If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.
-G.K. Chesterton
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Baptism of Desire/Blood and Trent
I in no way fancy myself a theologian of any kind. Most of what I provide is, what I would like to believe, common sense mixed with a bit of religious thought. True theology and the likes should be left with those who have pursued that goal for many, many years.
That being said, I still feel that I have a duty to defend the Catholic faith as best as I can. So it is that I will continue to write, and provide what I feel demonstrates a consistent truth, held pre and post Vatican II.
WillingCatholicMartyr was kind enough to have addressed my last post on Dogma. I encourage those with an interest to read his article fully. I will not reproduce the entirety of his article to refute, so to fully understand, it would be best to read what he has wrote on his blog. I will use parts of his article to clarify within my own.
First, we have WCM admitting that certain controversies may arise that need Papal intervention. Curiously, Baptism of Blood or Desire (BoB/BoD) do not fall into that category. As we continue, we will see how WCM attempts to prove that the popes have already infallibly settled the subject, but I will show how, rather than infallibly condemning the theological position, they do not address it at all.
Originally, I commented that sedevecantists hold a certain 'double standard'. If they are to support what they believe with quotes from infallible councils and documents, saints, and church fathers, they have every right to do so. However, if, in Vatican II's defense, the catholic is to do the same thing, they are condemned as heretical, based upon an individual assessment of which interpretation is accurate.
At this, WCM accuses me of 'double speak'. I encourage you to read the article previous, and judge yourself if I have double spoke. I said plainly what happens. Let us see if WCM does just as I say he would, defending with his infallible position against what I have defended infallibly previously.
WCM states quite plainly here I am ignoring papal authority. Yet, the entire sedevecantist position rests upon infallible documents which they interpret, not in light of papal authority, but with their own power and understanding. The pope is the final authority, UNLESS the sedevecantist deems what has been spoken to be a contradiction, and henceforth, THEY become the final authority.
As we continue, we'll see if WCM can bring any clarity to this situation. I will provide portions of his article, with my questions and answers located directly within the body.
(First point of hypocrisy. This Canon is an infallible source. The traditionalist, as I stated earlier, and was thusly condemned of 'double speak' for pointing out, will now use another infallible document to prove that the typical interpretation, (desire is sufficient in certain circumstances), is false.)
(This is the second infallible text provided to prove that desire alone cannot be sufficient. This text does not even mention desire, yet it is assumed that it condemns the idea that desire is sufficient. Now, my understanding of English could be quite poor, but I believe it in no way denies BoB and BoD.
Furthermore, why would the canon specifically point out that true and natural water was necessary, and not the Holy Ghost? Let's look at a practical example:
If any one saith, that true and natural water and the Holy Spirit are not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of lie, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (St. John 3:5, added); let him be anathema.
To say that water and the Holy Spirit are not necessary would be to outright deny the words of our Lord, but would not be to take them metaphorically. Yet, the council did not word it like this. They specifically spoke of water. Had the council wanted to stick to an entirely literal interpretation of our Lords words, why not decree...
If any man attempts to deny those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, , (St. John 3:5, added); and state that both water and the Holy Ghost are not necessary, let him be anathema
This metaphor that the Canon is addressing could be principally addressed in the following when referred to true and natural water:
“... Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” ~ Martin Luther
Note that Trent was convened to address the growing protestant heresy. It makes more sense from a literary (and historical, quotes available upon request) standpoint to approach the Canon from this angle But, WCM will hold firm to his belief, despite what the English language, Church history, and the Popes, (whom he claims invalid), declare. Under the sedevecantist theology: If we personally cannot agree, simply declare them anti-popes and create our own church.)
(WCM dodges the question almost completely, diverting our attention to the necessity of Baptism. The argument is not whether baptism is necessary for salvation. The argument is whether water baptism is necessary. This does not address BoB/BoD in any way, as they would provide the sacramental effect of Baptism by Water. Thomas Aquinas' Summa explains quite clearly as much. And although not infallible, it has yet to be condemned after 700 years of valid popes. )
(The English language has many words, and metaphor is a very poor word to use to plainly state what you are stating.
met⋅a⋅phor /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ –noun 1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. (In this case, water and beer.)
