By Adam on Dec 4, 2009

One may be permitted–in thinking on your concluding line–to paraphrase here the wise words of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus of blessed memory: those desiring to be part of the “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” have to realize that finally they can only do so by being part of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. The project of trying to preserve catholicity, apostolicity, and orthodoxy outside Catholicism or Orthodoxy is now clearly a vain and fruitless project. See here

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/the-unhappy-fate-of-optional-orthodoxy-41

By Mrs. Edwards on Dec 4, 2009

Do you like this one better? (The St. John’s Bible, hand-written and illuminated by Benedictine monks.)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579371,00.html?test=latestnews

By Chrish on Dec 4, 2009

@Adam,
Why would I want to be a part of either of those apostate religions? I prefer the sufficiency of the grace of Christ for the forgiveness of sins to the works required by those religions. I prefer the worship of God alone to the Mariolatry practiced by Rome.

By Adam on Dec 4, 2009

If you’re going to criticize Catholicism or Orthodoxy, at least do so intelligently and without tediously repeating these tiresome slanders based on ignorance and indolence.

By Chrish on Dec 4, 2009

@Adam,
So you deny that Catholics pray to Mary? Or do you deny that they identify her as without sin?

Do you deny the tenet of purgatory? Or do you deny the practice of penances?

If these are tedious and tiresome, it may be because they’ve been the same objections raised since the Reformation. If they are slanders, then demonstrate through use of the Bible alone where they are justified.

By Jonny on Dec 5, 2009

Do I smell smoke from the stake, yet?

Not taking sides, here, but perhaps Crish out first explain why Adam’s proof must be based solely on Scripture …

Or maybe that just pours oil on the wood?

By Chrish on Dec 5, 2009

@Jonny,

I don’t see any greater authority than the Bible. Appealing to this Pope or that writer shouldn’t be a Christian’s first option. Besides, I’m not confident Adam and I would necessarily agree about who should be considered authoritative.

If someone’s unwilling to base their beliefs on what the Bible has to say, that speaks much more loudly about the state of their soul than what church they happen to attend.

By Kevin Holtsberry on Dec 5, 2009

Does anyone else find it ironic that the comments in this post immediately devolved into religious/denominational infighting?

By Tari on Dec 5, 2009

Amen, Tony. And yes, Kevin, quite ironic. But sad, too, so going back to Tony’s orginal point, may God have mercy on US ALL. I know that I sorely need it!

By Jonny on Dec 6, 2009

Indeed, Kevin!

By Eli on Dec 7, 2009

Tomorrow is a day of obligation in the Catholic church. It is for the immaculate conception. This brought me to thinking about the following question. If there is anyone out there who knows the true Catholic Church stance on it, please do answer. If Jesus had to be born of a mother without sin, should Mary’s mother have been born without sin too? and her mother’s mother? Nothing new is under the sun and I’m sure this question has been raised by others. Anybody know the answer?

By Kevin Cassidy on Dec 7, 2009

To continue the irony that (the other) Kevin pointed out:

“It’s funny how from the beginning, the people who claim to love God most zealously are the ones who get most upset about His loving unsavory types.”

Adam, Chrish, please reread.

By chrish on Dec 7, 2009

I have no problem with God loving the unsavory types, and am quite aware that I was among that number before I was saved.

Maybe I wasn’t clear; I don’t think I’m so awesome because I figured it out and all those nasty Catholics haven’t. I’m saved by grace through faith in Christ alone, and that’s not what the Catholic church teaches.

I was responding to Adam’s comment about how only people within the Roman or Orthodox church are saved. I’d say it’s the opposite. We get to disagree, and one of us has to be wrong. I simply want people to base their Christian faith in what the Bible has to say.

By Jonny on Dec 7, 2009

Chrish,
To be clear, Adam did not state that only people within the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Churches are saved. His post did not address the eternal state of anyone. He did say (to paraphrase him) that one would be permitted to consider a paraphrase of Father Richard John Neuhaus’ observation that those who wish to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church could do so only by joining themselves to the Roman Catholic church or to the Orthodox Church.

By Jonny on Dec 7, 2009

Chrish,
The following from the Sixth Council of Trent (considered by Roman Catholics as an infallible exercise of the magisterium vested in all bishops speaking together) may, to some extent, challenge your conclusion that the (Roman) Catholic church does not teach salvation by grace: “The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace.”
I’m not saying that I agree, but I do think you should consider this.
The RCs and the Lutherans published a joint statement on Justification several years back that may prove of interest to you, as well, and which ought to challenge some of your presuppositions regarding Roman Catholicism. It can be found here: http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/ctsjointdeclaration.pdf

By Jonny on Dec 7, 2009

Eli,
Rather than give you the rambling explanation of a former Roman Catholic in regard to the Infallibly Defined Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, you may read a very good synopsis here directly from a Roman Catholic source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
Because, according to the dogma, the Immaculate Conception was an intervention of the Holy Spirit, an Immaculate Conception of St. Anna would be unnecessary. Also, keep in mind that, in Augustinian theology, it is the father who transmits the guilt of original sin by his seed.

By Eli on Dec 8, 2009

Thanks Johnny, if what the synopsis says is true, why would Mary need to be sinless then? Wouldn’t the intervention of the Holy Spirit have been enough in Jesus’ conception?

By Jonny on Dec 8, 2009

Eli,

Perhaps the official dogmatic proclamation, Ineffibilis Deus, will shed some light on your question(http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pi09id.htm):
“For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.”

Given that I come at this as a former Roman Catholic and now differ quite substantially from RCs in my theological and historical perspectives on this issue, I’m not sure that I can give you a viewpoint that fully reflects RC sensibilities.

Those unfamiliar with liturgical calendars may find curious the fact that today is the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in the RC church and is a day of obligation in which RCs must attend Mass to avoid commission of a mortal sin. The Eastern Orthodox celebrate the Feast of St Anna’s Conception of the Theotokos tomorrow. The consider this a venerable feast of St Anna, permitting a relaxation of fasting rules (katalysis) for wine and oil, rather than as a feast of the Mother of God, which would permit katalysis for the consumption of fish. One may further note that the RC feast of the Immaculate Conception is held exactly 9 months prior to the Feast of the Nativity of the Theotokos whereas the EO’s celebration of St Anna’s Conception of Mary is “off” by one day. The feasts of Christ’s Conception (the Annunciation on March 25) and his Nativity are exactly 9 months apart in both RC and EO traditions. No other feasts of conception and nativity for any other saint are celebrated exactly 9 months off. I say this because it demonstrates a theological difference liturgically. If anyone knows when the dates for the celebration of Mary’s conception diverged, that would be very interesting.

One may also find interesting the fact that Thomas Aquinas, the great scholastic who forged many of the doctrines disputed by the Reformers and confirmed by the Council of Trent, believed quite strongly that Mary had personally committed venial sins.

Just some tidbits to ponder. I have this vague suspicion that, if Protestants were to take seriously their traditional scholastic view of original guilt, they might just speculate themselves into a belief in the necessity of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

Of course, that’s just my own speculation and, of course, Catholics would burn me like Hus and Protestants would burn me like Servetus.

By tamsf on Dec 9, 2009

It strikes me that this is exactly the point of the parable of the prodigal son, e.g. the reaction of the older brother. And the parable of the worker’s wages. In both cases Christ cautions us against resenting those who are undeservedly forgiven or who get wages that we think were not sufficiently earned.

By eli on Dec 13, 2009

“’tis a fair court”

By Jonny on Dec 15, 2009

Who are you that are so wise in the ways of science?