Indianapolis, Indiana; St Simon the Fisherman Episcopal Church in Port Washington, Wisconsin; Cherry Hills Baptist Church in Springfield, Illinois; Rock of Faith Wesleyan Church in St. Louis, Missouri, and Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan. What if that man pointed out the defects in these seven Protestant “churches” and told them to shape up. Would any of these Protestant “churches” pay him any heed? No, they wouldn’t, they would all ignore him because of the rebellious nature of Protestantism. Protestantism, as a whole, recognizes no man as having authority to correct what the individual Protestant “churches” preach, believe, or manifest in their actions.

    Charles, I think that you missed one of the main points of the Book of Revelation, and that is this, that the author writing to the local particular churches in seven different cities had the authority to point out where each local particular church was either falling short or was keeping the faith uncorrupted. But who is this man that believes he has the authority to write to local churches in seven different cities? Why does he think he has the authority to do that? And who gets to set the standards that local churches must measure up to?

    It is completely wrong to think that the seven churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation are analogous to the “seven church” of the Midwest that I just mentioned above. The seven churches in the seven cities in the Book of Revelation belonged to ONE church, the church that Jesus Christ personally founded. These churches could receive a letter of either rebuke or commendation from a man that had teaching authority in the ONE church. Which is exactly what cannot happen in the world of Protestantism, since Protestants don’t belong to the church personally founded by Jesus Christ – they belong to doctrinally divided sects founded by mere men. And these doctrinally divided sects recognize no man as having authority within Protestantism as a whole.

    “We don’t need no magisterium” – that exactly characterizes sola scriptura confessing Protestantism, and that is why sola scriptura confessing Protestantism consists of thousands upon thousands of doctrinally divided denominations with no unity of faith, and with no possibility of being corrected in their errors.

72. John Thayer Jensen January 28th, 2012 1:56 pm :

    If I understand Charles Allan correctly, he believes in the “Seven Churches Seven Ages” theory of W. M. Branham – indeed, Charles appears to think it is an uncontroversial theory. I confess the theory seems really silly to me, but it is certainly not uncontroversial and I hardly suppose there are many who do accept it.

    I only point this out because, if I understand what Charles is saying, some of the replies to him may miss his point (that said, I fear I don’t quite see his point, myself).

    Charles – in particular, I don’t understand what you mean by this:

    Since everyone in the Catholic Church takes communion and often in a different manner from Philadelphia …

    I have just read carefully the letter to the Church at Philadelphia and I don’t see anything in there about how the Church at Philadelphia takes Communion. Can you explain, perhaps?

    jj

73. charles allan January 28th, 2012 2:25 pm :

    John – I believe in the seven church ages – eg we seem to be in the last church age ie the Laodecian age (lukewarm ) (this does not mean that every church member is a Laodecian)
    The seven church ages were not just an invention of W Branham. If you google up “seven church ages”

    Catholics believe in the real Body and Blood (thyatira – it actually means continual sacrifice).

    Philadelphian churches (if you believe that they represent the protestant churches around the 17th 18th 19th centuries) generally dont believe in the real presence in the bread and wine.

    The point I was making was – this major difference does not seem to be in these two letters – so is it serious enough to affect salvation ? And it represents two different churches.

    Mateo – but there is no church of Rome in the seven letters – is this significant.

    Randy – the churches had the letters of John – eg the church of Ephesus had its lampstand removed…

74. John Thayer Jensen January 28th, 2012 5:00 pm :

    @Charles Allan:
    I’m afraid I can’t take seriously the ‘seven church ages’ reading of Revelation’s letters to the churches – and so far as I know, it really is Branham’s invention. Just a couple of points:

    The name of Thyatira is not, according to Wikipedia, anyhow, related to ‘continual sacrifice’ – it’s said to be from the Greek for ‘daughter’ I can see how a false etymology might relate the name to Greek ‘thuos’ – ‘sacrifice’ and ‘ateirees’ – unending – but there is no historical reason to suppose this was why it was so-called. In any case, your whole point depends on the acceptance of the ‘seven church ages’ theory. I’m afraid I would want some proof of the accuracy of that theory other than simply the ability to match up a fairly crude church history with characteristics of John’s letters.

    There is no church of Rome in the seven letters because John is living in Ephesus and is writing to the churches of Asia.

    jj

75. charles allan January 28th, 2012 5:14 pm :

    John – since the thyatiran church was around in 100ad and is to continue until the end – is this not
    an age. The Laodicean church would be expected at the end of the age – eg rich and needing nothing.

    Thyatiran church (which means “sacrifice of contrition” or “sweet savor of labor”)


    Branham is just one man but most famous evangelists have sermonised on the seven churches.
    Its not my theory – I was just googling the websites since being a mixure of catholic and protestant
    I was wondering if their is only one true church.

76. Randy January 28th, 2012 6:50 pm :

    Randy – the churches had the letters of John – eg the church of Ephesus had its lampstand removed…

    I can’t actually make any sense of that comment. Maybe you could explain it further.

    I am wondering. In terms of protestant ecclesiology, what does it mean for a church to have it’s lamp stand removed? As a Catholic I could see that as a reference to the altar. That sacraments would no longer take place there. They would no longer have a priest. But as a protestant what does it mean? If the church is just the human institution that allows a certain set of believers to live in fellowship then what lamp stand is being removed? It seems like there is grace coming to the believers from God through the church as church. Not through the church as individual believers who happen to be hanging out together. Whatever the lamp stand is it is something the church has received as church and is blessing it’s members with. Something it can lose.

    When protestants choose a church, do they worry about whether it’s lamp stand has been removed? Some protestants might equate it to a subjective feeling of God’ presence there. But it seems objective in nature. I think most protestants would have an intuition about that. That there is some objective grace they want from a church that not every church will have. But there does not seem to be a theology for it. What is that something? How can you identify it? How do you know when your church has lost it? Those questions are unanswerable so most protestant theologians deny it exists. A church is just as good as the people who go there. Except this passage seems to indicate it does exist.

77. John Thayer Jensen January 28th, 2012 7:06 pm :

    Charles – Sorry, I’m not sure exactly what you are getting at. I don’t think you can possibly tell from the 7 letters whether there is ‘only one true church’ – indeed, I don’t see how there can be more than one true church. The whole idea of ‘church’ – the ‘ecclesia’, the ‘congregation’ – is singular.

    I really would advise you not to try to follow up your etymologies of Thyatira. I know Greek fairly well – read the New Testament in it annually, and read, occasionally, the Greek classics. The ‘meaning’ of Thyatira – other than, of course, its designating the city itself – is the meaning the creator of the name intended for it. It doesn’t in any useful sense have any other meaning, and you would, I think, be going astray to try to infer something about the Church by these folk etymologies.

    Again, I just am not sure what specific aim you have in your very first comment on this topic – which is whether Scripture interpretation can lead to satisfactory and reliable results without an authoritative teaching office, set up by Christ, to judge amongst contradictory interpretations.

    Who, for instance, is to decide whether your ‘seven church ages’ idea is a correct interpretation of the seven letters of Revelation?

    jj

78. charles allan January 29th, 2012 8:06 am :

    John – I know there is only one true church – the body of Christ. Since this blog touched on different churches such as the evangelical and the catholic churches I was wondering how these churches fitted the pattern of the churches in Revelation – but if you dont believe in the seven church ‘ages’ as well as ‘types’ of church then you would difficulty in answering this .
    I know no greek – any information on the 7 churches comes from the bible commentary websites – about 8,000,0000 on this topic.
    Catholics say that outside of their church no one can be saved – now if the Catholic church is represented by thyatira and there is also 6 other churches – in particular 2 protestant churches Sardis , Philadelphia (brotherly love) then how can many of their representative denominations be exclusive to salvation as they say.

79. charles allan January 29th, 2012 8:35 am :

    Randy – googled this study – there are plenty – it is relevant to every generation- I wish I had studied these letters earlier – I would have avoided so much error and sin.

    SECOND — “Without brotherly love a church must become extinct” (Dr. Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, p. 450). “The fervor of their original love — their ‘love for all the saints’ (Eph. 1:15) — had waned. And nothing — no amount of good works or sound doctrine — can take the place of agape in a Christian community. Unless there was a change of heart …. that church’s days were numbered; its lampstand (vs. 5) would be removed” (The New Layman’s Bible Commentary, p. 1683). What was it that caused this love to be abandoned?

    Assuming that this refers to the first major position above (lack of love for Christ), the cause may well be that they had lost their focus; they were focusing more on works, duty, religion — and not on Jesus! “Their religion had become a lifeless, mechanical, ritualistic thing, to be done out of a sense of cold duty, rather than of glorious privilege motivated by love” (James M. Tolle, p. 31). “Loving devotion to Christ can be lost in the midst of active service” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12, p. 434).

80. John Thayer Jensen January 29th, 2012 1:41 pm :

    @Charles Allan:

    Catholics say that outside of their church no one can be saved – now if the Catholic church is represented by thyatira and there is also 6 other churches – in particular 2 protestant churches Sardis , Philadelphia (brotherly love) then how can many of their representative denominations be exclusive to salvation as they say.

    I think there can be a misunderstanding here. What the Catholic Church teaches is that salvation always comes through the Catholic Church – even to those who do not know it. What the Catholic Catechism (pp 845-8) says is:

    845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.

    “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

    846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

    847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.

    848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

    I’m not sure from your statement that you understand that the Church by no means says you need to be a “card-carrying Catholic” to be saved.

    You and I differ fundamentally on the character of the Church. You said, above, that you know “…there is only one true church – the body of Christ.” The Catholic Church understands itself to be that Church. Thus, before I was a Catholic, I was a member of – indeed, one of the founders of – the Pukekohe Reformed Church, here in New Zealand. Because I was a baptised person, I was, ipso facto, a member – albeit unknowingly, and in an imperfect sense – of the one true Church, the Body of Christ – the (Roman) Catholic Church. It was not my membership in the organisation called the Pukekohe Reformed Church that made me a member of Christ’s one true church; it was my baptism.

    The Pukekohe Reformed Church – and, indeed, the seven Churches in Revelation, including that at Thyatira – are not Churches in parallel fashion with the Catholic Church; they are all manifestations of that Church in those places. To be sure, the Pukekohe Reformed Church, considered as an entity in itself, because of its lack of episcopal succession, is what the Church calls an ‘ecclesial body’ rather than a Church proper. And considered as an ecclesial body, it is both in schism – naturally, because it has broken Communion with the Church as a whole – and is in heresy – because of a variety of beliefs that it professes that are not consistent with the faith “once delivered to the saints.” But insofar as it is church at all, it is a manifestation of the Catholic Church. There is no other Church. Jesus has only one Body, one Bride.

    jj

81. charles allan January 29th, 2012 3:38 pm :

    John – Yes – but could the Bride of Christ be in many churches. If the Pukekohe church is in heresy
    – then the Philadelphian churches might also be in heresy under your definition – having a major difference on the taking of communion and catholic prayers to Mary and the Saints.

    So my problem is with protestants who say that the catholic church is in complete error since how can this be if it is the church of thyatira which with commendation continues to the end (ie only those who expel jezebel)- and also with catholics who say the protestant churches are in heresy since it is clear that the very commended Philadelphian type protestant churches even escape the end time tribulations.
    An example of the philadelphian church might be the New York Times Square Church.

82. John Thayer Jensen January 29th, 2012 9:44 pm :

    @Charles Allan:

    could the Bride of Christ be in many churches?

    I don’t see what that could mean. The Bride of Christ isn’t in any church; it is the Church.

    the Philadelphian churches might also be in heresy under your definition –having a major difference on the taking of communion and catholic prayers to Mary and the Saints

    Unless I accept your ‘seven churches seven ages’ idea – and I really see no way of doing so – I don’t see how you know what their views on taking Communion or prayers to Mary and the Saints were. My understanding is that the seven churches of John’s Revelation are seven contemporary local churches in Asia during the first Century, and that their errors are the ones listed in those letters. Those letters say nothing about Communion or about prayers to Mary and the Saints. If, somehow, some application of those letters to church history is possible – I don’t say it isn’t but I don’t see how it is – that would have nothing to do with the actual church of Philadelphia or the church of Thyatira.

    I think that unless you want to give me some convincing evidence of your ‘seven ages’ idea, we have just about come to an end of useful discussion!

    jj

83. Randy January 30th, 2012 2:02 am :

    “Without brotherly love a church must become extinct” (Dr. Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, p. 450). “The fervor of their original love — their ‘love for all the saints’ (Eph. 1:15) — had waned. And nothing — no amount of good works or sound doctrine — can take the place of agape in a Christian community. Unless there was a change of heart …. that church’s days were numbered; its lampstand (vs. 5) would be removed” (The New Layman’s Bible Commentary, p. 1683). What was it that caused this love to be abandoned?

    This just does not sound like Sola Fide, “once saved always saved” thinking. This sounds like works are required and even a connection with the church is required. Salvation does not sound like a purely individual thing. That lamp stand at the church has is vital. I just find that interesting.

84. charles allan January 30th, 2012 4:03 am :

    John – the seven ages church idea is not really from me but there are millions of websites on this subject and that was where I was getting my questions from

85. John Thayer Jensen January 30th, 2012 2:36 pm :

    @Charles Allan:

    John – the seven ages church idea is not really from me but there are millions of websites on this subject and that was where I was getting my questions from.

    I wasn’t suggesting the seven ages idea was from you. I know where it comes from. When I refer to “your ‘seven churches seven ages’ idea” I only mean “the idea which you appear to find plausible.” My point is that I do not, and that your arguments – your ascribing certain view to the different ‘churches’ (really different ages) regarding Communion or prayer to the saints – that ascription depends critically on the acceptance of the ‘seven churches seven ages’ idea. I see no reason to accept the idea, so I don’t accept the ascription, either.

    If you want me to accept your idea that, for instance, the Church at Thyatira tells me something about Catholic view on Communion, you will need to give me some reason to believe the equation of the seven churches with seven ages. Just telling me there are ‘millions’ of websites advocating the idea doesn’t tell me anything about its truth. There are many websites telling me the ideas of astrology, and that the date of my birth tells you something about my personality, or the things likely to happen to me. I do not, however, accept the ideas of astrology. It doesn’t matter how many websites there are advocating it. I have seen no reason to suppose it true.