To support the meaning WCM deduces from the text, the council would have used a more appropriate word, such as...
lie /laɪ/ –noun 1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. –verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. –verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties. —Idioms
8. give the lie to, a. to accuse of lying; contradict. b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
What WCM provides as the conclusion of the prior two quotes is a ridiculous stretch. The two provided articles do NOTHING to deter the belief of Baptism of Blood or Desire. Only if we are to understand it as supplied by WCM, is it detrimental to the BoB/BoD theology. As I have pointed out, had the council intended to quash BoB/BoD unequivocally, it would have done so, and with no ambiguity, as this theology was not a new concept.)
(The 'laver of regeneration' is sacramental baptism. I do not think WCM would dispute that. Now, let us examine ...
To receive the scarament of baptism, desire is necessary. To receive the 'laver of regeneration', desire is necessary (except in the case of children, or adults without the mental faculties). I do not dispute that. But, that being said, when Trent proclaims ".. without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,..." we must assume the Trent is making explicit mention to the necessity of desire only, while ignoring what else is necessary for a valid baptism. Like true and natural water, the trinitarian formula, etc, etc. What WCM is stating would mean that, to be more accurate, the quote would appear more like this...
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, not withholding true and natural water, nor the trinitarian formula, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Trent does not need to make these declarations for the simple reason that, for a valid Baptism, all those things are necessary, and folded in. And Trent is stating that a valid baptism, which would need all of those things, or the desire for a valid baptism, is sufficient.)
I will continue to address the rest of the article as time permits. Though the bulk of what needed to be clarified is done so here.
That being said, I still feel that I have a duty to defend the Catholic faith as best as I can. So it is that I will continue to write, and provide what I feel demonstrates a consistent truth, held pre and post Vatican II.
WillingCatholicMartyr was kind enough to have addressed my last post on Dogma. I encourage those with an interest to read his article fully. I will not reproduce the entirety of his article to refute, so to fully understand, it would be best to read what he has wrote on his blog. I will use parts of his article to clarify within my own.
I answer that dogmas which are to be believed are truths of the faith that have been divinely revealed through Scripture and Tradition, and which the sovereign Pontiffs have infallibly defined. It is these definitions that are irreformable and dogmatic. The truth is no less the truth before it's definition, however there may arise certain controversies that cannot be readily resolved without Papal intervention.
First, we have WCM admitting that certain controversies may arise that need Papal intervention. Curiously, Baptism of Blood or Desire (BoB/BoD) do not fall into that category. As we continue, we will see how WCM attempts to prove that the popes have already infallibly settled the subject, but I will show how, rather than infallibly condemning the theological position, they do not address it at all.
Originally, I commented that sedevecantists hold a certain 'double standard'. If they are to support what they believe with quotes from infallible councils and documents, saints, and church fathers, they have every right to do so. However, if, in Vatican II's defense, the catholic is to do the same thing, they are condemned as heretical, based upon an individual assessment of which interpretation is accurate.
At this, WCM accuses me of 'double speak'. I encourage you to read the article previous, and judge yourself if I have double spoke. I said plainly what happens. Let us see if WCM does just as I say he would, defending with his infallible position against what I have defended infallibly previously.
I answer that you have yet again spoken out of both sides of your mouth. You realize that the Popes, speaking in their infallible teaching capacity, are the FINAL authority, and thus the declarations they make in this regard are indeed infallible, yet you still refuse to connect the dots
WCM states quite plainly here I am ignoring papal authority. Yet, the entire sedevecantist position rests upon infallible documents which they interpret, not in light of papal authority, but with their own power and understanding. The pope is the final authority, UNLESS the sedevecantist deems what has been spoken to be a contradiction, and henceforth, THEY become the final authority.
As we continue, we'll see if WCM can bring any clarity to this situation. I will provide portions of his article, with my questions and answers located directly within the body.
The dogma regarding Baptism of water
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Oh he said desire! Baptism of desire is allowed!!! Sorry, but this is not possible, as we will see.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.
