Posted on 01/03/2010 10:30:30 PM PST by Gamecock
If I get well enough to go to church today or tomorrow, I'm going to tackle some of the friars before I get back to you. I have to think what I mean by the Assumption being historical.
Thank you.
Further your thesis that the Dogma was condemned before it was approved has been debunked by multiple poste
One "debunking" at a time, please. You said, "The cut-n-paste claimed proclamation of a Pope that was debunked." So did Pope Hormisdas reaffirm a phony decree or not? Why would Pope Nicolas authoritatively cite a phony decree and falsely attribute it to Pope Gelasius?
And "my thesis" is not that the Dogma was condemned before it was approved, but that the WRITING, IT"S AUTHORS, AND IT"S ADHERENTS, i.e., the Transitus writing of the Assumption of Mary, that theological redaction of ealier accounts, known to be the origin of this teaching into Church teaching via Gregory of Tours, was condemned before the teaching on the Assumption was eventually approved.
What denomination are you?
We' re not going to change the subject that fast. Answer my questions first; Did Pope Nicolas affirm a phony decree or not? Did Pope Nicolas authoritatively cite a phony decree and falsely attribute it to Pope Gelasius, or did he not?
Cordially,
...In all time and all countries the same doctrines...was false because:
Originated by heretics and condemned as heretical by two Popes in the fifth and sixth centuries, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary comes to mind.See? You claimed the DOGMA of the Assumption of Mary was condemned by multiple Popes. That false claim has been laid bare for all to see. You efforts to shift your claims and your cut-n-pastes of limited and unsupported research notwithstanding, your original claim fails.
What denomination are you? And if you again fail to answer, what is it you are ashamed or afraid of?
MD: Okay, serious question: What if someone does not believe the statement above? Note, the question is NOT about the person's trust in Christ alone, but about his thinking about his relationship with Christ, salvation,etc.
That is an interesting question, MD. I would agree with BD that faith in Christ alone for salvation is absolutely essential. But to expand it a bit, we would need to agree on the correct Christ and what "salvation" means. I don't see much problem among Catholics and Reformers as to the former. Most FR Catholics and the Catholic Catechism have convinced me that we agree on the identity of Christ, although we have profound disagreement on many of the things Christ did or did not do.
The next issue occurring to me is WHO does the actual, physical saving? As you know, Reformers would say that Christ does all of it, 100% of it, with no help from or conditions met through our own efforts. I have heard a shorthand for the Catholic faith that amounts to free will faith plus works results in salvation. That is, man cooperates with God and that collaboration results in salvation. Is that fair? If it is, then it sounds like man (including any activity by Mary) is partially responsible (due "credit") for his own salvation. If the relationship with Christ is one of unequals in which both work together and contribute to the desired goal (e.g., a boss and his subordinate work together to complete a project), then I would put that at least to the threshold of a disqualifying error.
However, another view might be that a person must have free will faith and do works and THEN God does all the saving Himself (e.g., a subordinate provides some facts and figures to his boss and his boss then completes the project by himself, taking and deserving all the credit). While I also strongly disagree with this view I would say it is materially different from the first. Is any of this responsive to the issue you were raising?
BTW, I was sorry to read of your illness and I really hope they figure out what's going on soon. I can imagine how frustrating it is to have something like that just keep going. I'll be praying for you. I hope that your being vaporized is of help. :)
I asked for information of the Church’s doctrinal attitude on certain matters. I guess that would be a “corporate you.” I also realize that the instruction you deliver is your “personal” understanding of Church doctrine.
“Help a sick guy out here: what post is that section in quotes from?”
I’m sorry to hear you’re not in good health. You should see a doctor about that before 0bamaCare takes affect. The post was #282.
“Here's a big generalization, probably unfair:”
A generalization functions to help us organize our thinking. If it is “unfair,” or is otherwise maladroit, then it is not helpful. This “binary” Protestant was looking to better understand whether or not the Catholic Church’s doctrinal attitude enables it to join the rest of us who call ourselves ‘Conservative’ in rising to the defense of Western Civilization (in defense of the Judeo-Christian tradition). A nuance is capable of helping us to a sophisticated understanding of a complicated truth. It can also be used to obfuscate an issue. I don’t take your intent to be one of obfuscation. My inquiry was a fairly straight-forward proposition. I was looking for a fairly straight-forward reply. Perhaps that is not possible.
“papist me would be a great deal more likely to be marching and praying with an OPC Presbyterian or a SBC Baptist, (technically, I suppose, heretics and schismatics) than with a modern Episcopalian.”
Nothing technical involved. If one does not formally subscribe to Catholic doctrine, then one is heretic, schismatic, pagan, and ‘outside’ the Church, according to the Catholic point of view. Apparently, you do not take the shunning injunction to the point of not praying or marching in common cause with Christians not of your sect. My assumption is that, like the half of my family that is Catholic, there are many of your persuasion (though certainly not all).
“Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I think OUR differences here are not the threat to the role and place of the Judaeo-Christian in our Countries weltanschauung as is the bastard child liberal progressivism and atheistic humanism.”
Yes. It appears that you and I share a good deal in our worldview. I recognize that there are also many Protestants ‘outside’ Christianity, just as Pelosi, Kennedy, et al, are ‘outside’ Catholicism. The truth is, I consider Pelosi, Kennedy, et al likewise ‘outside’ Christianity. They all (Protestant and Catholic alike) have foresworn their Christian integrity for political expediency or for some other societal ideology.
(2) Actually the question I was raising was (a)How much and in what way do right understanding and/or belief about God 'n Jesus 'n stuff affect one's salvation? (b)See (2a) above but with special reference to right understanding about the faith/works mess.
(3)I am generally concerned that SOME kind of "praxis", some deed or other seems to be involved, however hard we try to get away from it. Sometimes it's amazing and distressing to me that we have so much contention, because I guess that everyone of us in the history of his relationship with Jesus has experienced a moment in which he said, "Yes!" And of that moment, again I GUESS, the best description is, "I did it, yet God did it in me, both to will and to do."
(4)(As an attempt to illuminate a way to think about freedom) I asked someone a trick question the other day: Is God able to lie?
The "trick" is that I'd suggest lying is not an "ability," but a defect or perversion of an ability. The proposed analysis is: The "end" or "object" of communication is to convey what I mean (and to mean the truth.)
The conversations here, even those of the best possible will, show how we are rarely capable even of that. I have wife, child, friends, mentors, students. I strain to tell them what I mean, and I fail again and again. Part is failure of knowledge, part is failure of understanding the person to whom I am communicating (or understanding myself), part is failure in the arts of communication, and part is fear, shame, "need" to control, blah blah.
Even to WANT to convey the truth is a freedom I do not perfectly manifest or experience, at least not often. And when I want to, I still mess up.
So the POWER or ability of God is that He CAN tell the truth, and wants to. For Him to want to lie would be a loss of ability, and since He has neither parts nor passions but is utterly "simple" it would be a loss of "what it is HE is."
Mutatis mutandis and all that other fancy stuff, NOT that we Calflicks are WRONG, mind you, but we have some pretty fancy thinking and talking to do if we are going to maintain that "Free Will" means the "free" act of rejecting Jesus. To act like a corrupt fool MAY be something appropriate to politicians, wait, I mean, MAY sometimes LOOK like freedom (Have sex with, oh, the young Veronica Lake or re-read that tricky passage in Romans, what to do, what to do ...) But it's NOT freedom, it's weakness and failure.
Somehow that seems relevant. Help me out here. At least, if you can, run the same question over the Calvinist matrix, please.
Well, actually I dispute that. I'm busily disputing it with verdadjusticia. I would say NOT that y'all are "outside" but that you're not all the way inside. I also would hesitate to classify all those thing especially "pagan" as having the same degree or kind of outsideness.
If Pelousy et al are Christians, they are very BAD Christians. They certainly are outside the "tradition" of thought which informed the Signers and Founders.
In other news:
I was looking for a fairly straight-forward reply. Perhaps that is not possible.
Well, I fear in my case it's an "improbable possible."
...In all time and all countries the same doctrines...was false because:
Originated by heretics and condemned as heretical by two Popes in the fifth and sixth centuries, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary comes to mind.
It should be clear to any reasonable person that the subject of the statement is the notion of or the belief in the Assumption of Mary, which did not become a DOGMA until 1950. Which, btw itself constitutes a change in "all time and all countries the same doctrines". That which was first not taught for six centuries within the church was brought into the church. That constitutes a change. When it was first brought into the church it was condemned as heretical, but that which began to be taught within the church in the six and seventh centuries constituted a change. When that which was not dogma became dogma in 1950, that also constituted a change.
What denomination are you? And if you again fail to answer, what is it you are ashamed or afraid of?
Did Pope Nicolas affirm a phony decree or not? Did Pope Nicolas authoritatively cite a phony decree and falsely attribute it to Pope Gelasius, or did he not? Answer and then I will answer your question as I promised.
Cordially,
They all (Protestant and Catholic alike) have foresworn their Christian integrity for political expediency or for some other societal ideology.That certainly is the way it looks. Being unable to see into their hearts I cannot be certain but their words and actions simply appear incompatible with the teachings of Our Lord. Sadly often mine fall short as well though. Since we are all certain He is both a Just and a Merciful Judge we can all hope.
Answer and then I will answer your question as I promised.I have no idea. Based on the shoddy research you have been citing I am certain you do not either.