    And I have seen no reason to suppose that the seven churches in Revelation somehow correspond to seven ages in the history of Christianity. Unless you want to give me reasons for believing that correspondence, I don’t see that we can usefully continue the discussion.

    jj

86. Bryan Cross May 17th, 2014 10:22 am :

    Tylor Standley points to the same consensus problem discussed above in “6 Heretics Who Should Be Banned From Evangelicalism: (Or, a Lesson in Consistency).”

87. Bryan Cross September 10th, 2020 12:40 pm :

    Please pray for Mark Galli, who will be confirmed in the Catholic Church on September 13, 2020. Mark, we welcome you, and pray for God’s blessings on you. The following sentence in your WOF interview brought a smile to my face:

    One thing that has brought me a great deal of peace is the inherited tradition and wisdom of the Church known as the Magisterium.

88. RodolfoR September 16th, 2020 2:35 pm :

    Wow! Did not realize that Called to Communion interacted with this article and now Mark has come into the Catholic Church

89. Bryan Cross September 23rd, 2020 1:25 pm :

    Today Chris Castaldo posted an article titled “3 Reasons Evangelicals Shouldn’t Become Roman Catholic” at TGC. The article is motivated by Mark Galli’s return to the Catholic Church earlier this month.

    We’ve interacted with Chris here at CTC, and Casey Chalk has written a reply to Chris’s book titled Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic. More recently I responded to the 2019 “Conversionitis: Why Protestants Convert” Davenant series he refers to in his article. And to the best of my knowledge, Chris has not engaged what I said there, though I may have missed it.

    His article today, while titled “3 Reasons Evangelicals Shouldn’t Become Roman Catholic,” goes on instead to list three “concerns,” that is, concerns “that often instigate movement toward or away from the Roman Catholic Church, reasons that seem to be part of Galli’s journey: disenchantment, the quest for clarity, and a desire for church unity.” Since a concern is not necessarily a reason, the reader has to look more carefully to find the actual three reasons in Chris’s article. What I do below is examine whether these three concerns are good and sufficient reasons to remain Evangelical and not become Catholic.

    Regarding Disenchantment, Chris quotes Mark as being tired of the trite phrases of his own prayers before discovering the Book of Common Prayer. Chris then writes the following of the Catholic Church:

    Rather than inviting the believer to blink dazedly in the blinding light of God’s presence, clothed in the righteousness of Christ, Roman Catholicism encourages him to rest content with a mediated access, dressed up in the hand-me-downs of the saints and apostles.

    Chris is essentially claiming that his Protestant tradition offers Christians more than what the Catholic Church can give them. The Catholic Church only gives them mediated access to God, through “hand-me-downs” of the saints and Apostles, in the relics of the saints, and the bishops in succession from the Apostles, respectively. By contrast, Chris as a Protestant pastor can allegedly give them the “blinding light of God’s presence.” This reminds me of Michael Horton’s old criticisms of experiential forms of evangelicalism. And of course two can play that game: if Protestantism merely clothes us in the righteousness of Christ, in the Catholic sacraments we are actually infused with righteousness, become temples of the Holy Spirit, and receive the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord. But this way of approaching the Catholic-Protestant question (who can give them more?) presupposes ecclesial consumerism, and in that way already presupposes the Protestant paradigm, for reasons I have explained at that link. So that reason for not leaving Evangelicalism for Catholicism is question-begging.

    He concludes his “disenchantment” section by claiming:

    Such a full and robust redemption enlivens us to worship through our vocation, music, poetry, confession, preaching, sacraments, and prayers—forms that constitute the rich birthright of our “catholic” Christian heritage. It’s an inheritance we dare not allow to be sold for a lentil stew of fog machines, hypnotic choruses, and biblically feeble sermons.

    The redemption that Evangelicals have through Christ may indeed enliven them to worship through their vocation, music, poetry, confession, preaching, sacraments, and prayers. But that in itself is no reason to remain Evangelical and not to become Catholic. The question whether the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded is the overriding reason to seek full communion with the Catholic Church and flee from schism, no matter what levels of enchantment or disenchant are found in her, or in the schisms that have departed from her. So Chris’s first reason is not a good or sufficient reason not to become Catholic.

    Regarding his Quest for Clarity concern, Chris argues that becoming Catholic will not resolve the problem of a multiplicity of interpretations, because of the “non-perspicuous nature of the Roman Catholic magisterium” and the “infighting among traditionalist, conservative, and liberal Catholics.” According to Chris, there is no greater interpretive clarity in the Catholic Church than there is between the various Protestant traditions. He writes, “Complete interpretive certainty cannot be realized in the sola magisterium position of Rome any more than in one’s private interpretation.” Setting aside the “sola magisterium” straw man, even if Chris were correct (and he is not) in his claim that there is parity of interpretive clarity, that would not be a reason not to become Catholic. Rather, as Chris himself quoted from Carl Trueman at the beginning of his article, “[We] need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in other words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day.” So if there were parity between Evangelicalism and the Catholic Church on something, then by the Trueman principle, this would reduce to a reason to leave Evangelicalism and become Catholic, all other things being equal.

    However, Chris is mistaken in two ways regarding his claim about interpretive clarity. First, he is conflating the distinction within Catholicism between disagreements of faith, and disagreements not of faith. This distinction is explained in “The ‘Catholics Are Divided Too’ Objection.” As explained there, Catholics, but not Protestants, have a principled basis for distinguishing between matters of faith and matters not of faith. By conflating this distinction, Chris creates the appearance of parity with respect to unity of faith, while in fact Catholics, but not Protestants, have a principled non-arbitrary way of distinguishing orthodoxy from heresy, and orthodoxy from adiaphora. That’s true even though questions of faith that have not yet been defined or resolved remain live questions still up for debate and openly debated among Catholics. However, debates among Catholics regarding political leanings (“conservative, and liberal Catholics”) are not matters of faith, and should not be treated as on the same level as disagreements between Protestants regarding matters of faith. Second, he is mistaken in equating the perspicuity of persons and the perspicuity of texts, for reasons I have explained in the section titled “Persons and Texts” in my reply to Michael Horton. These two points explain why there is not parity between Protestant communions and the Catholic Church with respect to the matter of interpretive clarity and interpretive pluralism, and thus why Chris’s second reason is not a good or sufficient reason not to seek full communion with the Catholic Church.

    Regarding his Church Unity concern, Chris writes:

    When the Reformers split from or were excommunicated by Rome, they rejected this Roman structure. Instead, they emphasized the church’s identity and calling as a communion of saints, the congregation of the faithful who receive God’s redemptive word, variously administered and confessed in preaching, instruction, confession, sacrament, and life.

    Concerning the relationship of divine authority to this identity, Michael Horton helpfully reminds us, “The church is always on the receiving end in its relationship to Christ; it is never the redeemer, but always the redeemed; never the head, but always the body.” The coherence of this church may appear deficient to those who compare it with the institutional organs and offices of Rome. But true unity is diverse men and women who define themselves by the gospel, an adherence shared by Christian traditions from every tribe, tongue, and nation.

    So here Chris says [correctly] that the Protestant Reformers rejected the ecclesial structure of the [Roman] Catholic Church, and emphasized the church’s identity and calling as a communion of saints. Then, quoting Horton, Chris simply stipulates the Reformed notion that true unity is spiritual, being in agreement on the Gospel, as though unity in Church government is not part of the unity with which Christ endowed His Church. Chris’s third reason essentially says, the Reformers rejected the notion of a visible Church. Therefore, you should remain Evangelical and not become Catholic. Obviously such a reason is question-begging, it presupposes precisely the ecclesial point in question, namely, whether Christ founded a visible Church. So Chris’s third reason is not a good or sufficient reason not to seek full communion with the Catholic Church.

    So all three of Chris’s concerns, either taken individually or taken conjunctively, are not good or sufficient reasons to remain Evangelical and not become Catholic.

    In his explanation of each of his three concerns Chris points to evidence that each of the three was a factor of some sort in Mark’s return to the Catholic Church. He closes his article by suggesting that these three concerns/reasons are the reasons Mark returned to the Catholic Church, writing:

    While Mark Galli’s familiar reasons for swimming the Tiber—softening his choice by claiming to be an “evangelical Catholic”—continue to have a certain force among some wavering Protestants, they don’t need to carry the day.

    But as I pointed out in my reply last year, it would be engaging in bulverism to assume that if a factor played a role, then this factor overruled the question whether Christ founded the Catholic Church. Many factors can nudge and influence us, but ultimately we should assume, on the basis of the principle of charity, that persons who choose to come into the Catholic Church do so because by the grace of God they recognize the Catholic Church to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded. And that’s the truth that Chris does not address, neither here nor in his “Conversionitis” series last year.

    St. Padre Pio, pray for us.

90. Hugo Delgado September 28th, 2020 12:44 am :

    So happy to hear about this conversion. God bless this Apostolate.

    When are you going to have Mark telling about his conversion experience?

    Pax Christi.

91. R Zell October 21st, 2020 6:57 am :

    #87. I hope Mark Galli will be a contributor here at C2C.

    Good news indeed.
    Praise be to God.

92. Frank Schmidt October 21st, 2020 1:18 pm :

    It seems to me like the Catholic Church is no better than the Protestant when it comes to teaching authority, and the conspicuous silence of this site on Pope Francis’ questionable doings and sayings makes me very suspicious of any possibility for conversation.

    https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-francis-calls-for-civil-union-law-for-same-sex-couples-in-shift-from-vatican-stance

93. Bryan Cross October 27th, 2020 1:17 am :

    Hello Frank (re: #92)

    Watch out for the straw man. The comments of a pope in an interview with a journalist or film maker are not magisterial, let alone infallible. Nor does the pope have the authority to change Church doctrine. The CDF document from 2003 is magisterial, and therefore remains that which all Catholics are to “adhere with religious submission of will and intellect.” I have discussed that CDF document here. See also the article titled “Pope Francis, Civil Unions, and Moral Truth” by Ryan Anderson and Robert George.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

94. Dylan Burns October 30th, 2020 1:31 pm :

    Bryan, I am so glad to see conversations continue on your site. Though I’ve never commented, I have been edified and challenged time and time again by referring to the conversations here over the past few years as I’ve journeyed into the Church. I don’t want to waste your time with too much preamble but I’m commenting today, in October 2020, because this latest controversy to which Frank Schmidt referred above (re: #92) has exhausted the last bit of energy I had to defend the Magisterium as I, and others, conceived it (I think mistakenly, as I’ll argue).
    I find that all of my enthusiasm about the credibility of the claims to a supernatural defense against corruption has been siphoned away.

    I wrote the following as a blog post, but I’m pasting it here in full because it relates my current view re: to whom we owe our thanks and from whom we draw the peace of certain, unwavering authority to lead us into heaven.

    Many Catholics have an idolatrous grip on the earthly authority in the Magisterium, whose existence and infallibility they consider a mark of credibility necessary for their faith in things unseen. This is possessive love. The revelation of God in Jesus to those in his Spirit, and Christ isn’t an object to possess, but the Subject who possesses us just as ably as He created us and revealed himself to us.

    There’s nothing to add and nothing to lose in Christian belief. The thief on the cross neither added nor subtracted from the deposit of faith. Saints Peter and Paul neither added nor subtracted from the deposit of faith. Judas Iscariot neither added nor subtracted from the deposit of faith.

    Pope Francis won’t be the first to somehow edit the gospel.

    According to the faith taught by the Church herself, we believe because of the Spirit; if we were to doubt that and think instead that faith were owed to the Magisterium, then that would be like trusting that a medicine worked because the doctor said so, rather than for the reasons the doctor gave for it working in us. Christian belief is the medicine that works in us—whether or not the doctor says so. “Le cœur a ses raisons que la raison ignore,” (Blaise Pascal, whose words apply here). We know when we’re in love; supernatural charity exceeds and transcends reason (e.g., a reasoned dependence on whatever earthly authority).

    What about free will? If we don’t begin by reasoning our way to a choice to live and to love God then are we free? Yes, we are free. Spiritual death isn’t freedom. To call being brought to life “coercive” is cynical and nonsensical. And besides—whose free will? Mine or God’s?

    So what if the Pope and the bishops in communion with him are untrustworthy as teachers? What does that have to do with what you already know to be true? Perhaps most trenchantly: How much does a Christian need to know for someone else to save him? I’d submit that’s a question for his Creator to decide.

    Thanks in advance for your criticism, guidance, and prayers.

    — Dylan

95. Dylan Burns October 30th, 2020 1:48 pm :

    Bryan,

    I just wanted to follow the previous comment with a quick link to a much longer debate I’ve been working through over the past year or so, doing my best to uproot every objection to becoming Catholic. I’m a simple, early thirty-something, French teacher on the border of Mexico. I’ve struggled for many sleepless nights (as you’ll see) to do this work. I hope you’ll find time to do something with it, as I have nobody with your academic background around who can puzzle their way through this labyrinth I’ve built only to trap myself.

    I’ll leave the link here only because I don’t want to try posting a wall of text only to have it kicked-back and never seen by you or someone else who might be able to help me or those who struggle with similar doubts, objections, metaquestions.

    Thanks again.

    Here it is: https://www.severalstories.com/life-preservers-1/2020/6/30/60ltas1ryfatprj7b5xrfcbpvi68zw

    –Dylan

96. Bryan Cross October 30th, 2020 5:25 pm :

    Hello Dylan (re: #94)

    Welcome to CTC, and thanks for your comments. I think that for sorting through many questions it is best to take them one at a time in an orderly way, and therefore to start with the most important. So I recommend that here. And perhaps you can draw from your longer reflection (linked in #95) to identity that starting question. Or since you say “as I’ll argue,” if you’re offering an argument, it would be helpful to me if you identified its premises and conclusion.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

97. Dylan Burns October 30th, 2020 6:20 pm :

    Hi again,

    Let me simplify and condense as best as I can without losing too much substance by carving my thoughts into syllogisms. I’m not very good at that; I’m better at expressing my thoughts by other means, making generous use of enthymemes and images.

    New version:

    My contention is that all of the drama in the news about whether the Pope has contradicted previous teaching is not concern about leading the flock astray so much as it is deep-seated fear stemming from an instable faith grounded in contingencies rather than in God.

    We should discourage all Catholics from being idolators. Many Catholics treat the Magisterium as an idol, as even Catholic religious instructors have openly admitted to me that they would be atheists if the Pope were to utter a heresy in the formula required for his words to be delivered ex cathedra. This admission betrays a faith that is naturalistic rather than supernatural.