Oh he said desire! Baptism of desire is allowed!!! Sorry, but this is not possible, as we will see.
(First point of hypocrisy. This Canon is an infallible source. The traditionalist, as I stated earlier, and was thusly condemned of 'double speak' for pointing out, will now use another infallible document to prove that the typical interpretation, (desire is sufficient in certain circumstances), is false.)
Council of Trent, Canons on Baptism
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (St. John 3:5, added); let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (St. John 3:5, added); let him be anathema.
(This is the second infallible text provided to prove that desire alone cannot be sufficient. This text does not even mention desire, yet it is assumed that it condemns the idea that desire is sufficient. Now, my understanding of English could be quite poor, but I believe it in no way denies BoB and BoD.
Furthermore, why would the canon specifically point out that true and natural water was necessary, and not the Holy Ghost? Let's look at a practical example:
If any one saith, that true and natural water and the Holy Spirit are not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of lie, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost (St. John 3:5, added); let him be anathema.
To say that water and the Holy Spirit are not necessary would be to outright deny the words of our Lord, but would not be to take them metaphorically. Yet, the council did not word it like this. They specifically spoke of water. Had the council wanted to stick to an entirely literal interpretation of our Lords words, why not decree...
If any man attempts to deny those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, , (St. John 3:5, added); and state that both water and the Holy Ghost are not necessary, let him be anathema
This metaphor that the Canon is addressing could be principally addressed in the following when referred to true and natural water:
“... Besides, the Word is the principal part of baptism. If in an emergency there’s no water at hand, it doesn’t matter whether water or beer is used.” ~ Martin Luther
Note that Trent was convened to address the growing protestant heresy. It makes more sense from a literary (and historical, quotes available upon request) standpoint to approach the Canon from this angle But, WCM will hold firm to his belief, despite what the English language, Church history, and the Popes, (whom he claims invalid), declare. Under the sedevecantist theology: If we personally cannot agree, simply declare them anti-popes and create our own church.)
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
(WCM dodges the question almost completely, diverting our attention to the necessity of Baptism. The argument is not whether baptism is necessary for salvation. The argument is whether water baptism is necessary. This does not address BoB/BoD in any way, as they would provide the sacramental effect of Baptism by Water. Thomas Aquinas' Summa explains quite clearly as much. And although not infallible, it has yet to be condemned after 700 years of valid popes. )
So far if a person wants to play with the theory of Baptism by blood or desire, they have to do what? That's right, they have to refer to the highest authority on the subject. The two canons above, which specifically treat on baptism require no interpretation, and even condemns the very notion of interpreting the Scripture of St. John chapter 3 verse 5 in any way other than what the words plainly say.
(The English language has many words, and metaphor is a very poor word to use to plainly state what you are stating.
met⋅a⋅phor /ˈmɛtəˌfɔr, -fər/ –noun 1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def. 1).
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol. (In this case, water and beer.)
To support the meaning WCM deduces from the text, the council would have used a more appropriate word, such as...
lie /laɪ/ –noun 1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. –verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression. –verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties. —Idioms
8. give the lie to, a. to accuse of lying; contradict. b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one's throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.
What WCM provides as the conclusion of the prior two quotes is a ridiculous stretch. The two provided articles do NOTHING to deter the belief of Baptism of Blood or Desire. Only if we are to understand it as supplied by WCM, is it detrimental to the BoB/BoD theology. As I have pointed out, had the council intended to quash BoB/BoD unequivocally, it would have done so, and with no ambiguity, as this theology was not a new concept.)
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
This is the only infallible quote that anybody has ever brought forward in an attempt to prove baptism by desire or blood. How can we take this passage in order that it does not contradict the canons on baptism? We read it logically, of course. If a man desires NOT to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, is he born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Of course not. What if he receives the laver of regeneration against his will, is he born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Of course not. It cannot take place without the desire for the sacrament. Can it take place before the sacrament is received, or even if the sacrament is never received? No. The canons on baptism, which were written after the decree on justification, make this fact very clear, and allow for no exceptions whatsoever.
