Today is my last day

[Ben Kenobi]

What, exactly, is that difference? And how should it sway one's decision to convert to RC? It is called the Counter Reformation because their goal was to limit or eliminate as much of the reforms as possible.

Actually, the objective was to counter the reformation by undertaking the reforms to retain people within the Catholic church by addressing the very valid issues raised by Luther.

Sure, stamp out the overt corruption that makes the RCC look bad. But real change, for the sake of God alone? No.

It was a real question for the popes of the time, whether they ought to side with Luther, or with the other reformers within the Catholic church, including St. Francis of Assisi. It was only after quite some deliberation did they choose to adopt the reforms of St. Francis rather than those of Luther. This to me suggests that the counter reformation was undertaken out of a desire to sincerely address the abuses in the church, rather than a cynical ploy to paper over the problems. The issues that they had with the theology of Luther, are valid complaints, and it is a good thing that they chose not to accept all of his reforms, even as they accepted most of them.

It has taken four and a half centuries of "reformers" to accomplish a fraction of what Luther did in one brief lifetime. That comparison is extremely difficult to place in a favorable light, but you are welcome to try.

For one simple reason. It is easy to adopt change when you are concerned only with a small body and those who do not agree with you are free to leave and form another church. It is quite different to adopt change, when you believe there ought to be only one church in Christ, and that any changes to this church ought to be followed by all Christians.

This is why the reformers within have undertaken the changes slowly, and with more success than the reforms of Luther outside. Vatican II, in the long run, will have more of an impact than Luther's desire to adopt the vernacular, simply because of the scope of Christianity affected by the second Vatican council.

I see the reformers inside the Roman church as those who were either too cozy with or too fearful of the corrupting influence of power to make a stand for the truth. For at least two full centuries after Luther any reformer was literally risking torture and death. The RCC compromised the truth and fought against change, generation after generation.

And truth is always found in change? Change is not truth in itself, change for the sake of change can introduce falsehoods just as easily as it can purify. I see those inside the church, concerned with the theology of Luther, and the harmful effects therein, and they have found their opinion of Luther has held up over time.

It is saddening that Luther's reforms soon fell under the same corruption. Those who rose to power become persecutors against reform. Likewise for C of E, Calvin et al., and even Presbyterians to a small degree.

Yes, but why should you be surprised by such an outcome? The corruption within the Catholic church cannot be purified by priests who have left the church, as they come from the same source. Luther can merely bring the corruption over, since he is not entirely separate from the church.

The saddest part of all is that the modern RCC may admit that Luther was right but can't admit that the Popes and Cardinals were wrong. The same pride consists the very heart of Roman Catholicism and can never be excised.

Well, I am unsure as to why you feel the Catholic church cannot acknowledge the errors of their popes and cardinals. Like I said, the magesterium is not infalliable or inerrant other than in certain very special cases, none of which come into play here.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point of Sola Scriptura is that the authority does not lie in those who mediate. The point of RC "Scripture and Tradition" is that they reserve the authority to the heirarchy to decide, without accountability on even an academic level (else they would have listened to Luther).

Okay, then why does someone like Cardinal Newman speak of the authority vested in the Laity, and how even if the priests themselves are given authority, it does not remove the responsibility of the laity within the church to safeguard the church from specific errors?

My point is this. Scripture says that the mediators, in the priest and deacons do have authority over the church. If Scripture is to be the sole source of authority then clearly it cannot be true that the mediators have no authority.

Secondly, even as they have an authority over the church, they do not have the sole authority, nor are they without accountability to the laity. Their position is to be shepherds, to care for the sheep, and as such, the welfare of the sheep imputes accountability on their shepherds, the priests and deacons.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ah, Ben, Ben! You've only reinforced my point. It is valid to disagree with the stance of the RCC on pacifism because the RCC allows it. The RCC says it is not valid to disagree with the stance of the church in other areas, such as abortion and birth control and ordination of women and marriage of priests.

Is it true that the reason why the church does not definitively settle the issue of pacifism, is because the church allows it? Or is it because the issue has never been settled, or definitive in the entire history of the church, including the apostles?