    To be anxious that were the Pope (or a council, or whatever other group of persons would qualify as having the gift of infallibility under certain specific circumstances) to say or do x,y, or z in the future, that this would nullify everything we’d ever learned from the Magisterium, is an anxiety that stems from an implicit lack of faith in God because faith in God cannot be held hostage by such contingent things and still be real faith.

    So how about I begin with a question instead of an argument. Do you think the following is a fitting analogy?

    The anxious Catholic described above is like a patient who believes he wasn’t healed by his prescribed medication, and when asked why, he says “That same doctor who gave me the medication was completely wrong about something else recently.”

    Finally, I believe it’s better to preserve belief in the necessary and eternal content of the faith without it being dependent on its contingent and imperfect delivery through people because “the heart has it’s reasons of which reason is ignorant.” We know when we’re in love; supernatural charity exceeds and transcends reason (e.g., a reasoned dependence on whatever earthly authority).

    Thank you.

    Dylan

98. Dylan Burns October 30th, 2020 6:50 pm :

    I’m sorry, I should have added this to the previous message. Maybe you can address both this comment and the previous one (#97) in one fell swoop.

    As concerns my longer reflections in the link I provided above, and to which you just alluded (#96), I decided to pick-out a couple of questions for you since this is more a master class than a debate as far as I’m concerned. : )

    Question 1. If we really truly see Catholics, Methodists, Orthodox and Copts all as Christians, then what are we granting if not the divine agency at work in their lives in shaping history, and in shaping the history of the Church by identifying their Christianity? What also are we presuming to withhold from them and from God in that identity by saying that « yes they are Christians but they need to be Catholics… » ?

    Question 2. I have made spiritual progress without any of the sacraments beyond baptism. That means I’ve supposedly neither been confirmed/sealed by the Spirit nor have I been reconciled to God after mortal sin. But what is this spiritual progress if not reconciliation?

    Question 3. This relates to my post about anxious Catholics and a changing magisterium. When it comes to the hierarchy of beliefs, faith in Christ must be at the top—and not alongside faith in men. Does Catholic faith in Christ require a further extension of that faith to faith in men (eg, the magisterium)? I’d say that we more intimately commune with God than any one person, lest that person become an idol. No?

    Question 4. Mustn’t there be a finality to faith in Christ’s saving work as faith in something finished? Otherwise, it seems, that faith would only ever be mauvaise foi or unfounded hope. If I have faith that God saves it must be that God has saved me, and not that he will save me later, because the latter would have to be inferential based on certainty about his prior salvation of others before me (which couldn’t be known with any greater certainty except by the same quality of faith that believes in my present condition of being saved).
    I know that’s confusing. In short, it’s this: I wouldn’t believe others were saved unless by grace I had faith that God is a Savior. I wouldn’t know that God is a Savior unless I were already saved (because salvation itself is defined as being enacted through faith in salvation itself). What am I getting wrong?

    Question 5. If you want to know who God is, or where God is, look at where he revealed himself (Jesus). There is the fullness of the faith. The fullness of the faith is not the full story of generations of people in the Church. Although I believe the Catholic Church may very well be the same historic institution it always was, I see no need to be a member of it because that would make salvation dependent upon material history and would make the object of faith the progressive salvation of the Church across time. He said « it is finished » not « now here’s some help I’ve earned for you to finish. » To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant, but to be in Christ is to cease to be deep in history. *Sorry, this one’s not a question but a clever little jab I thought I’d offer to wait for your counterpunch!

    Question 6. Where am I going wrong in this assessment of apophatic theology? I think there’s an internal contradiction in the apophatic way of knowing or describing God. It’s a matter of wanting to have one’s cake and eat it. If God the Son is the Logos, and by logos we know Him, then we must know him in a univocal way; otherwise, there’s an infinite gap where one claims to have a God who reveals himself to our intellects and yet also cannot be described. Either that’s humility about our vocabulary or else it’s a denial of the rationality of any description at all—and reverting to analogy as if it were a safe distance by a single degree of separation from the problem is in vain.

    Question 7. Why do Catholics continue to develop ideas about figures such as St Joseph, about whom we know so little? What is the motivation to do so? Why do they believe their own speculations? Who can ever say they “know” someone with whom interaction has only ever been directed one-way?

    Question 8. I was thinking about the invalidly baptized priests issue from earlier this year, and tried to put words and an argument to the absurdity of the entire scenario as being evidence against the necessity of communion with Rome. The official responses coming from the curia strike me as somewhat mealymouthed in that they essentially admit total ignorance of all details except that God surely must have done something despite the invalidity of basically everything these non-priests did as priests. ‘The best we can do is to hope’ is the line. https://www.aod.org/sacramentsupdate If father’s confessions were invalid, isn’t it an absurdity on its face that souls would be damned on such a miniscule technicality as saying the wrong pronoun during baptism? How can the answer be anything other than “yes, God would be a moral monster if through no fault of your own you did not receive the sacraments”? Do you have equal faith that the priests won’t mess up the formula as you do that God will deliver when it’s done correctly? Do you have equal faith in God delivering what you intend to ask for whether or not the priest mistakenly flubs the formula?

    Thank you.

    Dylan

99. Bryan Cross October 30th, 2020 10:46 pm :

    Dylan (re: #97)

    Thanks for your replies. You wrote:

    Let me simplify and condense as best as I can without losing too much substance by carving my thoughts into syllogisms. I’m not very good at that; I’m better at expressing my thoughts by other means, making generous use of enthymemes and images.

    If there is only expression of thoughts, but without premises and conclusion, then there cannot be reasoning together, but only the exchange of assertions, which is futile. And this will be true not only between persons, but in your own internal thinking. (On the three acts of the intellect, see here.) So it is essential in thinking through theological questions to learn how to reason about them, and that means relating premises to conclusions. As for whether your analogy is fitting, I do not know. I try to avoid engaging in bulverism, by not presuming that the objections persons give to something are driven by irrational or sinful fear or emotions, rather than by the reasons they actually give. I think that better follows the principle of charity.

    Regarding comment #98, like I said above, it is more orderly to address one question at at time. So I will respond to your Question #.1.

    Question 1. If we really truly see Catholics, Methodists, Orthodox and Copts all as Christians, then what are we granting if not the divine agency at work in their lives in shaping history, and in shaping the history of the Church by identifying their Christianity? What also are we presuming to withhold from them and from God in that identity by saying that « yes they are Christians but they need to be Catholics… » ?

    This is actually two questions. The first question asks whether by granting that Methodists, Orthodox, Copts, etc. are Christian, and thus granting the activity of divine providence in the development of those traditions, we are granting them equality with Catholicism. And the answer to that question is no. Providence is involved in all events, even those in which humans sin, though God does not cause the sin. God is providentially involved in the formation of every Christian heresy and schism, but that does not make those heresies into orthodoxy, or those schisms from the Church into non-schisms. The activity of divine providence in a crime, for example, does not justify the crime or make it ethically equivalent to virtuous action.

    The second question is a loaded question, by claiming that we are “presuming” to withhold something from non-Catholics. A better (non-loaded) way of framing the question is: From a Catholic point of view, what are Christians who are not Catholic missing by not being Catholic? And the answer to that question depends upon what sacraments (if any) they are missing, and what doctrines they lack or deny, and what falsehoods about God and the Gospel they affirm. In every case, however, they are missing unity with the visible Church Christ founded.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

100. Dylan Burns October 31st, 2020 12:12 am :

     Hi Bryan,

     I’m disappointed that you honed-in on my comment about being better at one sort of communication than strictly syllogistic arguments, even though I then followed that remark with a more careful, clear presentation of my questions and, yes, arguments. It doesn’t strike me as terribly charitable to assume I don’t know why arguments are useful or the difference between them and assertions. I showed my post to a friend without any background in theology and she understood the general ideas I was getting at.

     Before question 1, which I thank you for spending time on, I did make other comments in #97. You punted on them by advising against assuming motives of these so-called anxious Catholics. Never mind the analogy. Can you please comment on whether you would share my assessment if someone did in fact tell me that he would be an atheist if the Pope were to teach heresy? Or would you also consider that event to make a fiction of your faith (because you believed only on the authority of the Magisterium?) Forgive me, I’m frustrated because I’m not sure how much clearer I could be about the issue I’m referring to. Maybe the trouble is that because I’m not an authoritative source myself, it’s going to be hard for someone who needs such securities to take me seriously enough to warrant a charitable effort at understanding. I don’t mean to be rude with that; I really sincerely wonder, as it’s been a commonality among the Catholics I’ve journeyed alongside these past few years.

     Question 1 could be better stated, actually, so I’ll try again: If someone is “in Christ,” are they missing something necessary to their salvation? If so, it would seem that there are damned souls who left this world nevertheless “in Christ”.

     Thank you,

     Dylan

101. Bryan Cross October 31st, 2020 2:22 am :

     Thanks again Dylan. (re: #100)

     Can you please comment on whether you would share my assessment if someone did in fact tell me that he would be an atheist if the Pope were to teach heresy? Or would you also consider that event to make a fiction of your faith (because you believed only on the authority of the Magisterium?)

     Again, I’m not going to criticize a hypothetical person. Instead, let’s focus on the claim. Here’s the claim: “If the pope were to teach heresy definitively, then atheism is true.” From a Catholic point of view this conditional contains an impossible antecedent, like granting a square circle, or that Jesus could sin. So from the Catholic point of view the mistake is not in the inference to the consequent, but in accepting the possibility of the antecedent. In other words, the antecedent begs the question by presupposing that Catholicism is false, much as the claim that Jesus could sin presupposes that Jesus is not God, and begs the question against the Christian.

     Forgive me, I’m frustrated because I’m not sure how much clearer I could be about the issue I’m referring to.

     When someone shows that he does not understand what you’re saying, the best thing to do, all other things being equal, is to take on yourself the responsibility for the communication failure, and to correct his misunderstanding of what you’ve said, by explaining it more carefully.

     Maybe the trouble is that because I’m not an authoritative source myself, it’s going to be hard for someone who needs such securities to take me seriously enough to warrant a charitable effort at understanding.

     Avoid bulverism, which is uncharitable. (See our “posting guidelines.”)

     Question 1 could be better stated, actually, so I’ll try again: If someone is “in Christ,” are they missing something necessary to their salvation? If so, it would seem that there are damned souls who left this world nevertheless “in Christ”.

     With respect to being in a state of grace, one is either in a state of grace, or not in a state of grace. There is no in-between. No one who dies “in Christ” in the sense of being in a state of grace will be separated from Christ in the life to come. But we become more deeply united to Christ through divinely established stages, as I’ve explained in “Baptism, Schism, Full Communion, Salvation.” And there are divinely established means that aid us in remaining in a state of grace. These means are found in their fullness in the Church Christ founded. The more we make use of these means, the easier it is to persevere in a state of grace. And without these means of grace, we are in a gravely deficient position regarding entering into and remaining in a state of grace. (See Dominus Iesus, 22. See also my comment #75 under the “Some Thoughts Concerning Michael Horton’s Three Recent Articles on Protestants Becoming Catholic” thread.) Moreover, blessedness in heaven is a matter of degree. (See the paragraph that begins “Not everyone in heaven is equally happy” in “The Gospel and the Meaning of Life.”) And growth in grace is aided by our access to the sacraments, and more difficult and limited apart from those sacraments.

     If that does not answer your question, please let me know.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

102. Dylan Burns October 31st, 2020 9:27 am :

     You said: “So from the Catholic point of view the mistake is not in the inference to the consequent, but in accepting the possibility of the antecedent. In other words, the antecedent begs the question by presupposing that Catholicism is false, much as the claim that Jesus could sin presupposes that Jesus is not God, and begs the question against the Christian.”

     Honestly I thought this would be the objection but I didn’t want to jump too far ahead.

     To respond, I’d like to zoom in on my argument that this grounds Catholic faith in fleeting, contingent realities rather than in God. I do understand that he is the Lord of history, and I do understand that this is a historically linear faith in concrete events founded by a man who was both fully in the world (as man) and fully not of the world (as God). It sounds to me, though, like you depend on the Pope never erring in the future in order for what you know about the past (the events of the New Testament) to be true. Is that accurate?

     Thank you.

     Dylan

103. Dylan Burns October 31st, 2020 11:40 am :

     Thank you for patiently working through some of my thoughts with me. I feel satisfied that you resolved at least a few dilemmas with your comment about the state of grace. Of course, I knew what that was–but I was giving too much credence to the and wasn’t giving any thought to “growing in grace,” aided by the sacraments.

     I’ll be more careful to avoid “bulverism”. That’s definitely a bad habit. It isn’t quite what CS Lewis described though, since I’m not thoughtlessly asserting that someone is wrong; my mistake rather is that I don’t explain all of the steps that led me to my conclusions before I lay out psychologizing and off-putting characterizations of where and why people have gone wrong in their thinking. At any rate, I’ll work on deliberately working through my thought processes step-by-step going forward, so thanks for pointing this habit out to me.

     Your explanation of what is lacking apart from full communion in the Church Christ founded reminds me of another issue that’s been troubling my conscience as a catechumen: the popularity of the “many paths to God” philosophy. If you’d permit one side quest that’s only tangentially related to the topic at hand (i.e., our discussion of what it means to be in Christ, and of whether faith in the infallibility of the Pope requires a faith grounded in contingencies rather than in God–comments #100-101) I’d be grateful to have some peace by better understanding Catholic teaching on the subject of other religions and whether their worship or prayer is to the same God.

     Is it Catholic teaching that Muslims and modern day Jews who reject Christ worship the same God?

     That seems to be the case, and the defense I’ve seen given has been that the same Creator created all of those who pray, and that their prayers therefore must only have one destination as only one destination is possible (to the Creator).

     My objection is that the Holy Spirit is who inspires our prayers and I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit inspires people to worship idols. The “religious” impulse to pray to idols is prior to the supernatural grace of the Spirit prompting us to worship Him alone because it is prior to baptism or to cooperation with God’s grace. Instead of calling it prayer to God, I’d characterize that natural impulse in the following way: Pagan religions are not expressions of the Spirit but of needing Him. Jealousy is an expression of lovelessness, too—in both cases, the natural and uninspired impulse is from a lack of relationship with God because the inspiration from the Spirit is absent in pagans.

     The trouble is not a question of where those prayers are directed, but of who is directing them, because we know the former by the latter. Since we believe that the Spirit of Christ is the One who moves us to prayer, and that prayer is participation in the trinitarian mystery (and nothing else), it therefore is a mistake to say that even pagan religions offer prayers to God. Someone may object that it’s question-begging to claim that because prayer is participation in the trinitarian mystery, pagan religions therefore don’t offer prayers to God (i.e., that pagan prayers aren’t actually trinitarian begs the question). I’d reply that the hidden premise in this objection is that there is such a thing as implicit worship of one thing though it’s explicitly something else.

