CHURCH GREW IN UNDERSTANDING OF MARY’S ROLE

L'Osservatore Romano ^ | 11/8/1997 | Pope John Paul II

[Frumanchu]

As for Protestants, who is to decide? I’m not sure what constitutes “core Reformation doctrine.” But I’m sure it would be a real surprise to some of the flakier little charismatic country churches around here that they’re “not Protestant,” because they certainly consider themselves to be so.

Actually, most of them don't consider themselves Protestant in any other than the the overly generalized "not Catholic or Orthodox" sense. A great number of churches are either non-denominational or Campbellite (anti-creedal) churches which are neither historically nor doctrinally Protestant. The problem is that many have falsely defined the term Protestant in the way I described above: not Catholic. That's simply a flawed definition.

The schismatic formerly Catholic groups you mentioned above, however, know perfectly well that they are not in communion with Rome.

And the Campbellites know perfectly well they're not Protestant as they purposely and knowingly refuse to recognize any Protestant doctrine as necessarily binding upon the church and its members as a basis for positive or negative sanction.

The only thing the Church has to be unified on are the core doctrines. There are many issues where there is legitimate difference and speculation; after all, doctrines are usually defined in response to a challenge, and until something appears that makes those issues important, they remain speculative matters (as long as this speculation does not go outside of the range inherently permitted by the core doctrines).

This is no different from Protestant churches. The only difference is an overarching ecclesiastical authority structure over the various mainline Protestant denominations. They remain unified in their core doctrines (sola fide, sola scriptura, etc.). The main ecclesiastical difference is which doctrines are considered core and the differences in authority structure.

You may have been reading some of the discussions of the liturgical forms lately: these are areas where there is legitimate difference of opinion, and even variation in practice. But then there are groups, such as the SSPX, that go beyond that, and then they become schismatic, and separate themselves from the Church by rejecting its authority. So you see there is an authority to reject, and the consequence of rejecting it is that you do not merely become a “dissident Catholic group,” you become not Catholic at all and are outside of the Church.

This goes back to the fundamentally different view of the nature of the church with respect to visible institutions. You believe that the Holy Spirit will only maintain the church through the authoritative structure of a visible institution, while we believe He will maintain it regardless of whether there is a single unified visible institution.

[Frumanchu]

Ping regarding Cambellite references :)

[Quix]

Much agree. Thanks.

[Frank Sheed]

So, is it safe to say that your position is, "if it is not contained in Scripture, it is extra-biblical and a fabrication of men?" Is that a reasonable summation of your beliefs of "sola Scriptura?"

Matthew 2:23: "And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'"

Matthew 23: 1-3: "Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.'"

Catholics believe that the tradition found in the Bible also includes an oral component. The reference in Matthew 2:23--"He shall be called a Nazarene"--cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was passed down by the prophets. Thus, a prophecy, which is considered God's Word was passed down orally rather than by Scripture.

Likewise, Matthew 23:2-3: Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on Moses' seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in (the originally oral) Mishna, where a sort of teaching succession from Moses on down is taught. Thus, apostolic succession, whereby the Catholic Church, in its priests and bishops and popes, claims to be merely the custodian of an inherited apostolic Tradition, is also prefigured by Jewish oral tradition, as approved (at least partially) by Jesus himself.

(see page 44 and following for further examples).

from, "The Catholic Verses, Dave Armstrong, Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, NH. 2004, pg. 43-45ff.

[Quix]

Thanks.

I may be an idiot . . . but I have a totally impossible time understanding how any hymen could be intact after a natural birth. Even a lot of those donkey rides could have been . . .

Anyway . . . the business of the pagan influences of Rome influencing the growing bureaucracy of the Roman church toward institutionalizing a lot of the sensibilities of the time—regardless of how superstitious . . . is still a highly probable historically accurate construction on reality. The Roman chuch has done that throughout the ages since and still . . . e. g. in Latin America, Africa, Asia.