What denomination are you? And if you again (is this the third or is it the fourth time?) fail to answer, what is it you are ashamed or afraid of?
Cordially,
( ^8 }
If you’re saying that our judgments must be tempered by the knowledge of our own shortcomings, then I think you’re right.
Not sure about yours, sadly more sure of mine. :)
It’s wonderful to see you posting again, Forest Keeper. Happy New Year and may God continue to bless you and your family.
And some people think 50-cent words will obscure the fact that Hitler was never ex-communicated from his Roman Catholic church, and that Pius XII was complicit in the Holocaust, and that Ratzinger, current bishop of Rome, was a member of the Hitler Youth.
But I suppose anyone who can believe the magick that men must physically eat the body of Jesus Christ in order to be saved will believe anything.
Once more with feeling...
And some (a) have no sense of humor about 50 cent words (or about much else, least of all themselves) and (b) appear to think that repeating a falsehood makes it true. In some cases they appear to think that repeating several falsehoods, (while insisting that eye-witnesses find corroboration) makes the several falsehoods true.
I think that can be answered in different ways depending on the perspective. I would start with God and say that God sovereignly elects and chooses the yes/no of everyone's salvation. For the "No's" their understanding and/or belief about God, etc. is irrelevant. (Aren't I nice? :) For the "Yes's" God will provide sufficient and necessary understanding and belief about God to ensure salvation, the gift of true faith. This gift includes the requisite applications also, e.g., repentance, perseverance, etc. All of it comes from God.
(b)See (2a) above but with special reference to right understanding about the faith/works mess.
I think from God's perspective He provides all the faith and does all the works, so there is no mess. :) From man's perspective I still don't think there is a mess. True faith produces general good works every single time. Therefore, whether or not a person understands or agrees with that is irrelevant. (Of course to say that I must hold that it is impossible to have true faith and not do works.) In any event, I think there are zillions of people just like you and me, who have true faith, do good works, completely disagree on how faith and works relate to each other, and yet we are probably both fine.
Sometimes it's amazing and distressing to me that we have so much contention, because I guess that everyone of us in the history of his relationship with Jesus has experienced a moment in which he said, "Yes!" And of that moment, again I GUESS, the best description is, "I did it, yet God did it in me, both to will and to do."
Yes, I suppose I separate it by considering the two different perspectives of intellect and experience. Both are good and part of human nature.
(4)(As an attempt to illuminate a way to think about freedom) I asked someone a trick question the other day: Is God able to lie?
I would say "No", God is not able to lie because that would violate His unchanging nature (God is truth) as described in the Bible. If He lied He would cease to be God. Instead, He would be something else, not the God the Bible describes. The same would apply to God ceasing to exist or making a rock He couldn't lift. However, this in no way is a curtailing of God's freedom, which is absolute. When I think of freedom I think of freedom from "what". The only "what" for God would be His own nature, which is defining, so I don't think the issue of freedom would really apply to that.
The "trick" is that I'd suggest lying is not an "ability," but a defect or perversion of an ability. The proposed analysis is: The "end" or "object" of communication is to convey what I mean (and to mean the truth.)
I would say it depends on how "truth" is handled. For example, God asking Adam where he is. The appearance is that the truth is that God doesn't know where Adam is. However, we know the real truth is that He did know where Adam was and the purpose of His communication was to convey to Adam that He required Adam's presence. I would not call this a lie, and God successfully conveyed what He meant and it was the real truth, although it was not necessarily obvious.
Even to WANT to convey the truth is a freedom I do not perfectly manifest or experience, at least not often. And when I want to, I still mess up.
Yes, the remnant of sin is there and we occasionally do not convey the real truth.
So the POWER or ability of God is that He CAN tell the truth, and wants to. For Him to want to lie would be a loss of ability, and since He has neither parts nor passions but is utterly "simple" it would be a loss of "what it is HE is."
I'm not sure I'd put it in those terms, but I think we end in basically the same place. I suppose I wouldn't say that God CAN tell the truth and wants to, but rather that God DOES tell the truth because He IS truth. It is His nature so there is no issue of wanting. We don't think of wanting to breathe air, we just do it because our nature requires it. But as I think you say, if God lost what it is that He is, then He wouldn't be God any more.
To act like a corrupt fool MAY be something appropriate to politicians, wait, I mean, MAY sometimes LOOK like freedom (Have sex with, oh, the young Veronica Lake or re-read that tricky passage in Romans, what to do, what to do ...) But it's NOT freedom, it's weakness and failure.
Yes, and I would add total bondage to sin. Before I became a Christian I sure felt free as a bird in pulling all the crap I did, but little did I know how much in chains I really was. Praise God for rescuing the sorry likes of me. :)
Thanks Dr. E. It’s good to see you again too. I wish a very Happy New Year to you and yours. God bless you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.