     Furthermore, we encounter the problem that if pagan worship is implicitly something other than what it outwardly claims to be, then even Christian worship may be something other than what it outwardly claims to be as well. Also, we may not know comprehensively what a thing is by its outward expression, but we surely can’t teach that when something is pagan it may also be not-pagan. In other words, if we can’t see that I’m holding up two fingers, we can’t claim therefore that if I am holding up two fingers I may also be holding up three instead. Similarly, if pagans offer prayers to pagan idols, we may not know what they’re actually doing, but we can’t teach in good faith that if it is pagan worship, it may also be implicitly Christian.

     Thank you.

     Dylan

104. Bryan Cross October 31st, 2020 1:04 pm :

     Hello Dylan (re: #102)

     You wrote:

     To respond, I’d like to zoom in on my argument that this grounds Catholic faith in fleeting, contingent realities rather than in God. I do understand that he is the Lord of history, and I do understand that this is a historically linear faith in concrete events founded by a man who was both fully in the world (as man) and fully not of the world (as God). It sounds to me, though, like you depend on the Pope never erring in the future in order for what you know about the past (the events of the New Testament) to be true. Is that accurate?

     No, it is not accurate. Knowing a truth about the future does not mean or entail that one’s knowledge of the past is dependent on that knowledge of the future.

     Re: Comment #103

     Is it Catholic teaching that Muslims and modern day Jews who reject Christ worship the same God?

     Yes. See comment #16 under the “St. Paul on the Unity …” post. And Frank Beckwith gave a good talk on this in November of 2018, titled “Do Muslims and Christians and Jews Believe in the Same God?” You can listen to it here.

     That seems to be the case, and the defense I’ve seen given has been that the same Creator created all of those who pray, and that their prayers therefore must only have one destination as only one destination is possible (to the Creator).

     That’s not the basis for the Catholic teaching. The basis is that they intend to worship the Creator. And there is only one Creator.

     My objection is that the Holy Spirit is who inspires our prayers and I don’t believe that the Holy Spirit inspires people to worship idols.

     Of course the Holy Spirit does not inspire idolatry. But the Creator is not an idol.

     The trouble is not a question of where those prayers are directed, but of who is directing them, because we know the former by the latter. Since we believe that the Spirit of Christ is the One who moves us to prayer, and that prayer is participation in the trinitarian mystery (and nothing else), it therefore is a mistake to say that even pagan religions offer prayers to God.

     This is the same kind of mistake as claiming that because God is providentially involved in the coming to be of heresies and schisms, therefore religious indifferentism (see Dominus Iesus, 22) is true. Just because only the Spirit of Christ moves us to pray to God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it does not follow that those who pray “to an unknown God” are not being moved to do so by the Spirit of Christ, or are being moved by an evil spirit. Little or small movements toward the truth, even if that truth is still mixed with error, can also be caused by the Spirit of Christ.

     I’d reply that the hidden premise in this objection is that there is such a thing as implicit worship of one thing though it’s explicitly something else.

     Or more accurately, it is possible to worship something under an explicit description that is inaccurate, such that the worshiper is ignorant of the inaccuracy of his description of the object of his worship. Christ makes that premise explicit. Christ Himself said to the Samaritan woman, “You worship what you do not know.” [John 4:22] And as I said in the link above, “If St. Paul was justified in saying to the Athenians regarding their altar to an unknown god: “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it ….” (Acts 17:23-24), then how much more should we be cautious in telling people who specifically claim to believe and worship the God who made the world and everything in it, that they worship a being other than the God Christians worship?”

     but we surely can’t teach that when something is pagan it may also be not-pagan.

     Then your issue is with St. Paul, who does this very thing in Athens, as I explained at the link above, by showing that what they worship in ignorance is actually the God revealed in fullness through Christ.

     but we can’t teach in good faith that if it is pagan worship, it may also be implicitly Christian.

     It is important not to shift the goal posts here. The question whether they are worshiping the same God is not the same question as whether their worship is Christian. Pagan worship is not Christian worship with respect to its form. But as St. Paul makes clear in his Areopagus sermon, pagan worship can be directed to the true God.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

105. Dylan Burns October 31st, 2020 1:26 pm :

     Bryan,

     Do you believe that Christ moves every person to Christian worship, but that pagan worshippers fail in the full communion with Truth in their imperfect worship either due to invincible ignorance or due to a deliberate rejection of Truth?

     Is it at least possible that there could be an equal number of Muslims in heaven as there are Christians, given that the Muslims would be in many cases invincibly ignorant of their waywardness or misapprehension of the truth, despite their sincerity in worship of the true Creator?

     Thank you.

     Dylan

106. Bryan Cross October 31st, 2020 1:40 pm :

     Dylan (re: #105)

     You asked:

     Do you believe that Christ moves every person to Christian worship, but that pagan worshippers fail in the full communion with Truth in their imperfect worship either due to invincible ignorance or due to a deliberate rejection of Truth?

     Certainly.

     Is it at least possible that there could be an equal number of Muslims in heaven as there are Christians, given that the Muslims would be in many cases invincibly ignorant of their waywardness or misapprehension of the truth, despite their sincerity in worship of the true Creator?

     I think it unwise to speculate regarding the proportions of Christians and Muslims who will enter into heaven. God only knows such things, and man in humility must accept what in this present life belongs only to God to know.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

107. Dylan Burns October 31st, 2020 1:55 pm :

     Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it’s safe then to say that you think it’s at least *possible that there could be just as many Muslims saved as Christians because it’s *possible that many do not believe due strictly to their ‘invincible ignorance’, through no fault of their own. I’m not asking you to speculate about what actually is the case.

     Saint Paul wrote to the Ephesians that they were dead in their sins, but that they were made alive, saved through faith. Can we now say that such pagans may have already been saved despite their lack of explicit faith in Christ?

     Thank you.

     Dylan

108. Bryan Cross October 31st, 2020 2:51 pm :

     Dylan (re: 107),

     You wrote:

     Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it’s safe then to say that you think it’s at least *possible that there could be just as many Muslims saved as Christians …

     No, like I said above, I think it unwise to make any assumptions about these proportions, including which proportions are possible. I leave these things to God.

     Saint Paul wrote to the Ephesians that they were dead in their sins, but that they were made alive, saved through faith. Can we now say that such pagans may have already been saved despite their lack of explicit faith in Christ?

     Anyone who is dead in sin is not in a state of grace. And only those in a state of grace are saved. So no one who is dead in sin is saved if he dies in that state. But we cannot rightly assume that every non-Christian is dead in sin, because the Holy Spirit can precede baptism. We’ve discussed that in the article titled “VanDrunen on Catholic Inclusivity and Change” and the comments under that article.

     In the peace of Christ,

     -Bryan

109. Dylan Burns October 31st, 2020 2:57 pm :

     May we “hope” that all are saved–including these Muslims? If so, then it’s possible. I’m not sure why the push-back against that question of possibilities. If you believe we can hope that all are saved, you can certainly believe it possible.

110. Bryan Cross October 31st, 2020 3:25 pm :

     Dylan (re: #109)

     You asked:

     May we “hope” that all are saved …

     I’ve given my answer to that question at the essay linked in comment #4 under the “Lawrence Feingold on God’s Universal Salvific Will” post. Particularly see the paragraph in which I distinguish between all without exception, and all without distinction.

     In the peace of Christ,

     -Bryan

111. Dylan Burns October 31st, 2020 3:49 pm :

     Bryan,

     You’ve given me a lot of homework to do so I should probably hit pause and do that rather than change the subject to one of my other questions. Oftentimes those other questions dissolve once one more important one is answered. I’m grateful to finally get to write you since your work here has been so helpful to me.

     The more important question I’d like to return to is this anxiety about a changing Magisterium. What would your guidance be for someone utterly terrorized by the thought that his faith would be in vain if the Pope were to teach heresy? Let’s pretend (though I believe it to be true) that this paranoia about a nightmare scenario of a Church being held hostage by unbelievers is causing a widespread panic in our time. What would you tell those defecting to Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or to atheism–all of them complaining that it was simply too much pressure to bear to believe that, even if the Pope should obviously want to teach contrary to the faith, that God would keep him from doing so?

     The way I see it, you can either believe that your faith in God is owed to the Holy Spirit, or you can believe that it’s owed to the Holy Spirit and the indefectible Church. It’s easy to believe in the Holy Spirit, but hard to believe in men. I’m looking for a more solid explanation than that it simply isn’t possible that the Pope solemnly teach heresy. I’m asking you because you’ve proven yourself to be a trusted source with insights that have the ring of truth to them.

     Many popular traditionalists right now are saying that the Pope cannot change Church teaching, and on the other side are those gleefully shouting from rooftops “I told you doctrine can change!” and both sides have equal numbers of erudite scholars and holy men and women representing them.

     Thank you.

     Dylan

112. Bryan Cross October 31st, 2020 8:17 pm :

     Dylan (re: #111)

     You wrote:

     The more important question I’d like to return to is this anxiety about a changing Magisterium. What would your guidance be for someone utterly terrorized by the thought that his faith would be in vain if the Pope were to teach heresy? Let’s pretend (though I believe it to be true) that this paranoia about a nightmare scenario of a Church being held hostage by unbelievers is causing a widespread panic in our time. What would you tell those defecting to Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or to atheism–all of them complaining that it was simply too much pressure to bear to believe that, even if the Pope should obviously want to teach contrary to the faith, that God would keep him from doing so?

     These are two questions. So let’s start with the second question first, regarding persons “complaining that it was too much pressure”. To the second question I would say what the author of Hebrews says in Hebrews 12:4, “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” The call to take up our cross and follow Christ is a call to die to ourselves, and to be willing to suffer unto death, to remain faithful to Him. We must “contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3). And as Jesus says, the one who endures to the end will be saved (Mt. 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13). So we must hold to the faith, with fierce and determined resolve and with prayer for the gift of perseverance, all the way to the end, no matter how great the “pressure” to abandon even one article of the faith. For abandoning one article is to give up faith altogether, as St. Thomas explains. And regarding the temptation to complain and grumble I would say that we should learn from the negative example of the Hebrews, who complained and grumbled against Moses (1 Cor. 10:10), rather than pray for grace and strength from God to endure their trial.

     Regarding your first question, you have to determine whether the indefectibility of the Church is itself part of the faith, part of the Gospel revealed by Christ. If it is, then it is certain, because God cannot lie, and therefore you don’t need to worry about whether it might be false. If the indefectibility of the Church is part of the Gospel and thus an article of faith, and if Christ founded a visible Church, then it must be true that the Magisterium is divinely protected from definitively teaching falsehood. (On the Magisterium and its being protected from error, see Lumen Gentium, 18-25) So it is a question of determining whether this gift of divine protection is part of the faith that was delivered to the saints. If it is, then you can take it to the bank, so to speak, like every other article of the faith (e.g. the resurrection of the dead).

     The way I see it, you can either believe that your faith in God is owed to the Holy Spirit, or you can believe that it’s owed to the Holy Spirit and the indefectible Church.  It’s easy to believe in the Holy Spirit, but hard to believe in men.

     Certainly. Ecclesial docetism is much easier. Christ is a scandal because of His particularity, and His particularity is because of the Incarnation. He is from Nazareth. He is a Jew. His mother is Mary. The Incarnation turns safe belief in monotheism into the requirement to believe in all the particularities and historical events of 2,000 years ago. Those become tied into faith in an immaterial God, and suddenly a ‘safe’ faith in an immaterial God is now bound up with historical claims that are seemingly falsifiable, like the objection: what if archaeologists found the bones of Jesus. So it is more ‘risky’ to tie faith in with these material, historical claims. It is “easier” just to believe in a safe monotheism without all this incarnation stuff. So you have to set aside the question of degree of easiness, because that’s not determinative. What’s determinative and far more important is the question of truth.

     Many popular traditionalists right now are saying that the Pope cannot change Church teaching, and on the other side are those gleefully shouting from rooftops “I told you doctrine can change!” and both sides have equal numbers of erudite scholars and holy men and women representing them.

     The wheat and the tares, the true teachers and the false teachers, are mixed together in every age, until Christ returns. Today is no different. In every age people have faced the challenge of needing to sift the true teachers from the false teachers. Remember how long the great St. Augustine was a Manichean, and then a neo-Platonist? By the grace of God he kept seeking and searching, and eventually came to the conclusion that Faustus was not a credible teacher, and that Manicheanism was false. But even within the Church the faithful face this challenge, as Church history shows time and time again. There were many heretical bishops in the time of St. Athanasius. And there are always some teachers who by deception lead some of the faithful into heresy or schism. So we must be on our guard. In every age the faithful must be diligent to contend for the faith, not to follow false teachers, but to hold on to what has been handed down. And regarding what has been handed down in the Church about marriage, see the first link in comment #93 above.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

113. Dylan Burns November 2nd, 2020 7:40 pm :

     I have a few follow-on questions related to the Magisterium. How do we know the degree of “intellectual assent” is required, and how do I change my own “degree of assent” to match? For the second question, I believe my chair exists; I’m not sure how to believe to a greater or a lesser degree.

     I made the following comments earlier: “When it comes to the hierarchy of beliefs, faith in Christ must be at the top and not alongside faith in men. Does Catholic faith in Christ require a further extension of that faith to faith in men (eg, the magisterium)? I’d say that we more intimately commune with God than any one person, lest that person become an idol” (#98). The next questions are also related to our conversation about having a faith that is grounded in this-world realities and not entirely ethereal or abstract.

     During Mass today, reflecting back on that previous discussion, the following questions/comments came to me:

     Why might bishops permit syncretistic practices to flourish to such a degree as they have in some corners of the world where the gospel has been preached for centuries? In discussions with friends and coworkers here, for example, these good and devout Catholics have explained their faith to me by setting eternal truths alongside pagan superstitions that they treat with great reverence, knowing little about them except that they’re powerful. I know **many** Catholics here on the border of Mexico whose beliefs are less in a spirit of free gratitude and more a desperate grasping for ‘powers’ or energies; eggs are rubbed on newborns, food and shrines are left to dead relatives, el ojo bracelets–and it’s all of these things together that make up their total faith. Now, you may object that Protestants do it too; after all, they have their Christmas trees and Easter bunnies. But those things are always treated as less important, not equally important as the means to power.