I would say the latter, in that the tradition of the church, dating back to the apostles has permitted disagreements and differences on this precise issue.

Secondly, as for the latter, you include one thing that does not belong with the others. The marriage of priests is not the same as the ordination of women, because scripture does state that priests may be married, and that the reason they are not, is because of a disciplinary change in the church, in order to address the abuses of the married priests.

There have been married priests, and there may be married priests in the future, and neither position is contrary to either scripture or tradition. All of the others are contrary to both.

No protestant church of which I am aware¹ denies the role of tradition, only the authority of a capital-T-Tradition that has been shaped, pruned, and grafted by an unaccountable body and elevated to a position de facto superior to the scriptures. (The scriptures must be interpreted in light of the official Traditions but Traditions are merely informed by scriptures.)

Why should they be interpreted in the light of official traditions? If scripture is to be the sole authority, than what need do churches have for tradition?

Secondly, how can any tradition be 'official' if sola scriptura denies that tradition can have authority over scripture?

[Ben Kenobi]

I was too brief and assumed you were fully familiar with the neo-Aristotelian arguments. The underpinnings of all primary RC doctrines are 3rd-4th century neo-Aristotelian beliefs. The seven Sacrements, Apostolic Succession, Transubstantiation, the Communion of Saints, the very nature of salvation in RC teaching: all are meaningless without the foundation of Accident and Substance.

Remove Accident and Substance and you have nothing left. Nothing. I will not elucidate or debate in this post; if you wish to challenge you may do so. At present I'm concerned with dismissing a casual accusation from your post.

For much the same reason, the church debated the application of homoouisis, or substance, in proclaiming the creed, that God is of one substance and three persons.

In insisting that only RC teachings are afficted by the curse of aristotelianism, I find puzzling given that the term substance has been applied to many other doctrines, fully accepted by the Reformers.

Finally, the debate of the church is whether the term 'substance' and all of the philosophical underpinnings associated by that term ought to be applied to the core doctrines of Christianity is the reason why the issue was so debated at the council.

For the church to discard all forms of 'substance' requires quite a bit more than you have addressed in your short post.

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't. First, because Hahn isn't the issue. You brought him up, I responded. That's all. And, in truth, I already addressed the Communion of Saints on Mar 27th, in that the RCC has formally admitted that we Prots really are in the Communion of Saints despite centuries of contrary claims by Popes and Councils who ordered us killed off. No pressing need for conversion on that point, then.

Communion of Saints is rather more extensive than just that. It also involves acceptance of certain eschatalogical points that are in disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. The biggest one being whether the saints in heaven can pray for people here on Earth.

Second, Hahn does not address the doctrinal issues with any gravity in what I've read. He restates RC doctrine in his own words, but that is hardly an academic effort worthy of doctoral level of study. I don't know that he ever addresses the philosophical underpinnings of the doctrines or of his own rationalizations.

Well, when I have the books on hand, I think you can see why I would be reluctant to accept this characterisation lacking relevant citations.

Third, I apologize for misquoting Hahn. You see, I was relying on memory made hazy by six years of time, too busy to try to find it again. I was actually embarrassed to put the hackneyed words, the so-called "Roman anti-Trinity," into his mouth for fear that I had conflated him with all the anti-Catholic propaganda. Isn't that silly?

Very. My only suggestion is that if you want to address Scott Hahn, that you crack his books again, and read his arguments. Rome sweet home in particular is the one that has had the greatest influence on me.

God as Father isn't enough. No, we need another Father, and a Mother, too. Hahn does put it that clearly. "[T]he Family of God is the master idea which makes sense out of all the Catholic faith. Mary's our mother, the Pope is a spiritual father, the saints are like brothers and sisters, the Eucharist is a family meal, the feast days are like anniversaries and birthdays. We are God's family. I'm not an orphan; I've got a home" (see The Scott Hahn Conversion Story).