This is the only infallible quote that anybody has ever brought forward in an attempt to prove baptism by desire or blood. How can we take this passage in order that it does not contradict the canons on baptism? We read it logically, of course. If a man desires NOT to be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, is he born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Of course not. What if he receives the laver of regeneration against his will, is he born again of water and the Holy Ghost? Of course not. It cannot take place without the desire for the sacrament. Can it take place before the sacrament is received, or even if the sacrament is never received? No. The canons on baptism, which were written after the decree on justification, make this fact very clear, and allow for no exceptions whatsoever.
(The 'laver of regeneration' is sacramental baptism. I do not think WCM would dispute that. Now, let us examine ...
“since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration (sacrament of Baptism), or the desire thereof,"
To receive the scarament of baptism, desire is necessary. To receive the 'laver of regeneration', desire is necessary (except in the case of children, or adults without the mental faculties). I do not dispute that. But, that being said, when Trent proclaims ".. without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,..." we must assume the Trent is making explicit mention to the necessity of desire only, while ignoring what else is necessary for a valid baptism. Like true and natural water, the trinitarian formula, etc, etc. What WCM is stating would mean that, to be more accurate, the quote would appear more like this...
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, not withholding true and natural water, nor the trinitarian formula, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Trent does not need to make these declarations for the simple reason that, for a valid Baptism, all those things are necessary, and folded in. And Trent is stating that a valid baptism, which would need all of those things, or the desire for a valid baptism, is sufficient.)
I will continue to address the rest of the article as time permits. Though the bulk of what needed to be clarified is done so here.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Dogma: Black and White?
The issue of Dogma
It has been continually brought to my attention that Dogma is not free to be interpreted. In fact, all Dogma is worded in such a way that no interpretation is necessary.
First off, I would be interested in finding a reliable, concise list of Dogma's. I found a list, but I am unsure of the reliability. I will use it at this point, but if it can be shown to be invalid, I will certainly use a more appropriate version.
Now, several of the Dogma's that appear to not need interpretation would be as follows.
Taken from http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm
"Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation."
"Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation."
Indeed, this is a eye opener, if Dogmas are to be taken completely literally, and need no higher authority to teach and maintain what they have always been meant to say. This alone could easily destroy any arguments that would attempt to resolve Vatican II and her predecessors. Many traditionalists will be quick to throw these in our faces when we attempt to defend Vatican II, and provide us with quotes which, quite frankly, do seem to be in contradiction.
Now, if a Dogma is to be taken just as it is written, with no need for a final authority to defend what has always been taught, why do certain people completely disregard other Dogmas? Dogmas like...
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time."
"The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin."
"In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible."
The traditionalist will give a list of quotes from popes, or saints, explaining why these Dogmas are not exactly as they appear. For example, Trent states the desire of reconciliation is sufficient, should it be impossible to obtain a true reconciliation from a priest. Therefore, this Dogma need's to be interpreted in light of an infallible council.
They can use Saints, Papal encyclicals, Councils and Church Fathers to defend there belief in what a Dogma is or means, but when we defend what the Catholic Church teaches today with Papal Encyclicals, Councils, Saints and Church Fathers, we are instantly condemned as changing the Dogma from what it has always been.
This is why it is the responsibility of the Pope and Magisterium, and not the lay person, to defend the truth that always has been.
It has been continually brought to my attention that Dogma is not free to be interpreted. In fact, all Dogma is worded in such a way that no interpretation is necessary.
First off, I would be interested in finding a reliable, concise list of Dogma's. I found a list, but I am unsure of the reliability. I will use it at this point, but if it can be shown to be invalid, I will certainly use a more appropriate version.
Now, several of the Dogma's that appear to not need interpretation would be as follows.
Taken from http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm
"Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation."
"Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation."
Indeed, this is a eye opener, if Dogmas are to be taken completely literally, and need no higher authority to teach and maintain what they have always been meant to say. This alone could easily destroy any arguments that would attempt to resolve Vatican II and her predecessors. Many traditionalists will be quick to throw these in our faces when we attempt to defend Vatican II, and provide us with quotes which, quite frankly, do seem to be in contradiction.