     Of course I wouldn’t ask you to comment on others’ faith based on hearsay, or engage in “bulverism” (although I don’t think such a commentary would be unfair given that it’s based not on blind speculation but on things that are openly shared to me–things liable to confuse a catechumen such as myself). Instead, though, I’d appreciate it if you explained how a Bishop (or whatever appropriate Church authority) decides to permit local pagan traditions or to disallow them. The common thread in all of the examples of these syncretisms that comes to my mind is that they’re all based on totemism or other animistic philosophies that must be joined together as the physical outworkings of faith in higher things like the God of the philosophers in order to arrive somewhere in the vicinity of an orthodox Christianity.

     I know that, at the other extreme, my Reformed faith was rationalistic. It seems to me, however, that there’s a middle ground to find between a totally rationalistic faith that doesn’t engage the material aspects of God’s work in our lives, and a faith that is so totally embodied that no thought is given at all to freedom Christ purchased that we might be frree from such worldly entanglements.

     Thank you,

     Dylan

114. Bryan Cross November 2nd, 2020 10:44 pm :

     Hello Dylan (re: #113)

     As I mentioned in comment #96, I think it is best to focus on only one question at a time. Only geniuses can consider multiple questions at the same time. For the rest of us, when we try to consider multiple questions at the same time, our thinking becomes muddled and unclear. We tend then to jump mentally from one question to another, without adequately and finally resolving any of them, rather than seeing a question through until we have discovered its answer, before turning our attention to the next question. And sometimes answers to secondary questions are provided by answers to more fundamental questions. So it is best to approach them one at a time. Orderliness in our reasoning leads to orderliness in our understanding, and that leads to wisdom.

     How do we know the degree of “intellectual assent” is required,

     See the three links in footnote 11 under “The “Catholics are Divided Too” Objection.”

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

115. Dylan Burns November 2nd, 2020 11:30 pm :

     Bryan,

     As a genius, it’s hard sometimes to remember most others only ever see muddled thinking when the issue is just lazy writing that skips around from conclusion to conclusion, aphorism to aphorism, with the unrealistic expectation that my reader will breezily stitch things together into a coherent story worth reading on his own. Only kidding ; ) It’s your house so I’m happy to follow your rules, really. Still grateful you’re taking the time!

     I am sorry because the point wasn’t to cram as much into a single comment as possible, but instead to give enough examples and details that you’d be able to see a general theme emerge such that you could treat that, rather than going one-by-one with every particular. I thought of it as being something like a physician who studies all of the symptoms together as evidence of an underlying disease, rather than treating each symptom separately.

     The theme I hoped you’d see embedded in all of the particular questions and comments can indeed be shaped into a single question, though, so without further ado, One Single Question:

     How do we strike the orthodox balance between the extremes of idolatry and superstition on the one hand, and a dry rationalism on the other?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

116. Bryan Cross November 3rd, 2020 1:52 am :

     Thanks Dylan. (re: #115)

     Should I assume that the links I referred you to in comment #114 adequately answered your first question from #113?

     How do we strike the orthodox balance between the extremes of idolatry and superstition on the one hand, and a dry rationalism on the other?

     Avoid both, and worship God in the way enjoined by the Church. To avoid the vices you have to know what they are, and to know what they are you need to know their essence. And that is not identical to how the terms are used in colloquial English. On superstition and idolatry see ST II-II Questions 92-96. The Catholic Encyclopaedia article on superstition is also helpful.

     But what you are calling “dry rationalism” is not the opposite of superstition as the term ‘superstition’ is used in the Catholic moral tradition. What you are calling “dry rationalism” is an anti-sacramentalism. But the opposite of ‘superstition’ as that term is used in Catholic tradition is irreligion. Regarding anti-sacramentalism, see Tim Troutman’s “Magical Sacraments in Elfland” and Andrew Preslar’s three-part series on Tolkien’s sacramental world. To see the material world rightly is to recognize that it is not a mere machine or aggregate of lifeless particles. That’s an ontological [philosophical] error known as reductionism or atomism. The whole world is charged with the glory of God. But then, on top of that, the Incarnation shows that God uses matter to bring grace to the soul, because we are material beings. See Larry Feingold’s lecture titled “Why Do We Need Sacraments?” So learn how matter can be sacred at the level of nature (e.g. the way sex is sacred), and learn how matter is made sacred through grace. That will help you avoid anti-sacramentalism.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

117. Dylan Burns November 3rd, 2020 4:56 pm :

     To answer your question about whether my previous questions were sufficiently answered, you have indeed already helped me immensely, although I’m still studying and working my way through all of what you’ve sent so far. Before I go and do that homework, though, I really need to rephrase the last question about superstition.

     What key philosophical differences within the traditions account for the greater prevalence of superstition and the preservation of totemism (from pagan religions) among Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than among the Reformed?

     In other words, why is it more likely that nominal Catholics are superstitious than nominal Presbyterians? I’m trying to ask in a way that won’t be accusatory. That’s the only way I can ask without maligning anyone or committing whatever fallacies would keep us focused on my incoherence instead of resolving whatever is driving these questions. I’m NOT saying “Catholics and Orthodox are superstitious.” I AM saying that, whereas Reformed believers often go wrong is by having a purely intellectual faith, Catholic and Orthodox believers often have many in their ranks who see the world not charged with the grandeur of God but see gods/powers/energies in everything. Again, though, I am not saying that’s permitted or official doctrine.

     Thank you,

     Dylan

118. Dylan Burns November 6th, 2020 6:19 pm :

     Dr. Cross, here are some responses to the links you’ve provided.

     You wrote (#108): “Anyone who is dead in sin is not in a state of grace. And only those in a state of grace are saved. So no one who is dead in sin is saved if he dies in that state. But we cannot rightly assume that every non-Christian is dead in sin, because the Holy Spirit can precede baptism. We’ve discussed that in the article titled “VanDrunen on Catholic Inclusivity and Change” and the comments under that article.” My question: Was Saint Paul presumptuous then to address non-Christians as being dead in sin? How could he have known the state of their souls?

     You wrote (#116): “But what you are calling “dry rationalism” is not the opposite of superstition as the term ‘superstition’ is used in the Catholic moral tradition.” The second sentence of Troutman’s “Elfland” piece, however says that “Perhaps the early Christians were cold rationalists, unswayed by superstitious notions…” At any rate, I want to defend the way I asked that question (#115) because, now that I’ve read your linked materials, I’m not sure you understood what this one single question is that I’ve been trying to get at from different angles. In my question to which 115 was your response, I’d set idolatry and superstition together because both stike me as being born of a carnal-mindedness that seeks in worldly objects (or even ideas about those objects) the spiritual fulfillment that can only be found after our deaths. The Troutman article has him doubling down on that paradigm of a sort of spookiness about everything, and it’s that attitude that manifests oftentimes in superstitions prevalent especially in Catholic or Eastern Orthodox communities but not in Reformed ones.

     Thank you,

     Dylan

119. Bryan Cross November 6th, 2020 8:01 pm :

     Hello Dylan (re: #117),

     What key philosophical differences within the traditions account for the greater prevalence of superstition and the preservation of totemism (from pagan religions) among Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than among the Reformed?

     In other words, why is it more likely that nominal Catholics are superstitious than nominal Presbyterians? I’m trying to ask in a way that won’t be accusatory. That’s the only way I can ask without maligning anyone or committing whatever fallacies would keep us focused on my incoherence instead of resolving whatever is driving these questions. I’m NOT saying “Catholics and Orthodox are superstitious.” I AM saying that, whereas Reformed believers often go wrong is by having a purely intellectual faith, Catholic and Orthodox believers often have many in their ranks who see the world not charged with the grandeur of God but see gods/powers/energies in everything. Again, though, I am not saying that’s permitted or official doctrine.

     Like I said above, in #116, the Catholic theological tradition is sacramental, and the Catholic philosophical tradition is not reductionistic or mechanistic. The notion that things have powers/energies/capacities is part of the Catholic philosophical tradition, and for that reason animism is certainly philosophically closer to the Catholic philosophical tradition than is atomistic reductionism / mechanism. Protestantism not only largely rejected sacramentalism, but generally followed the ontology of the modern era regarding material creatures, and has tended to follow the Cartesian tradition regarding the relation of body and soul.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

120. Dylan Burns November 6th, 2020 9:20 pm :

     Ah, ok—I think I have a handle on that now, thanks. About my other question on St Paul’s letters addressing Christians who were spiritually dead sinners before they came to know Christ: Can one be dead in sin and invincibly ignorant of it?

     Thank you,

     Dylan

121. Dylan Burns November 8th, 2020 1:08 am :

     The trouble with Fairyland is that you have to work at it as an overlay on the real world. The real world is imaginitive, but it’s the work of God’s imagination, not ours. We know the numinous by experience, but we shouldn’t attribute our imaginative renderings through a glass darkly to each ultimate truth as conceived by the Creator.

122. Bryan Cross November 8th, 2020 9:33 am :

     Hello Dylan (re: #120/121)

     Regarding your question in #120, the answer is not after one reaches the age of reason. Of course a person may not know terms like “spiritually dead” or ‘sin.’ But we at that point know the obligation to pursue the truth and the good, according to our conscience and the natural law, and therefore to avoid what is mortal sin.

     As for your comment in #121, your claim presupposes the very point in question, that this is not how the world actually is. But this isn’t an “overlay” on the real world. It is the real world. The Newtonian or reductionistic/mechanistic conception is the myopic and defective conception of the world. See the late Thomas Howard’s book Chance or the Dance. And on the error of scientism see Thomas Burnnett’s “What is Scientism?” and Rik Peels’s “Scientific Fundamentalism” and Fr. James Brent’s “Beyond Scientism: Philosophical Knowing.”

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

123. Dylan Burns November 8th, 2020 11:36 am :

     The reason I asked that question in #120 is because your answer would help me get to my question that you may have missed in #118: Was Saint Paul presumptuous then to address non-Christians as being dead in sin? How could he have known the state of their souls?

     He says they were dead in sin before knowing Christ. How could he know that they didn’t “pursue the truth and the good according to their conscience and the natural law”?

     As for #121, I think you’re making a mistake here to think that my question presupposes scientism. I may be mostly self-taught but I do understand those things and their history well enough. In short, I believe God is our Creator upon whom we depend for every instant.

     The overlay I refer to is studied not in a spirit of discovery but in one of being taken by what I read Congar call “lower case t traditions”. Theologians however only draw from “Tradition”. I call these habits of viewing through a lens of pre-Christian ideas baptized Catholic an “overlay” because they’re hardly ever open to correction. God, on the other hand, when we prayerfully study what he revealed in Tradition, is always there to correct us and lead us into deeper and deeper waters.

     Let’s take a couple examples and imagine that, whenever something goes bump in the night, our first thought is that there may be a demon or an angel making its presence known. Or more to the point, let’s imagine that, when gazing adoringly at a statue of the Virgin Mary, we watch her eyes for a bit of dampness, feeding our gnawing desire to be one of the few lucky ones who have a miracle prove that she’s real and that she really animates statues every now and then. The difference between those beliefs on the one hand, and orthodox faith on the other, is that orthodox faith is informed entirely by Tradition, not traditions.

     Thanks again. By the way, I’m sharing this conversation with family members who are also interested in Catholicism ; )

     Dylan

124. Bryan Cross November 8th, 2020 12:10 pm :

     Dylan (re: #123)

     The reason I asked that question in #120 is because your answer would help me get to my question that you may have missed in #118: Was Saint Paul presumptuous then to address non-Christians as being dead in sin? How could he have known the state of their souls? He says they were dead in sin before knowing Christ. How could he know that they didn’t “pursue the truth and the good according to their conscience and the natural law”?

     By their way of life, which was in violation of the natural law, and showed that they were dead in sin.

     The overlay I refer to is studied not in a spirit of discovery but in one of being taken by what I read Congar call “lower case t traditions”.

     Then you’re engaging in an ad hominem (claiming that those who hold the sacramental view of the world do so not in a spirit of discovery, but closed off to the truth about reality and not open to the correction of their “habits”), and, again, begging the question (presupposing precisely the point in question) by presupposing that the Catholic sacramental view of the world is merely a tradition, and not truth derived from observation, that is also handed down, like the discoveries of empirical science are also handed down. 

     I call these habits of viewing through a lens of pre-Christian ideas baptized Catholic an “overlay” because they’re hardly ever open to correction.

     The Catholic philosophical tradition is open to correction.  It is not an a priori system.

     Let’s take a couple examples and imagine that, whenever something goes bump in the night, our first thought is that there may be a demon or an angel making its presence known. Or more to the point, let’s imagine that, when gazing adoringly at a statue of the Virgin Mary, we watch her eyes for a bit of dampness, feeding our gnawing desire to be one of the few lucky ones who have a miracle prove that she’s real and that she really animates statues every now and then.  The difference between those beliefs on the one hand, and orthodox faith on the other, is that orthodox faith is informed entirely by Tradition, not traditions.

     The presumption of the supernatural (as distinct from the natural) is not the same thing as the sacramental worldview. That distinction is precisely how we recognize miracles, and why the formal process of verifying a miracles requires first ruling out natural causes. The two examples you mention are about the error of the presumption of the supernatural. That’s entirely separate from the sacramental worldview.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

125. Dylan Burns November 8th, 2020 12:53 pm :

     Dr. Cross,

     Thank you for the quick reply!

     You wrote (#124): “The presumption of the supernatural (as distinct from the natural) is not the same thing as the sacramental worldview. That distinction is precisely how we recognize miracles, and why the formal process of verifying a miracles requires first ruling out natural causes.” That’s why I asked earlier (#113) about “how a Bishop (or whatever appropriate Church authority) decides to permit local pagan traditions or to disallow them.” I do want to get to something bigger but maybe it’ll help if you’ll permit me to ask a quick yes or no question: Is belief in the power of “el ojo/the evil eye” a Christian belief?

     The formal verification process you refer to depends upon natural scientific knowledge in order to “rule-out” natural causes. Doesn’t that present a problem as we continue to learn more? Couldn’t there be events we considered miraculous a hundred years ago, that we could explain now as being natural phenomena? I’m glad you brought that up because there’s something that’s really bothered me about canonization of Saints. It made more sense when Saints were declared as such after being considered for their cult following and the orthodoxy of the habits encouraged in the faithful by the example of the Saints’ moral lives; the Church binding itself to the natural sciences by “proving” that something cannot be explained in ‘year x’ isn’t much of a demonstration that something is supernatural. That the infallibility of canonization isn’t de fide (or at least that that’s a controversial point) is cold comfort when you consider the short-sightedness of the Roman Catholic Church binding herself (once again) to material proofs of the immaterial where we didn’t need any.