Yes, but do note who is not spoken of, either Christ or God the father. The family of God, that Hahn is speaking of here is our earthly family, not the heavenly one.

If he felt like an orphan it is because he was relying on doctrines handed down from so-and-so instead of living his own Christian faith. Most of us have been there at some time. Some people use that as an excuse to drop out altogether and shake their fists at God. Should we follow their example? No. Should we then convert en mass back to RCism just because Hahn did? No.

If you recall, I was a Mennonite, and Hahn a Presbyterian. Believers baptism is the point I was hinting at before that Scott Hahn does not address. So it is untrue that just because Hahn converted, that this ought to compel all Christians to become Roman Catholics.

All I can say is that if Hahn can convert, conversion ought to be considered by those who are outside of the catholic church. Compel and consider are very different terms. Hahn challenges all the protestants to understand why they believe what they do.

Read the story. Hahn actually tries to convince the reader that he was the Protestant's Protestant because he studied Luther and Calvin and some Loraine Boettner's "bible of Anti-Catholicism." None of that should matter one bit. Where is Christ? How did Hahn put his faith into action in any way that truly challenged him? It comes across that his pastoral ministry and academic positions were just jobs that fit his resume and allowed him the luxury of study.

And he had all this as a Presbyterian. Your claim that his ministry solely developed after becoming a RC is false. He left his ministry as a Presbyterian for an uncertain future well before he became a RC.

The personal relationship that suffers some form of neglect does not birth "better" faith by shifting the blame to the denomination. It does not grow by seeking the comfort of doctrinal security. The peace offered by a claim to absolute denominational authority is counterfeit to the peace that comes from God.

Granted, but you must see how well this dovetails with what I have said earlier. Scott Hahn challenges non-Catholic Christians to examine their faith and to understand why they have come to believe what they do.

[Ecthy]

You lose, general Kenobi.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Their position is to be shepherds, to care for the sheep, and as such, the welfare of the sheep imputes accountability on their shepherds, the priests and deacons.

Statements like this is what really assures me that religion is one of the most evil things that ever has happend to mankind. A religion that conciders common people the same status as sheeps that can't make their own descisions but has to have some god given sheperd to tell them where to go !!! History has given many examples of rulers claiming and exercising this and they has ususally been named despots, maniacs etc, but if it is a religion that do it, then it is just fine and a good thing. And who is to give guidance to these shepards ? Is it gods coworkers that are sent to to planet earth to do service ? No, it is people that through obedience to their superiors in a clerestical hierachy has got sufficient power to through political manouvers to reach control over the system.

[Agathon]

Anyone else reckon that Kenobi should change his avatar from Guinness to McGregor? It would do better with the girls.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It was a real question for the popes of the time, whether they ought to side with Luther, or with the other reformers within the Catholic church, including St. Francis of Assisi. It was only after quite some deliberation did they choose to adopt the reforms of St. Francis rather than those of Luther. This to me suggests that the counter reformation was undertaken out of a desire to sincerely address the abuses in the church, rather than a cynical ploy to paper over the problems. The issues that they had with the theology of Luther, are valid complaints, and it is a good thing that they chose not to accept all of his reforms, even as they accepted most of them.

[The reforms took over four centuries for] one simple reason. It is easy to adopt change when you are concerned only with a small body and those who do not agree with you are free to leave and form another church. It is quite different to adopt change, when you believe there ought to be only one church in Christ, and that any changes to this church ought to be followed by all Christians.

No, if you truly believe there ought to be only one church then you ought to drive straight and hard for the very center of truth, without fail. There should be no tolerance for evil and corruption within. Didn't Jesus say it were better that a millstone were tied to the neck and cast into the sea rather than causing one child to stumble? The millstone is poetic license to convey the gravity of the offense. The RCC has taken the position that it is better for entire generations to stumble while they deliberate for centuries.

This is why the reformers within have undertaken the changes slowly, and with more success than the reforms of Luther outside. Vatican II, in the long run, will have more of an impact than Luther's desire to adopt the vernacular, simply because of the scope of Christianity affected by the second Vatican council.