I say again . . . I’ve seen plenty of adoration in Pentecostal meetings to know how human it is. And it grows and embellishes all on it’s own steam and/or demonic steam. It hardly needs a bureaucracy eager for more power to further it and embellish it. Though, certainly, that tends to be the case, too.

[Quix]

Luther’s actions truly cut to the heart of the matter, as is evidenced by his request to be convinced by Scripture and plain reason. The authority issue is truly the card upon which the whole card house is built.

= =

I think you’re quite right.

However, I think THE ANOINTING OF HOLY SPIRIT gets left out of the authority issue routinely.

I have been in a number of congregations wherein Holy Spirit anointed various members of the congregation, including the Pastor, quite uncommonly. Some congregations seemed to have begun that way. Others, wandered in and out of His anointing—which ends up being the case for all congregations.

It’s also evidently been the way of most denominations. I wouldn’t say all because I doubt that all denominations even started with God’s anointing.

In any case . . . in the New Testament, we see that even the Disciples did NOT have full authority from the beginning. They learned that some demonic forces come out only with prayer and fasting. And that was THE DISCIPLES!

I think Holy Spirit’s anointing is an OBVIOUS [at least to those with a micro-gram of discerment] clue as to where God’s authority rests and doesn’t rest.

I suppose that most congregations and denominations with the BASIC Scriptural commitments to God would have some measure of legal authority in dealing with the world, the flesh and the devil. But if that legal authority is not applied IN THE FULNESS OF HOLY SPIRIT’S OPERATIONS, then they will fnd that they are coming up exceedingly short in effectiveness.

That lack of effectiveness in critical ways is another clue that the anointing has left and the authority is hollow.

I’m confident that especially in the high points of the Charismatic Movement, some RC congregations walked in God’s anointing and authority. I would suspect that some still do.

I do NOT believe that the RC edifice does still operate in anything close to robust authority from God any more than I think that the A of G edifice fully does any longer—though I suspect that some in the hierarchy of the latter are struggling to correct things. I’m not impressed, so far, with their results.

Authority and anointing are not identical but they have a huge overlap. Holy Spirit is tasked with leading us into all truth. If individuals and groups are not operating in Holy Spirit’s truth, then their authority is certainly automatically diminished if not forfeit.

But it’s not just the truth aspect of Holy Spirit’s ministry that is crucial. Scripture is clear that in the last days, there would arise a religion which had the FORM of Godliness WITHOUT THE POWER THEREOF.

Frankly, if a congregation is not walking in some measure of the power of Holy Spirit’s ministry, then the authority and anointing have diminished if not wholesale left.

The time is fast approaching when increasing forces of the enemy will declare to congregations, to leaders, to denominations and denominational leaders . . .

PAUL I KNOW AND JESUS I KNOW WHO THE FIRES AWAITING ARE YOU?

[GoLightly]

So, is it safe to say that your position is, "if it is not contained in Scripture, it is extra-biblical and a fabrication of men?" Is that a reasonable summation of your beliefs of "sola Scriptura?"

NO! Scripture is our *final* authority. Anything extra-biblical can be used to inform the mind, but in the end, nothing or no one can be used as an authority over Scripture. My flavor of Protestantism confesses the Nicaean, Apostles & Anthanasian Creeds, clearly extra-biblical, but can be supported fully by Scripture.

Sola Scriptura isn't spelled out in Scripture, but Scripture doesn't conflict with it.

Catholics believe that the tradition found in the Bible also includes an oral component.

Protestants believe that too. Where we differ is how much weight we allow tradition to have & if it is contradicted in Scripture, out it *must* go.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

tortured by any standards

[Quix]

2 Peter 1:20: “First of all, you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” (cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16).”

Actually, I have long considered that a pointed guard against any individual

and/or

any leader OR GROUP OF LEADERS

dare pretend to twist Scriptures for their own purposes, biases, preferences . . . power mongering needs . . . INCLUDING all the magicstericals of every denomination.

[GoLightly]

Amen!

[Quix]

Just seemed fitting to ask.

I realized I didn’t know that much about you on such scores.

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful

and impressive reply.