     Thanks,

     Dylan

     I just reread your last response and I have a few more comments.

     As you’ve pointed out, I haven’t been talking about sacramentalism at all. I’ve been talking about presupposing the supernatural. I understand that sacramentalism is something observed and handed down but just because something is handed down by Catholics, that doesn’t make it a part of sacred Tradition (that* would be begging the question). I, on the other hand, was actually delineating what does qualify as being in that category of Tradition as necessarily excluding things like rubbing eggs on newborns, observing the day of the dead, wearing magic bracelets to ward off the evil eye.

     Regarding the question about St. Paul and his knowledge of the state of souls: What’s the difference between the soul of a baptized believer and the soul of a pagan who follows his conscience? Can we know the answer to that as well as St. Paul knew?

     By the way, I think that you may think that I’m objecting to the belief that God chooses to work through material to disclose truths about himself and our relationship to him, thereby conforming us to his image. That’s not the case. What I’m objecting to is what you called « the presumption of the supernatural ». Thank you for making that distinction for me! I don’t see how Catholic Tradition guides the Barque of Peter between the Scylla of going to supernatural explanations first, and the Charybdis that is the sort of deism according to which creation isn’t suffused with meaning but is a lifeless mechanism. That’s one thing I’m trying to figure out for myself in all of this.

     Thanks,

     Dylan

126. Bryan Cross November 9th, 2020 12:08 pm :

     Dylan, (re: #125)

     Is belief in the power of “el ojo/the evil eye” a Christian belief?

     You would have to disambiguate what you mean by “Christian belief.” If you are asking whether belief in the power of the evil eye is part of Sacred Tradition, then of course the answer is no. But if you are asking whether belief in the power of the evil eye is compatible with Sacred Tradition then the answer is yes, because not all false beliefs are contraries of the articles of faith. Moreover, we have to distinguish between natural power and supernatural power; what cannot be done by the natural power of the human gaze can potentially be done by evil spirits. And their existence and activity in the world is part of Sacred Tradition. Again, just because a belief is false, it does not make the belief incompatible with Sacred Tradition. Believing that you’ll have bad luck by breaking a mirror is false, but not logically incompatible with Sacred Revelation. Lots of Catholics have false beliefs that are not logically incompatible with Sacred Revelation. And not every action based on a false belief is a sin.

     The formal verification process you refer to depends upon natural scientific knowledge in order to “rule-out” natural causes. Doesn’t that present a problem as we continue to learn more?

     No. Incomplete scientific knowledge is not the same thing as skepticism concerning natural capacities. The Church’s determination of a miracle is not based on incomplete scientific knowledge (a God-of-the-gaps) approach but on the knowledge we already have of the natural capacities of things. (For an example regarding the jumping power of cows, see comment #66 in the “Motives of Credibility” thread.)

     Regarding the question about St. Paul and his knowledge of the state of souls: What’s the difference between the soul of a baptized believer and the soul of a pagan who follows his conscience?

     By “state of souls” I assume you are asking about being in a state of grace. If both the baptized believer and the soul of the pagan are in a state of grace, then there is no difference between them with respect to being in a state of grace. If one (and the believer after baptism) has committed mortal sin without repentance, then that person is dead in sin. On the other hand, if you are asking about growth in grace, then the baptized believer making rightful use of the sacraments, and informed by the truth revealed through the Church, can make greater progress than can the pagan without the sacraments and divine revelation, all other things being equal. But only God sees the heart directly, and God is free, if He chooses, to give great graces to one, and less to another, as He sees fit.

     Can we know the answer to that as well as St. Paul knew

     We don’t have some standard for how well St. Paul knew what he knew regarding the Ephesians and Colossians previously being dead in sin. But such a standard is not necessary or important. If someone is living in violation of the primary precepts of the natural law which cannot not be known, and we know that person is mentally culpable for his choices, then we can have moral certainty regarding his not being in a state of grace at that time.

     I don’t see how Catholic Tradition guides the Barque of Peter between the Scylla of going to supernatural explanations first, and the Charybdis that is the sort of deism according to which creation isn’t suffused with meaning but is a lifeless mechanism.

     Unless you see those two options as forming a true dilemma, then you already have the answer. But obviously they form a false dilemma, because rejecting both horns entails no logical contradiction.

     You have five questions on the table at the same time. My recommendation, again, as I said in #96, is that you discipline yourself to focus on only one question at a time, and not move to another question until you resolve and close the present question. That will help you be more careful and focused in asking and resolving your questions, and less scattered and dissipated, and the result will be a more fruitful dialogue.

     In the peace of Christ,

     -Bryan

127. Dylan Burns November 9th, 2020 1:29 pm :

     Wow, so, that actually really unlocked a lot for me. I was actually posing two false dilemmas in all of that.

     I think I can narrow my focus to the work of the Holy Spirit in both believers and non believers. Or is another false dilemma this distinction between “believers” and “non believers” or “Christians” and “non Christians”?

     I suspect that I need to understand how the Spirit has acted in history, especially before and after the death and resurrection of Christ. How did Pentecost affect the capacity of all peoples—baptized Christians and pagans alike—to live in a state of grace?

     Thank you,

     Dylan

128. Bryan Cross November 10th, 2020 7:56 pm :

     Dylan (re: #127)

     You asked two questions. Let’s consider them separately.

     Or is another false dilemma this distinction between “believers” and “non believers” or “Christians” and “non Christians”?

     In the technical sense of the term ‘Christian’ any person is either a Christian or a non-Christian. There is no middle position. (Catechumens are included in the category of Christian; see comment #204 under the “Christ Founded the Visible Church” thread.) But if the term ‘Christian’ is being used to refer to whoever follows Christ, then it is possible, theoretically, to follow Christ without knowing Christ as Christ. That’s at the level of the heart. (Think of the example of Cornelius in Acts 10.) There too, of course, there is no middle position between following Christ at the level of the heart, and not following Christ at the level of the heart. No man can have two masters.

     But regarding the notion that someone is either a “believer” or a “non believer,” what needs to be defined is what exactly is meant by “believer,” what exactly is believed, and what is the mode/manner of belief. For Catholics, for example, at baptism the infant receives the supernatural virtue of faith. So at the moment the infant is baptized he/she is a believer in the sense of having the supernatural virtue of faith, but not in the sense of understanding sacred revelation or the articles of faith. So these things have to be defined and specified in order to answer this question.

     How did Pentecost affect the capacity of all peoples—baptized Christians and pagans alike—to live in a state of grace?

     We have to distinguish between how the question applies to “baptized Christians” and how the question applies to pagans. Of course there were no baptized Christians before Pentecost. But the New Covenant is greater than the Old Covenant, and therefore the measure of grace given in the New Covenant is greater than what was given in the Old Covenant. But to the best of my knowledge the Church has provided no teaching on whether the measure of grace given to pagans apart from hearing the message of the gospel (i.e. in a state of invincible ignorance with respect to divine revelation) is greater after Pentecost than before Pentecost. What we know is that God gives sufficient grace to all, both before Pentecost and after Pentecost, because of God’s universal salvific will.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

     St. Leo the Great, pray for us.

129. Dylan Burns November 10th, 2020 8:40 pm :

     In that case, why Pentecost? If sufficient grace was always given to all, and all anyone had to do was to follow their conscience, I don’t see what difference did Pentecost made. It sounds like it didn’t make any necessary difference for anyone’s salvation at all. Is the supernatural virtue of faith just a sort of ‘extra boost’ for someone who would otherwise be sufficiently motivated to follow their conscience?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

130. Bryan Cross November 10th, 2020 9:48 pm :

     Dylan (re: #129)

     In that case, why Pentecost? If sufficient grace was always given to all, and all anyone had to do was to follow their conscience, I don’t see what difference did Pentecost made. It sounds like it didn’t make any necessary difference for anyone’s salvation at all. Is the supernatural virtue of faith just a sort of ‘extra boost’ for someone who would otherwise be sufficiently motivated to follow their conscience?

     The purpose of grace is not only to get us into a state of grace and into heaven, but also to conform us to the likeness of Christ. And that latter is not a binary, because even in a state of grace we can continue to grow in sanctifying grace. We know that the abundance of grace given under the New Covenant, far greater than under the Old Covenant, is available through the sacraments Christ instituted in His Church, and includes the empowering and equipping of the recipients of the sacraments to evangelize the whole world. The gift of the Holy Spirit, given at Pentecost, is available to the baptized through the sacrament of confirmation. For this reason, the theological truth that the measure of grace given under the New Covenant is greater than under the Old Covenant does not depend on whether the sufficient grace given to all those whose whole lives are lived in a state of invincible ignorance concerning sacred revelation has increased after Pentecost.

     In the peace of Christ,

     -Bryan

131. Dylan Burns November 10th, 2020 11:15 pm :

     I think I understand. I suppose asking “why Pentecost” would be akin to asking “why the sacraments” or “why the Church?” since in all those cases, under suspicion are what appear to me as superfluous means for what is already sufficiently provided to all. That seems less likely to be true to reality because it grates against William of Ockham’s insight that “entities should not be multiplied without necessity.” I’ll give it some more thought.

     Anyway, the above provides me a segue into a question I asked earlier in one of my slightly overwraught lists of misgivings about Catholic thought. I asked (#98): “I have made spiritual progress without any of the sacraments beyond baptism. That means I’ve supposedly neither been confirmed/sealed by the Spirit nor have I been reconciled to God after mortal sin. But what is this spiritual progress if not reconciliation?”

     I sense that there’s either something I’ve misunderstood about the spiritual progress you’ve written on as growth in sanctifying grace, or about the nature of forgiveness, or both. If I’ve never been reconciled to God since baptism (having committed my first mortal sin years ago), then every rung on the ladder of spiritual maturity has been an illusion, hasn’t it?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

132. Dylan Burns November 11th, 2020 11:03 pm :

     Well, I did some more thinking about that question of reconciliation and spiritual progress in growth by sanctifying grace. If you prefer, maybe a shorter route to an answer would be by way of telling me whether I at least have this much right : The baptized compose the mystical body of Christ by incorporation (and aren’t merely in an extrinsic relationship to it), the Holy Spirit is the soul of that body, and the soul cannot extend beyond the body.

     Do I have this right?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

133. Bryan Cross November 12th, 2020 12:00 pm :

     Dylan (re: #131)

     Anyway, the above provides me a segue into a question I asked earlier in one of my slightly overwraught lists of misgivings about Catholic thought. I asked (#98): “I have made spiritual progress without any of the sacraments beyond baptism. That means I’ve supposedly neither been confirmed/sealed by the Spirit nor have I been reconciled to God after mortal sin. But what is this spiritual progress if not reconciliation?” …I sense that there’s either something I’ve misunderstood about the spiritual progress you’ve written on as growth in sanctifying grace, or about the nature of forgiveness, or both. If I’ve never been reconciled to God since baptism (having committed my first mortal sin years ago), then every rung on the ladder of spiritual maturity has been an illusion, hasn’t it?

     Here we move from theology to something very close to spiritual direction. And for that you need a spiritual director, or at least a conversation with a priest in the confessional. I am not your spiritual director, and I will not pretend to be so. So my reply will remain at the level of theology.

     A person cannot grow in sanctity while in in a state of mortal sin. Post-baptismal reconciliation to God after mortal sin and apart from the sacrament of penance and reconciliation is possible with perfect contrition, so long as it ” includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.” (CCC 1452) And just as the grace of baptism can precede the reception of the sacrament of baptism, and even come to those invincibly ignorant of the divine imperative to receive baptism, such that they would [subjunctively] have the desire for baptism if they learned of its necessity, so likewise those who are invincibly ignorant of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, and who would firmly resolve to have recourse to this sacrament as soon as possible if they knew about the obligation to receive it, can receive its effects in advance through a kind of reconciliation of desire. (See the second paragraph of comment #7 under the “St. Thomas Aquinas on the Unity of the Church” thread.) And a person who is in a state of grace can grow in grace, even without recourse to the sacraments, but this growth is more difficult and stunted by not having recourse to the sacraments.

     Re: #132:

     If you prefer, maybe a shorter route to an answer would be by way of telling me whether I at least have this much right : The baptized compose the mystical body of Christ by incorporation (and aren’t merely in an extrinsic relationship to it), the Holy Spirit is the soul of that body, and the soul cannot extend beyond the body. Do I have this right?

     Regarding the first part of your question concerning whether the the baptized compose the Mystical Body of Christ, see the first link in the last paragraph of comment #101 above, especially the quotation in that link from Mystici Corporis Christi. It is possible to be both validly baptized and in schism from the Church. It is possible to be validly baptized and in heresy. It is possible to be validly baptized and in a state of excommunication. So it is too simple (and inaccurate) to assume that baptism is sufficient for full communion, because other conditions are also necessary for full communion.

     Regarding the second part of your question, the answer is no. Just because the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Mystical Body of Christ, that does not mean that the Holy Spirit is only the soul of the Mystical Body of Christ, and is not able to act outside the visible boundaries of that Body. See comment #5 of the “Ecclesiology in the Early Creeds” thread.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

     St. Josaphat, pray for us.

134. Dylan Burns November 12th, 2020 1:44 pm :

     I certainly didn’t expect spiritual direction. I presented that dilemma as a hypothetical that should seem absurd on its face.

     I’m sorry to admit this, but what I see so far is that at every turn, there’s a reduction of a revealed promise to a set of inductively-reasoned conclusions deriving from that promise. This has a sobering or chilling effect; it looks to me like hedging on a promise by asserting that the Scriptural promise itself is neither more nor less guaranteed than what we infer from it. I suppose this is a necessary feature (not a bug) of Tradition extending beyond ‘nuda scriptura’ however.

     Doubtless you’ve seen this same paradigmatic rejection of Tradition before. That’s what makes these conversations helpful—namely, that you’ve helped others through them already and aren’t simply miffed by someone questioning sacra doctrina.

     For example, I know that I have faith and say that “Jesus Christ is Lord” with total unwavering authenticity. But that is known by revelation to be the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit. Having mortally sinned before, and having never been “confirmed,” the effect of what you’ve said here should at least reduce the certainty of the genuineness of my profession of faith as the fruit of the Spirit, shouldn’t it?