In the world of modern politics we call that "spin." Coming four centuries late does not mystically make the decision "more success[ful]."

How many more hundreds of millions would have been in the scope of effect had the RCC adopted the vernacular in the sixteenth century? How many hundreds of millions above that had they not wandered into that error in the first place? To pretend otherwise is fiction.

And truth is always found in change? Change is not truth in itself, change for the sake of change can introduce falsehoods just as easily as it can purify. I see those inside the church, concerned with the theology of Luther, and the harmful effects therein, and they have found their opinion of Luther has held up over time.

... The corruption within the Catholic church cannot be purified by priests who have left the church, as they come from the same source. Luther can merely bring the corruption over, since he is not entirely separate from the church.

You have missed the point. The source of the corruption is in all of us, from the Pope to the lowest servant. The changes that introduced falsehoods had already happened centuries before Luther. Only change could bring the church back to the truth. Just because opinion has held over time does not mean that opinion is truth, only that the system has not changed and therefore remains in error.

Well, I am unsure as to why you feel the Catholic church cannot acknowledge the errors of their popes and cardinals. Like I said, the magesterium is not infalliable or inerrant other than in certain very special cases, none of which come into play here.

No doctrine issued ex cathedra has ever been acknowledged as error. This is a greater perversion of truth than the errors themselves.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The point of Sola Scriptura is that the authority does not lie in those who mediate. The point of RC "Scripture and Tradition" is that they reserve the authority to the heirarchy to decide, without accountability on even an academic level (else they would have listened to Luther).

Okay, then why does someone like Cardinal Newman speak of the authority vested in the Laity, and how even if the priests themselves are given authority, it does not remove the responsibility of the laity within the church to safeguard the church from specific errors?

My point is this. Scripture says that the mediators, in the priest and deacons do have authority over the church. If Scripture is to be the sole source of authority then clearly it cannot be true that the mediators have no authority.

Secondly, even as they have an authority over the church, they do not have the sole authority, nor are they without accountability to the laity. Their position is to be shepherds, to care for the sheep, and as such, the welfare of the sheep imputes accountability on their shepherds, the priests and deacons.

The "authority vested in the Laity" so spoken is empty rhetoric. The Laity have no authority, in the RCC, to reject or amend the teachings of the church. The Laity have no authority to remove corruption from within the ranks of the priesthood.

The point of mediation is that nothing happens without an agent. An agent may act faithfully without any inherent authority, much less infallibility.

No protestant church of which I am aware¹ denies the role of tradition, only the authority of a capital-T-Tradition that has been shaped, pruned, and grafted by an unaccountable body and elevated to a position de facto superior to the scriptures. (The scriptures must be interpreted in light of the official Traditions but Traditions are merely informed by scriptures.)

Why should they be interpreted in the light of official traditions? If scripture is to be the sole authority, than what need do churches have for tradition?

Secondly, how can any tradition be 'official' if sola scriptura denies that tradition can have authority over scripture?

Exactly my point, they cannot. The parenthetic statement is my summation of how the RCC subjugates scripture to Tradition, the result of the error of denying the authority of scripture.

The need for tradition (small "t") is that scripture is necessarily terse. For example, the authors of the Gospels cannot be expected to explain the cultural basis for certain statements and practices reflected in their testimonies. Only as new cultures are exposed to or emerge from the old can comparisons arise.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Ah, Ben, Ben! You've only reinforced my point. It is valid to disagree with the stance of the RCC on pacifism because the RCC allows it. The RCC says it is not valid to disagree with the stance of the church in other areas, such as abortion and birth control and ordination of women and marriage of priests.

Is it true that the reason why the church does not definitively settle the issue of pacifism, is because the church allows it? Or is it because the issue has never been settled, or definitive in the entire history of the church, including the apostles?

I would say the latter, in that the tradition of the church, dating back to the apostles has permitted disagreements and differences on this precise issue.

There are some issues that are matters of conscience. To believe that Rome (or anyone else) can "settle" a matter of conscience for all or none is inherently oppressive.