Now, if a Dogma is to be taken just as it is written, with no need for a final authority to defend what has always been taught, why do certain people completely disregard other Dogmas? Dogmas like...
"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time."
"The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin."
"In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible."
The traditionalist will give a list of quotes from popes, or saints, explaining why these Dogmas are not exactly as they appear. For example, Trent states the desire of reconciliation is sufficient, should it be impossible to obtain a true reconciliation from a priest. Therefore, this Dogma need's to be interpreted in light of an infallible council.
They can use Saints, Papal encyclicals, Councils and Church Fathers to defend there belief in what a Dogma is or means, but when we defend what the Catholic Church teaches today with Papal Encyclicals, Councils, Saints and Church Fathers, we are instantly condemned as changing the Dogma from what it has always been.
This is why it is the responsibility of the Pope and Magisterium, and not the lay person, to defend the truth that always has been.
Continuing upon the topic of 'The Great Apostasy', Part 2
Continuing upon the topic of 'The Great Apostasy', the brochure I had received previously, we come upon the next heading, which states that Vatican II teaches Moslems worship the true God, however the past catholic Church did no such thing, and in fact, condemns it. This contradiction is proof of the invalidity of Vatican II, and the current apostasy.
We are provided with 2 quotes. The first, from the first letter of John.
'Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father.' (1 Jn 2:22-23)
They also provide a portion of the Nicene Creed.
'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty... and in one Lord Jesus Christ... who was incarnate by the Holy Ghost... and I believe in the Holy Ghost... and in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church...'
In a quick passing, we so no condemnation of the Vatican II statement. Let's review what Vatican II said.
"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth."
This quote varies slightly from the one provided on the pamphlet, however, this comes directly from the Vatican website, so I am inclined to believe it accurate over what I was provided.
In quick rebuttal to the scripture verse provided, I respond with Romans 10:2
'For I bear them witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.'
Paul, in this verse, speaks of Isreal, or, more pointedly, the Jews. Now, it would not be entirely inaccurate to place the Jews on the same level as the Moslems. Both do not recognize Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Yet here, Paul clearly states that they possess a 'zeal' of God.
zeal
1. a feeling of strong eagerness (usually in favor of a person or cause); "they were imbued with a revolutionary ardor"; "he felt a kind of religious zeal" [syn: ardor]
2. excessive fervor to do something or accomplish some end; "he had an absolute zeal for litigation"
3. prompt willingness; "readiness to continue discussions"; "they showed no eagerness to spread the gospel"; "they disliked his zeal in demonstrating his superiority"; "he tried to explain his forwardness in battle" [syn: readiness]
Now, whichever definition of zeal we choose, it is not important. The important fact is, that even though the Jew's did not recognize Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, they still possessed something for God. They may not have grasped the full truth of our Lord, yet they still they worked for God the Father. If such can be said of the Jews, how can the same not be said of the Moslems, who worship the God of Abraham?
Secondly, the Nicene Creed.
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.
And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I see nothing in the Nicene Creed which states that the Muslims can not worship the one, true God. They may not understand him fully, understand his Son, our Lord, but they may certainly recognize and worship the person of God the Father.
We are provided with 2 quotes. The first, from the first letter of John.
'Whosoever denieth the Son the same hath not the Father.' (1 Jn 2:22-23)
They also provide a portion of the Nicene Creed.
'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty... and in one Lord Jesus Christ... who was incarnate by the Holy Ghost... and I believe in the Holy Ghost... and in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church...'
In a quick passing, we so no condemnation of the Vatican II statement. Let's review what Vatican II said.
"The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth."
This quote varies slightly from the one provided on the pamphlet, however, this comes directly from the Vatican website, so I am inclined to believe it accurate over what I was provided.
In quick rebuttal to the scripture verse provided, I respond with Romans 10:2
'For I bear them witness, that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.'