     Dylan

135. Bryan Cross November 12th, 2020 2:35 pm :

     Dylan (re: #134)

     I’m sorry to admit this, but what I see so far is that at every turn, there’s a reduction of a revealed promise to a set of inductively-reasoned conclusions deriving from that promise. This has a sobering or chilling effect; it looks to me like hedging on a promise by asserting that the Scriptural promise itself is neither more nor less guaranteed than what we infer from it. I suppose this is a necessary feature (not a bug) of Tradition extending beyond ‘nuda scriptura’ however.

     If you evaluate Catholic doctrine by way of a criterion that presupposes Protestantism (e.g. “nuda scriptura”), then you’re begging the question, i.e. presupposing the very point in question. That’s true whether you are or are not “sorry” to “admit” something, whether from the Protestant paradigm Catholic doctrine seems to be a “reduction” or “hedging” of a revealed promise, and whether the effect on you is “sobering” or “chilling.” Insofar as each of those negative adjectives is built on a Protestant criterion, it is irrelevant to the question of the truth of Catholic doctrine. As I’ve explained repeatedly at this site, if we use one paradigm to judge between that paradigm and another paradigm, we are simply reasoning in a circle, that is, presupposing in our premises precisely what we are attempting to answer through our argumentation.

     For example, I know that I have faith and say that “Jesus Christ is Lord” with total unwavering authenticity. But that is known by revelation to be the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit. Having mortally sinned before, and having never been “confirmed,” the effect of what you’ve said here should at least reduce the certainty of the genuineness of my profession of faith as the fruit of the Spirit, shouldn’t it?

     In order to answer that question, I would need to know your present level of certainty of the genuineness of your profession of faith. And that’s a spiritual direction question. But speaking at the theological level, in the Catholic paradigm, the “certainty of faith” (i.e. the certainty of the truth of the content of faith) is greater than the certainty one can have that one is in a state of grace. The latter is at the level of moral certainty. (See comment #178 under the “Reformation Sunday 2011” post, and the subsequent comments there in my conversation with Nathan [i.e. comments 218, 225, 227, 232, 253, and 270].) In the Protestant paradigm, by contrast, these are not distinguished. So if you’re judging the Catholic paradigm by whether or not one can have the “certainty of faith” regarding being in a state of grace (or having the supernatural virtue of faith), you’re presupposing one of the two paradigms in order to judge between the two paradigms. And again, that’s question-begging, i.e. presupposing the very point in question, namely, which of the two paradigms is true. That’s not a neutral criterion by which to judge between them.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

136. Dylan Burns November 12th, 2020 6:18 pm :

     Dr. Cross,

     Maybe I’m misreading your tone, but your scare quotes around “sorry,” “admit,” “sobering,” and “chilling” came across as a little belittling. I do understand that something seeming “chilling,” etc, would not mean it’s false. I do like the way you give straight answers to doctrinal questions, but tone matters, too. Maybe you don’t realize this, but I actually raised the point that we are approaching from different paradigms precisely because I was identifying that fact as a possible reason for my disagreement with whatever doctrines. I know you’ve written on the subject “repeatedly at this site”. It was something I offered offered as a possible self-critique.

     Now for a question, the subtler point in my last comment mentioned the Catholic use of induction in defining doctrine, or filling-out the content of the deposit of faith for every generation. I hear a lot of Catholics talk about how they “know” Saint so-and-so. One example would be knowledge of Saint Joseph. In my earlier (#98) list of questions I asked the following: Why do Catholics continue to develop ideas about figures such as St Joseph, about whom we know so little? Who can ever say they “know” someone with whom interaction has only ever been directed one-way? Please feel free to treat that as one question about using inductive reasoning to know more about a living person with whom we only ever have one-way interaction–unless, of course, I’m ‘begging the question’ in asserting that the interaction is “one way”.

     Dylan

137. Dylan Burns November 13th, 2020 5:04 pm :

     I honestly hate doing these in two’s, but I may save you time and effort if I can do more to clarify my question (#136). I’m asking how Catholics learn more about someone millennia later based not on new information but on speculation about old information. In my reading on these subjects (especially about the dogmatic Marian definitions) there’s a lot of talk about “fittingness,” and use of inductive reasoning.

     Here’s a timely example: How did all of these people come to the conclusion that Carlo fixed their internet? https://www.churchpop.com/2020/11/11/the-miracle-of-bl-carlo-acutis-this-convents-internet-a-sisters-inspiring-story/

     Dylan

138. Bryan Cross November 14th, 2020 6:03 pm :

     Dylan (re: #136)

     Maybe I’m misreading your tone, but your scare quotes around “sorry,” “admit,” “sobering,” and “chilling” came across as a little belittling.

     I apologize. That was not my intention in using quotation marks. My intention was to highlight the terms you used.

     Why do Catholics continue to develop ideas about figures such as St Joseph, about whom we know so little? Who can ever say they “know” someone with whom interaction has only ever been directed one-way? Please feel free to treat that as one question about using inductive reasoning to know more about a living person with whom we only ever have one-way interaction–unless, of course, I’m ‘begging the question’ in asserting that the interaction is “one way”.

     Yes, you are begging the question, by presupposing a denial of the Catholic doctrine of the communion of saints, which is an article of the Apostles’ Creed. That communion is not limited only to those alive on earth. Nor is it only one-way with those in heaven. Your “why” question is a question of motivation. And the answer to that is that we love the saints, as should you.

     Re: #137:

     I’m asking how Catholics learn more about someone millennia later based not on new information but on speculation about old information. In my reading on these subjects (especially about the dogmatic Marian definitions) there’s a lot of talk about “fittingness,” and use of inductive reasoning.

     It isn’t about fittingness and it has nothing to do with induction. Nor is it “speculation about old information.” It is the fruit of contemplation by which we come to see more deeply into what is present, informed and illuminated by the charity of devotion and communion.

     How did all of these people come to the conclusion that Carlo fixed their internet?

     The same way you know that God answered your prayers, by the light of faith. In this case the faith is informed by the truth of the doctrine of the communion of saints, and knowledge of the particular character of Blessed Carlo Acutis.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

139. Dylan Burns November 16th, 2020 1:01 pm :

     How do you love someone you’ve never met? I’ve met the Holy Spirit (and therefore God) but I’ve never met Blessed Carlo Acutis.

     I understand the doctrine of the communion of saints in theory, but I’m not sure what sort of love that is on this side of the veil (experientially?) Even in theory I find it confusing–do we will the good of Blessed Carlo Acutis? It’s easy to say that I *ought* to love him–but can you command love? Christ commands love, but he effectuates that love in us himself and gives us the opportunity to know that love by experience, interacting directly with those whom we love. I know Christ because Christ knows me and makes himself known directly; likewise I love Christ because He commands it and that elicits love with which I can cooperate. But loving Carlo? I don’t interact with him in the way I do with Christ (by his Spirit), do I? I suppose you can say that I do if we’re all on Body. Is that right?

     I’ll be able to explain why and where I see induction if need be; it sounds, however, like you want to say that’s beside the point and that the command to love is the point instead. That’s fair, I’ll only bring induction up if the need arises.

     Thanks,

     Dylan

140. Dylan Burns November 18th, 2020 4:25 pm :

     2/2 (clarifications)

     You wrote: “Nor is it only one-way with those in heaven. Your “why” question is a question of motivation. And the answer to that is that we love the saints, as should you.”

     I should have asked “how,” not “why,” because that was what I meant. The question was how we discover new information about Mary or Joseph (et al) without new revelations in new Scriptures. This, by the way, is where I’ve seen induction and fittingness playing their role in the development of those doctrines. An often heard phrase when studying the Marian dogmas, for example, has been “It is only fitting that…” followed by speculation about something it would have only been fitting for God to have done in someone’s life or in salvation history. In past cases, God did x; therefore, it’s argued (induction), it would only be fitting that God would do x again. I can give specific examples if necessary.

     The question I just asked in my last comment (#139) was in the same vein, that’s why this second comment is perhaps useful. In the last comment I was asking “how” we love saints with only patchy biographical data to go on.

141. Bryan Cross November 19th, 2020 11:23 am :

     Dylan (re: #139 & #140)

     To help yourself discipline your mind to consider one question at a time, as I requested in #96, please limit yourself to only one question mark. (You have seven in #139.)

     Your question “how can I love someone I’ve never met?” presupposes that you must meet a person in order to love that person. Fulfilling the Great Commission would have been prompted by no horizontal love (i.e. love-for-neighbor) if that were true. But it is not true. Love is not fundamentally an emotion or experience. Love fundamentally is a choice of the will, to seek the good for that person, and the rightful union with that person for your respective stations in life. And even the smallest token of knowledge of a person (e.g. that a person exists, existed, or will exist) is sufficient to choose to love that person.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

142. Dylan Burns November 19th, 2020 12:15 pm :

     Love is a choice of the will but every choice of the will has an object known by experience. I don’t love anything of which I have no experience. Christ commands love from us, but he effectuates that love in us himself, giving us the opportunity to know that love by experience through direct interactions with those whom we are to love. I know Christ because Christ knows me and makes himself known directly; likewise I love Christ because He commands it and that elicits love with which I can cooperate. Fulfilling the Great Commission is possible by vertical love that is expressed and experienced horizontally as the Spirit bears fruit in our loving relationships.

     In what way are you daily willing the good for Blessed Carlo Acutis, considering he’s in heaven (a far better position), you are here, and your only interaction is going to be praying to him to request goods from him (i.e. merited graces), and presumably receiving those from him in accordance with God’s will?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

143. Dylan Burns November 19th, 2020 12:49 pm :

     2/2
     I just realized I can answer at least part of my question myself: If all prayers are the fruit of the Spirit, then prayers to Carlo are also the fruit of the Spirit. You experience love in relationship to Carlo by the same movement of the Spirit as is experienced in every other loving relationship willed by God.

     The question is still, however, whether the object of your good willing (e.g., Carlo) can be someone or something of which you have no experience by direct interaction. That’s what I mean by “In what way are you daily willing the good for Blessed Carlo Acutis…” (#142)–I mean to ask “how”.

     Thanks,

     Dylan

144. Bryan Cross November 19th, 2020 3:37 pm :

     Dylan (re: #142, #143)

     but every choice of the will has an object known by experience.

     That assumption on your part is rejected in the Catholic tradition. As I explained above, many have followed the Great Commission to bring the gospel to persons of whom they had no experience, and they went not only out of love for God, but also for love of those persons. Here’s another example. A newly married Catholic couple can pray for their future children out of love for those children, even though they have no experience of those children, because the children have not even been conceived. And I can love my mother’s father, although I had no experience of him, because he died before I was born, and the same is true of all my preceding ancestors. And of course we love our guardian angel, even if we have no direct experience of our guardian angel. Nor is anyone exempt from the obligation to love God until he or she has an experience of God. The horizon in your scope of whom you can and should love is too narrow.

     In what way are you daily willing the good for Blessed Carlo Acutis, considering he’s in heaven (a far better position), you are here, and your only interaction is going to be praying to him to request goods from him (i.e. merited graces), and presumably receiving those from him in accordance with God’s will?

     When in “The Divine Praises” we pray “blessed be God” we are praying for God’s good. Consider how many times such a phrase is used in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms. Of course God has no need for benefits, since He is the source of all benefits. But God is more greatly glorified the more His glory is revealed in us. (See the paragraph that begins “The paradox of glory has to do with assumption (1)” in the article “The Gospel and the Paradox of Glory.”) So the more creatures conform to God, the more God is glorified. And this shared acknowledgement of God’s greatness and love for God on the part of creatures is an extrinsic recursive benefit to God, a reputational and relational benefit to God, because it more fully manifests God. And this is what Lucifer seeks to diminish, but what the saints seek to increase. And this is what we mean in praying “blessed be God.”

     Similarly, although the possibility for further merit ends at death, to participate in the expansion of God’s kingdom is a great good to the participant, for reasons explained in the “paradox of glory” post linked above. So our petitions to the saints are a good to them, because we are invoking the saints to participate in an intercessory way in the expansion of God’s Kingdom. Likewise, just as acknowledging God’s goodness and willingness to help us is an act of goodness toward God when we ask Him for help with such a disposition (like such requests are from children to parents), so too acknowledging in the saints their goodness and willingness to help us, through our petitions to them, is an act of goodness toward them when we ask for their help with such a disposition. More basically, to speak with a friend is to nurture the friendship and so nurture a common good enjoyed by the friend, and in this way is an act of love to the friend. This is true whether in prayer with God or in conversation with a friend on earth such as a spouse, or with a departed saint.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

145. Dylan Burns November 20th, 2020 11:52 pm :

     I think you’re right.

     At this point, I realize that I’m starting to move away from looking for logical inconsistencies and toward looking for real-life implications.

     Regarding our broader conversation about Protestant and Catholic paradigms that manifest these myriad questions, however, there is one more generalization about how Scripture fits into each paradigm that’s taking shape in my mind now. You’ve already been generous to allow this discussion to venture off into the woods here. If this is better for another thread, please let me know.

     Is the following a fair assessment?

     Where the Protestant might see the end of the Bible as the end of the complete record (of what every individual needs for salvation), the Catholic would be a little suspicious that such a framing might impose an arbitrary cut-off point of the ongoing work of God, and the Catholic would want to emphasize that the New Testament only tells the beginning of the story of the Church–that is, the story of the ark and the Mystical Body of Christ in which we’ve all had access to salvation ever since the apostolic age.

     In other words, where the Protestant might consider Scripture to be information about the finished salvation of every generation to come, the Catholic would consider Scripture informative about the finished salvation of the first Christians within the ongoing history of salvation that continues today. Within the Catholic paradigm, there is no new revelation after the closing of the canon, but every generation thereafter is a sort of recapitulation of the story of salvation recorded in Scripture.

     Thanks,

     Dylan

146. Bryan Cross November 22nd, 2020 2:30 am :

     Hello Dylan (re: #145)

     I’m not willing to say that’s a fair assessment, not only because some Protestants would reject that description of their position, but also because according to the Catholic Church, the culmination of divine revelation takes place in Christ, because it is all about Christ, not fundamentally a history of the Church. That’s why revelation is complete. See paragraphs 54 – 67 of the CCC.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

147. Dylan Burns November 22nd, 2020 1:46 pm :

     I’m learning both the Protestant and Catholic versions since conversion on Easter 4 years ago, so I’m still trying to get the shape of both instead of simply rehashing old, tired debates that lack urgency and get people like myself (caught between two paradigms) stuck in the weeds.