[Quix]

It appears that you really believe that the RC edifice is far less plagued with

OPINIONS

than the Proties are.

LOL
ROTFLOL
GTTM

= = = =

You asserted something slamming Proties as being awash in multiple diverse opinions, IIRC.

I tried to illustrate that such a notion . . . as though the RC edifice is not awasy in a multiplicity of diverse opinions . . . is utterly and wholesale ridiculous.

Pot calling the kettle black is an inadequate summary.

[markomalley]

Actually, most of them don't consider themselves Protestant in any other than the the overly generalized "not Catholic or Orthodox" sense.

That is valuable information to me. I always considered 'protestant' to be the most generic description of a western ecclesiastic community not in communion with Rome.

What, then, would be the proper generic designation?

I ask this in all sincerity, as I want to use a correct, understandable, non-clumsy, and non-offensive term.

[markomalley]

I may be an idiot . . . but I have a totally impossible time understanding how any hymen could be intact after a natural birth.

You're not an idiot and I can't quite comprehend it myself.

However, I can comprehend that God can, has, and does work miracles. And he doesn't explain the physics of the miracle process to me. :)

[livius]

This goes back to the fundamentally different view of the nature of the church with respect to visible institutions.

Yes, I suppose there is a fundamental difference there, and for that reason it's hard to discuss this and have it make sense. Catholics have the concept of the "Invisible Church," as well, but that's something that we leave up to the Lord. That is, we on earth can't with any certainty say who is within it. But on the other hand, our understanding of the visible Church is as a structure with a defined authority, based on the deposit of Faith and Tradition, which I guess would be fundamentally different from the Protestant understanding.

[markomalley]

Actually, I have long considered that a pointed guard against any individual and/or any leader OR GROUP OF LEADERS dare pretend to twist Scriptures for their own purposes, biases, preferences . . . power mongering needs . . . INCLUDING all the magicstericals of every denomination.

So do I. As I have said previously in this thread, authentic Sacred Tradition cannot be offensive to properly understood Sacred Scripture. Sacred Scripture, properly understood, will not be offensive to Sacred Tradition.

Please note the use of the "capital T" -- this is as opposed to (little 't') traditions...

But here's the key: properly understood.

[Quix]

However, I can comprehend that God can, has, and does work miracles. And he doesn’t explain the physics of the miracle process to me. :)

= =

True. But I have not the slightest convincing logical evidence . . . that I’ve considered . . . which has been quite a number of paragraphs over the years . . .

that indicates to me that God did such a miracle . . .

and more than sufficient, convincing me on the other side, that he did not.

I realize mileage may vary.

[ArrogantBustard]

I asserted that, with few exceptions, you simply posted your own fallible opinion. The exceptions were when you explicitly stated that something is your own (fallible) opinion. In those cases, your statement is factual: you actually do believe as you stated.

Now, unless you're claiming for yourself the infallible, magisterial authority which you so derisively deny the Church, there's no particular reason we should pay any attention to your fallible musings. Yet you state your musings as proven fact or revealed Truth. I dismiss them as nonsense, with the same lack of ceremony as you dismiss the claims of those with whom you disagree.

I haven't "slammed" anybody. I leave the "slamming" to others. The Bible tells me I should reserve my mockery for the (equivalent of) the priests and prophets of ba'al.

[Quix]

Ahhhhhhhh

Perhaps then I merely need to note that I was replying with the assertion that the RC edifice has just as many

opinions stated as Holy Writ as you were accusing me of . . . and probably more.

[Quix]

Good, to a point.

But properly

understood gets right back to . . . definitions of . . .

proper

authority, anointing, . . . confirmation . . .

I still contend that Holy Spirit and a local congregation submitted to HIM . . . remains the safest and best location of said authority and anointing . . . it’s not perfect and flawless and guaranteed pure . . .

but I’ll put my stock there over some loftier ecclesiastical body of power mongering bureaucrats . . . of any denomination . . .

any and every day.

and my opinion is . . . that St Paul mostly did, too.