Secondly, as for the latter, you include one thing that does not belong with the others. The marriage of priests is not the same as the ordination of women, because scripture does state that priests may be married, and that the reason they are not, is because of a disciplinary change in the church, in order to address the abuses of the married priests.

There have been married priests, and there may be married priests in the future, and neither position is contrary to either scripture or tradition. All of the others are contrary to both.

There is no difference between the ordination of women and the marriage of priests. Scripture is clear that women are not to be ordained and that forbidding marriage is a false teaching. If there were abuses among the clergy the solution was to discipline the clergy, not to forbid marriage.

If there were one of the four that stands out it would be birth control. It is the only issue of my four examples that is entirely a matter of conscience in parallel with pacifism.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I was too brief and assumed you were fully familiar with the neo-Aristotelian arguments. The underpinnings of all primary RC doctrines are 3rd-4th century neo-Aristotelian beliefs. The seven Sacrements, Apostolic Succession, Transubstantiation, the Communion of Saints, the very nature of salvation in RC teaching: all are meaningless without the foundation of Accident and Substance.

...

For much the same reason, the church debated the application of homoouisis, or substance, in proclaiming the creed, that God is of one substance and three persons.

In insisting that only RC teachings are afficted by the curse of aristotelianism, I find puzzling given that the term substance has been applied to many other doctrines, fully accepted by the Reformers.

Finally, the debate of the church is whether the term 'substance' and all of the philosophical underpinnings associated by that term ought to be applied to the core doctrines of Christianity is the reason why the issue was so debated at the council.

For the church to discard all forms of 'substance' requires quite a bit more than you have addressed in your short post.

No, the issue has been addressed fully in Protestant churches by placing creeds and other secondary teachings on a lower level than scripture. Creeds and doctrines are merely tools to help the "modern" man understand in his own terms.

Ultimately, the goal is for God to so shape the thinking of the man in alignment with scripture that he no longer needs the crutch of creed or doctrine to understand.

The very idea that a council can "decide" what scripture means in absolute terms would be laughable if it weren't so horribly dangerous. If God wanted the scriptures written in neo-Aristotelian terms He would have done so from the start. He did not, and all attempts to remold God and His Word to the thoughts of man are error.

[Straybow]

As for Scott Hahn, again, I am not interested in debating his writings. I prefer to address the teachings of the RCC directly.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

God as Father isn't enough. No, we need another Father, and a Mother, too. Hahn does put it that clearly. "[T]he Family of God is the master idea which makes sense out of all the Catholic faith. Mary's our mother, the Pope is a spiritual father, the saints are like brothers and sisters, the Eucharist is a family meal, the feast days are like anniversaries and birthdays. We are God's family. I'm not an orphan; I've got a home" (see The Scott Hahn Conversion Story).

Yes, but do note who is not spoken of, either Christ or God the father. The family of God, that Hahn is speaking of here is our earthly family, not the heavenly one.

The problem here is that it isn't an earthly family. No father has infallible authority, no mother is coredemptrix or comediatrix with Christ. The Pope is five thousand miles away. Mary is dead, by definition cut off from the world of the living.

More importantly, the only scriptural relationship between believers here on earth is that of brotherhood. None is "more equal than others" to borrow a phrase. Jesus specifically intoned that on matters of authority and teaching we must not call anyone "Father" for we have but one Father in heaven. He is enough, one High Priest is enough, one Holy Spirit is enough. There are no job vacancies in the Godhead.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Statements like this is what really assures me that religion is one of the most evil things that ever has happend to mankind. A religion that conciders common people the same status as sheeps that can't make their own descisions but has to have some god given sheperd to tell them where to go !!! ...

Ah, you have indeed hit the proverbial nail on the head.

That's why Jesus didn't start a religion. He did the work, now it is up to us to believe and follow. Anything beyond that is more likely to get in the way than to assist.

[Alexander's Horse]

Is this for real? Ben became a catholic like about 2 months ago and now he fancies he's an expert on catholicism????

Just shut up Ben. We try and get on with other Christians these days.