     Two oft-debated ideas between Reformed and Catholic Christians that would probably bore you (considering they’re trite and the epitome of missing the forest for the trees even for me just four years into beginning to think about any of this) that I was getting at were the ‘sufficiency of Scripture’ and the ‘finality of the cross’ (i.e., the life, death and resurrection of Christ to save us without any further need for temporal application). With regard to both, the Reformed Protestant would emphasize finality, finished work, end of the canon, etc. The general impression I have is that, to the Protestant, the canon was closed—and that that’s the end of the story of how we were saved by Jesus Christ. Now, he might say, we are simply to live with dutiful gratitude for that finished work without any pretenses about having a duty to contribute to that finished work that was recorded two thousand years ago.

     I see something else in Catholic thought. The Church, the Body of Christ, is still a continuing history for the Catholic. And although that’s technically true for the Protestant (just as it’s technically true that for the Catholic the work was final but now ‘applied’) the fact that the ongoing working-out of our salvation is far less emphasized has consequences, for example, the neglect of any ideas about sanctification, the meaning of suffering, and other topics that draw us into the weeds again.

     Perhaps you’ll find time to make corrections to the above assessment where you see fit, and also to answer the following: Where do Reformed Protestants go wrong in thinking about how the story of our salvation has continued since the closing of the canon?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

148. Dylan Burns November 24th, 2020 1:37 pm :

     I recognize that the comment 147 would probably require a great deal of space if you were to give it a full-orbed answer, so I thought I’d try to clean things up by circling-back to where we began in order to find some closure.

     In comment 112 you referred me to the article about the indefectibility of the Church. I’ve given a little more thought to this, trying to pin down exactly the right words that would ease the consciences of those like myself who have been susceptible to stumbling blocks to believing wholeheartedly that the magisterium is an organ by which we know that indefectibility (and such vulnerable persons include a number of popular traditionalist Catholics on social media with whom I’ve been interacting lately). In short, lots of us worry that the fruits are so spoiled that it’s almost meaningless cold comfort to say the tree is still as healthy as ever. It seems absurd on its face to us to insist that we don’t need to worry about following the (im)moral examples set by the lives of many of our pastors in their words or deeds because, after all, only ‘official’ teachings require the assent of faith.

     I think I can try to take a new angle on this. Would the following be theologically-sound advice for someone with those complaints?

     To anyone complaining that it’s cold comfort that the magisterium or the Pope are infallible, given their public failures as shepherds : From what I’ve learned, it may be helpful to understand the ‘ex cathedra’ conditions in their proper context of being within a continuing history of Christ and his Church. This is something lost by many Protestants if they divorce their particular lives as members of a living Body of Christ from the ongoing unfolding of salvation history that began with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as it was recorded in Scripture.

     We are equally remiss to excise the conditions under which ex cathedra statements are made by divorcing them from their historical context, as we would be remiss to cut the infallible words of prophets, or of the scribes who recorded the books of the Bible, out of their context within this same continuing history.

     The Pope cannot err when he is speaking on something that is certainly believed by the faithful and needs to be affirmed in an official way in order to prevent souls from wandering into darkness. These are not boxes to check if a Pope decides on a whim that he wishes to say something ex cathedra; rather, it’s better to see that they happen to be the conditions under which the Spirit has historically protected the Church.

     In other words, the Pope speaks infallibly when he’s teaching something we need to know is true, especially because there’s some threat at hand and we risk losing our way by misunderstanding whatever point is being clarified.

     By the same logic, we could also complain that it’s « cold comfort » that the Bible is infallible despite the sins of those who recorded its words; but the Bible was written within a context and for a purpose determined and carried out by God through fallible people. Likewise, the Pope is infallible—as are all the individuals that make up the magisterium.

     Thanks,

     Dylan Burns

149. Bryan Cross November 24th, 2020 4:00 pm :

     Hello Dylan (re: #148)

     In short, lots of us worry that the fruits are so spoiled that it’s almost meaningless cold comfort to say the tree is still as healthy as ever. It seems absurd on its face to us to insist that we don’t need to worry about following the (im)moral examples set by the lives of many of our pastors in their words or deeds because, after all, only ‘official’ teachings require the assent of faith.

     Notice the words “lots,” “worry,” “spoiled,” “meaningless,” “cold,” “comfort”, “absurd,” “insist.” This is the approach of sophistry, which sidesteps the question of truth, replaces it with other criteria, and constructs a straw man of those proclaiming the truth by claiming that they are “insisting” on things rather than providing evidence and argumentation (because, again, evidence and argumentation are what are used in the rational task of discovering the truth). Those who are looking fundamentally for “comfort,” should go to a spa, or to Joel Osteen, not the Catholic Church. The call of Christ preserved in His Church is to take up our cross daily [καθ’ ἡμέραν, St. Lk. 9:23] and follow Him to crucifixion. So the truth can be painful and involve daily suffering and great discomfort. And that’s why these other criteria cannot be our ultimate criteria. (See the third link in comment #89 above.) Even the scandalous sins of our brothers and sisters, and leaders, are part of the discomfort we are called to bear in taking up our cross daily, because of our belonging to the same body, such that when one sins, we all suffer.

     To anyone complaining that it’s cold comfort ….

     Again, it is not about comfort, but about truth. To approach the Catholic question (or the God question) through the criterion of comfort, is to presuppose ecclesial consumerism. That underlying methodology is not neutral, and therefore must not be left unchallenged and unrefuted, let alone conceded.

     it may be helpful to understand the ‘ex cathedra’ conditions in their proper context…

     It is always helpful to understand things in their proper context, and certainly that applies no less to the dogma of papal infallibility.

     By the same logic, we could also complain that it’s « cold comfort » that the Bible is infallible despite the sins of those who recorded its words; but the Bible was written within a context and for a purpose determined and carried out by God through fallible people. Likewise, the Pope is infallible—as are all the individuals that make up the magisterium.

     Certainly the flaws of the popes are analogous to flaws of the biblical authors (St. Peter included), with respect to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and the infallibility of ex cathedra teaching.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

150. Dylan Burns November 24th, 2020 4:33 pm :

     I think there’s some force in the objection that I failed to convey by my usual indirectness. While I appreciate the “facts don’t care about your feelings” approach, it isn’t just sophistry to appeal to knowing them by their fruits—and that’s the heart of the objection. The objection is that the Catholic Church makes claims to having fruits that must be believed to exist on faith despite what our lying eyes see in the actual functioning of the Catholic Church.

     Maybe my answer to this objection of knowing them by their fruits would make more sense if I got the epistemology right:

     Is it accurate to say that we recognize when a Pope is infallible by the same light by which we recognize the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

151. Bryan Cross November 24th, 2020 9:11 pm :

     Dylan (re: #150)

     … it isn’t just sophistry to appeal to knowing them by their fruits—and that’s the heart of the objection. The objection is that the Catholic Church makes claims to having fruits…

     This objection is addressed in “The Holiness of the Church” post, and the comments following it, especially comment #13 (and the comment at the last link therein), comment #30, #32, and #37.

     Is it accurate to say that we recognize when a Pope is infallible by the same light by which we recognize the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture?

     We recognize when a pope speaks infallibly by recognizing that all the conditions for his speaking infallibly are met: (1) he is speaking in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, (2) he is speaking in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (3) he defines a doctrine to be held by the whole Church, and (4) the doctrine concerns faith or morals. (Those are from the last full paragraph of Pastor Aeternus.) We (Catholics) recognize the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture by the Catholic Church teaching us that Scripture is inerrant and divinely inspired. (See also Verbum Domini from Pope Benedict in 2010 and “The Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture” from the PBC (Spanish version here) in 2014.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

152. Dylan Burns November 25th, 2020 1:21 pm :

     Dr. Cross,

     How do you know when you’re doing theology?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

153. Bryan Cross November 26th, 2020 6:07 pm :

     Hello Dylan (re: #152),

     How do you know when you’re doing theology?

     The answer to this question can be determined by how we answer “How do you know when you’re doing x?” questions. We answer such questions by knowing the species of the act, and that we’re engaged in an act of that species. So the answer to your question depends upon the prior question, what is the species of the act of doing theology, or theologizing? And doing theology generally means studying, contemplating, or advancing theology. But there are different kinds of doing theology, because the term ‘theology’ has looser and more technical senses. In a loose and broad sense, theology is any study, thought, or contemplation of divine matters, and any such study, whether third-person or second-person, is doing theology. In a more technical sense theology is a science, and we can distinguish between sacred theology and natural theology. So in this more technical sense if a person is studying or advancing either of those sciences, that person is doing theology.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

154. Dylan Burns November 27th, 2020 1:29 am :

     Bryan,

     I don’t think all of this work I’ve done convincing myself to follow Christ and referring back to what I’d written before in order to stay on that path during these past few years has just been a hobbyist’s attempt at aping ‘real professionals.’ If what I write helps me, surely it could help someone else. To God goes any credit–and that’s the point because that’s precisely what I need to know (i.e, whether this is God’s work through me or not). If I’ve not accurately described God and my relationship to him, then I’ve been wasting my time. I know: It’s not always an easy read. It’s always easier to find problems with “la forme” and miss the forest (to mix metaphors) by treating every passage with logic-chopper’s precision blade. Nothing I’ve written is typical, and I know the hardest thing in the world for nerds to do is to expect someone else to be interesting–especially if *gasp* something was ill-defined. On that note, however, I believe it was Rule 5 in your helpful article on rhetoric that said that we should expect to learn and not presume to take the role of teacher. Sadly, that’s a rare insight.

     So keeping in mind all of the above as purposefully written context: What does it mean to advance theology and how does one know when he’s done it?

     Thanks,

     Dylan

155. Dylan Burns November 27th, 2020 3:02 pm :

     Dr. Cross,

     I apologize for the snarky commentary that preceded my last question re: “advancing” theology. I think I’ve answered that myself. I took a couple of points I’ve learned in discussion with you into consideration.

     Can you please confirm that I’m on track with this short response? :

     I worried that I was misleading myself by solipsistic reflections and that I therefore risked misleading others away from God rather than toward him by pridefully spreading unrefined, vaguely spiritual, claptrap full of koans and disjointed aphorisms.

     It’s senseless, though, to worry that one’s written works born of contemplation contain too many inaccuracies to aid fellow pilgrims on their journey to nearness with Christ because, in fact, all works are fallible except when they’re clear expressions of dogmatic teaching. The value of contemplation (and therefore the value of these written expressions of that contemplation) is communion, which is its own end. Moreover, we still see through a glass darkly, and even from imperfections we can draw real beauty, truth, and goodness if we read in a spirit of charity and patience. (https://www.severalstories.com/life-preservers-1/2020/11/27/whats-the-point)

156. Bryan Cross November 27th, 2020 5:53 pm :

     Hello Dylan (re: #154, #155)

     What does it mean to advance theology and how does one know when he’s done it?

     By advancing theology I meant extending the knowledge proper to the science. To do that one must first master the science. Then one would know when one is advancing the science. But theology, like every other science, is public and communal and collaborative, both synchronically and also diachronically. We advance it only by standing on the shoulders of all those who have come before us, and only in collaboration with those presently also seeking to master and advance the science.

     Can you please confirm that I’m on track with this short response?

     While it is true that apart from Magisterial teaching meeting the conditions of infallibility, every theological work is fallible, and any statement or reflection can potentially be helpful to others, the work of a trained craftsman is very different from the work of an untrained beginner. If you need your chimney repaired, you will not hire or consult someone with no training. That’s true no less in theology than in every other craft and science. Jesus pointed out that the blind cannot lead the blind, not only others who are blind, but themselves as well. One cannot give what one does not have. And for the most part one has only what one has received from others. In general, no one masters a discipline, craft, or science, without placing oneself under a teacher. That’s why throughout history those who became masters always first were apprentices. So if you wish to teach theology, then my recommendation is that you put yourself at the feet of those who are masters of the science.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

157. Dylan Burns November 27th, 2020 7:00 pm :

     Was there anything specific wrong with this paragraph?

     “It’s senseless, though, to worry that one’s written works born of contemplation contain too many inaccuracies to aid fellow pilgrims on their journey to nearness with Christ because, in fact, all works are fallible except when they’re clear expressions of dogmatic teaching. The value of contemplation (and therefore the value of these written expressions of that contemplation) is communion, which is its own end. Moreover, we still see through a glass darkly, and even from imperfections we can draw real beauty, truth, and goodness if we read in a spirit of charity and patience.”

     If not, then I’m not sure why the credentialism.

     Thanks,

     Dylan

158. Dylan Burns November 27th, 2020 7:18 pm :

     “By advancing theology I meant extending the knowledge proper to the science. To do that one must first master the science.”

     I don’t know anyone who ever mastered theology. I’m sure I’ve read more to learn from “the masters” in 4 years probably than Saint Thèrese of Lisieux. Was she a master?

     It doesn’t take being a master of theology to know you’re writing accurately about someone you love. And if you’re unsure of your accuracy, it isn’t any less useful to write what comes to you in contemplation because the contemplative act itself is communion which is its own end.

     Thanks,

     Dylan

159. Bryan Cross November 27th, 2020 7:40 pm :

     Dylan (re: #157, #158)

     I answered your question in #157 in #156. As for #158, feel free to disregard what I’ve said and carry on.

     We’ve strayed very far from the topic of this thread, and the purpose of this site. So I’m bringing the conversation to a close. May God continue to guide you as you pursue Him.

     In the peace of Christ,

     – Bryan

Leave Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ

Called to Communion

Called to Communion on Facebook

Stay Informed

Subscribe to all posts
Subscribe by email
Subscribe to comments

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

The Obscurity of Scripture

A Thai Lesson in Ecumenism

A Response to Steven Nemes’s “Why Remain Protestant?”

Open Forum

Casey Chalk Discusses TULIP on the Creedal Catholic Podcast

That There Be No Schisms Among You

Alister McGrath’s Conversion on Justification

Does the Devil Make You a Catholic?

John Calvin on Dead Faith

St. John Chrysostom on Sola Fide

St. Ambrose on Sola Fide

How Are We Saved?

Authors

Barrett Turner

Beth Turner

Bryan Cross

Casey Chalk

David Anders

Deacon Jason Stewart

Fred Noltie

Guest Author

J. Andrew Deane

Jason Kettinger

Jeremy Tate

John Kincaid

Joshua Lim

Marc Ayers

Matt Yonke

Neal Judisch

Sean Patrick

Tim Troutman

Tom Brown

Tom Riello

Video