Paul, in this verse, speaks of Isreal, or, more pointedly, the Jews. Now, it would not be entirely inaccurate to place the Jews on the same level as the Moslems. Both do not recognize Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Yet here, Paul clearly states that they possess a 'zeal' of God.
zeal
1. a feeling of strong eagerness (usually in favor of a person or cause); "they were imbued with a revolutionary ardor"; "he felt a kind of religious zeal" [syn: ardor]
2. excessive fervor to do something or accomplish some end; "he had an absolute zeal for litigation"
3. prompt willingness; "readiness to continue discussions"; "they showed no eagerness to spread the gospel"; "they disliked his zeal in demonstrating his superiority"; "he tried to explain his forwardness in battle" [syn: readiness]
Now, whichever definition of zeal we choose, it is not important. The important fact is, that even though the Jew's did not recognize Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, they still possessed something for God. They may not have grasped the full truth of our Lord, yet they still they worked for God the Father. If such can be said of the Jews, how can the same not be said of the Moslems, who worship the God of Abraham?
Secondly, the Nicene Creed.
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.
And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I see nothing in the Nicene Creed which states that the Muslims can not worship the one, true God. They may not understand him fully, understand his Son, our Lord, but they may certainly recognize and worship the person of God the Father.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Great Apostasy Brochure, Part 1
Recently, I received a pamphlet after mass regarding the validity of Vatican II and the Popes who called and followed that council. The gentlemen handing them out in front of the main doors calmly said "Did you know Vatican II has been condemned by the Catholic Church?" and walked away.
Below, I will address the points made in the brochure, and hopefully maintain the truth that has always been constant in the Catholic Church.
Non-Catholic Religions are a means to Salvation.
The quotes provided, unfortunately, are blatantly taken out of context. It's unfortunate, in continued attempts to show how contradictory Vatican II and the popes are, quotes are skewed, paraphrased, underlined, capitalized and bolded as if the true meaning is hidden, and unless this is shown through special formatting, we cannot see it.
For example...
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"
What means of salvation? All means of salvation? Why would we not be provided the entirety of the quote? Let's assume it was for the purpose of saving space, as there is only so much room on the pamphlet.
The quote in its entirety is as follows:
It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice (The Mass) and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion - that state of absolute perfection - which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.
I will allow the reader to read the quote un-cut and unformatted, save for my insertion of "The Mass", as some readers may not know what the divine Sacrifice is.
Now, should we assume that all means of salvation are only present in the Church, or that the ones provided in the context of the paragraph are the ones that the church provides? In either case, this does not contradict Vatican II and its statement that 'the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.'
Satis Cognitum in no place declares that the only place a means of salvation could exist is the Catholic Church. It does not state the Church contains 'all' and 'exclusively' every means of salvation.
Let us look at a practical example:
A Protestant church uses a billboard sign to say that 'Jesus Saves', with the picture of Jesus as a goalie. Now, Joe Blow drives by in his automobile and sees said sign. After reading said sign, he goes to his Islam friend and asks what this means. This man states, ' In Christianity, the prime belief is that faith in Jesus Christ brings eternal salvation, and no other way for eternal life is possible. We revere Jesus as a great prophet, but nothing more'. Joe Blow thanks his friend, and carries on. In turn, he meets an Atheist who runs a book store, and buys a book written by a Baptist pastor... etc. etc....
Finally, Joe Blow asks his father, a staunch traditional catholic, who promptly points him to a catholic priest who in turn teaches him how to obtain salvation. Joe Blow carries on to be brought into the Catholic fold.
What means of salvation are there in this story, and are they all Catholic sources? First off, what is a 'means'?
Means
1. Usually, means. (used with a singular or plural verb) an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end: The telephone is a means of communication. There are several means of solving the problem.
2. means,
a. available resources, esp. money: They lived beyond their means.
b. considerable financial resources; riches: a man of means.
www.dictionary.com
I would say than, for the salvation of this man, should he continue in good faith and practice wholeheartedly his faith, several things were instrumental, and could be considered a 'means'.
First, the Protestant Sign.
Secondly, the Islam and his explanation.
The Atheist, and the book he sold.
Would these not be means by which a man came to salvation? Singularly, they are not enough, no one would deny that. However, they began the journey, and to say they had no importance would be ingnorant.
Now, those who would attempt to convince us of the contradiction of Vatican II and Satis Cognitum would have us believe that the Catholic church alone supplies those means. Indeed, the quote they provided say's as much.
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"
But, in context, what means is Satis Cognitum speaking about? The encyclical clearly points to several things. They are the divine Sacrifice, the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. It could allude to more, but says nothing definite, and if the document meant more, we have no way of truly knowing, save for the interpretation of a continuing, valid church.
Now, if my understanding is invalid, and I am wrong on some point, who is there to make the final call. Who has the final decision?
I would think, theologically, my reasoning is sound. It reconciles the Council with the Encyclical, and maintains the truth the catholic church has taught.
Below, I will address the points made in the brochure, and hopefully maintain the truth that has always been constant in the Catholic Church.
Non-Catholic Religions are a means to Salvation.
The quotes provided, unfortunately, are blatantly taken out of context. It's unfortunate, in continued attempts to show how contradictory Vatican II and the popes are, quotes are skewed, paraphrased, underlined, capitalized and bolded as if the true meaning is hidden, and unless this is shown through special formatting, we cannot see it.
For example...
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"
What means of salvation? All means of salvation? Why would we not be provided the entirety of the quote? Let's assume it was for the purpose of saving space, as there is only so much room on the pamphlet.
The quote in its entirety is as follows:
It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice (The Mass) and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour forever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion - that state of absolute perfection - which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.
I will allow the reader to read the quote un-cut and unformatted, save for my insertion of "The Mass", as some readers may not know what the divine Sacrifice is.
Now, should we assume that all means of salvation are only present in the Church, or that the ones provided in the context of the paragraph are the ones that the church provides? In either case, this does not contradict Vatican II and its statement that 'the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation.'
Satis Cognitum in no place declares that the only place a means of salvation could exist is the Catholic Church. It does not state the Church contains 'all' and 'exclusively' every means of salvation.
Let us look at a practical example:
A Protestant church uses a billboard sign to say that 'Jesus Saves', with the picture of Jesus as a goalie. Now, Joe Blow drives by in his automobile and sees said sign. After reading said sign, he goes to his Islam friend and asks what this means. This man states, ' In Christianity, the prime belief is that faith in Jesus Christ brings eternal salvation, and no other way for eternal life is possible. We revere Jesus as a great prophet, but nothing more'. Joe Blow thanks his friend, and carries on. In turn, he meets an Atheist who runs a book store, and buys a book written by a Baptist pastor... etc. etc....
Finally, Joe Blow asks his father, a staunch traditional catholic, who promptly points him to a catholic priest who in turn teaches him how to obtain salvation. Joe Blow carries on to be brought into the Catholic fold.
What means of salvation are there in this story, and are they all Catholic sources? First off, what is a 'means'?
Means
1. Usually, means. (used with a singular or plural verb) an agency, instrument, or method used to attain an end: The telephone is a means of communication. There are several means of solving the problem.
2. means,
a. available resources, esp. money: They lived beyond their means.
b. considerable financial resources; riches: a man of means.
www.dictionary.com
I would say than, for the salvation of this man, should he continue in good faith and practice wholeheartedly his faith, several things were instrumental, and could be considered a 'means'.
First, the Protestant Sign.
Secondly, the Islam and his explanation.
The Atheist, and the book he sold.
Would these not be means by which a man came to salvation? Singularly, they are not enough, no one would deny that. However, they began the journey, and to say they had no importance would be ingnorant.
Now, those who would attempt to convince us of the contradiction of Vatican II and Satis Cognitum would have us believe that the Catholic church alone supplies those means. Indeed, the quote they provided say's as much.
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum: "9. The Church alone...supplies those means of salvation"
But, in context, what means is Satis Cognitum speaking about? The encyclical clearly points to several things. They are the divine Sacrifice, the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. It could allude to more, but says nothing definite, and if the document meant more, we have no way of truly knowing, save for the interpretation of a continuing, valid church.
Now, if my understanding is invalid, and I am wrong on some point, who is there to make the final call. Who has the final decision?
I would think, theologically, my reasoning is sound. It reconciles the Council with the Encyclical, and maintains the truth the catholic church has taught.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)