I really appreciate the feedback here.
You may not be aware that I am in the process of pursuing Anglican orders and think of myself as more an Anglo-Catholic than a purely "Reformed" churchman. Perhaps this will help to contextualize my writing as being less apologetic for Protestantism than you might have thought.
Also, this post was a six page digest of a much more tightly argued and documented, twenty-plus page paper. Some of the holes you found are closed by more detailed argumentation and footnoting. Not that you are responsible for this, of course.
Regarding Newman's opinion toward Papal Infallibility, I accept the point that he is on record as being for the dogma. This "public face" is mitigated somewhat by his private journaling and correspondance with colleagues would seem to suggest. As you are probably aware, this is a hotly disputed point and Ker himself characterizes Newman's attitude toward the definition as “while not to be dismissed as an unmitigated disaster, the definition was at best a necessary evil.” Hopefully you have consulted Page's work on this period. If not, it represents a much more exhaustive treatment than Ker. That, along with a good bit of work in the Journals and Letters is where my nuancing of Newman's private opinion comes from. Anyway, I look forward to reading your paper on the topic as help to my fuller understanding.
Regarding my use of "rectification" I am, to echo Newman's apologetic for his own use of "consent," using the word in a less binary way than your understanding would suggest. Thus I am using the word in the sense of "correction" (as in "course correction") rather than of "reversal." Your use of a "difference of emphasis" comes close. Differences of emphasis can sometimes be phrased as "on the other hand," no?
Not that I am upset about this, but when theological argument is the game, it is really unfair to assume a dictionary definition of a particular word. Working definitions are established by context. My sense of "rectification," therefore, is established by paper, not by a an appeal to Webster's.
Like it or not, the Ultramontane reading of Pastor Aeternus was widely promoted in England by Manning and Ward. Gladstone's remarks reflected the popular reading. My use of "rectification" applies more to the contextual orientation of papal infallibility in relation to a broader ecclesiology. I accept your point that Pastor Aeternus gave Pius IX less than he desired and that it thus mutes the Ultramontanism inherent in the definition. The definition, however, was also supplemented to preclude Gallican readings, so the Ultramontanists (and Pius IX) got MOST of what they wanted. Surely you would agree that the general consensus among scholars is that Pastor Aeternus is Ultramontanist, but not "radically Ultramontanist."
Finally, The differentiation between Newman's Catholic theory of development as such and Vatican II's employment of devel
It cut me off.
What I was saying was that the differentiation bet. the Catholic Newman's theory of development as such and Vatican II's strategy of definition by clarification/rectification was J.M.R. Tillard's differentiation, not mine.
Hi Rev. Pahls,
I'm glad you commented here and appreciate very much your courteous, amiable tone.
It appears (as I suggested was entirely possible) that I did interpret your use of "rectification" more strictly (maybe unfairly too) than your own conception and use of it in this particular theological context. "Course correction" is a good way of putting it. I like that, and it explains very well what you were driving at.
I would fully agree that the Catholic Church decided upon a certain course in Vatican II which was a bit different than before, without contradicting what came before.
Perhaps in your paper you weren't arguing for certain larger themes that I thought you were arguing for. I'm very used to Reformed arguments (not to mention "Reformed Catholic" ones) going in a certain predictable direction and so I probably unfairly applied some of that "instinctive reaction" (in the apologetic sense) to you. The fact that you are moving towards Anglicanism (as Dr. Paul Owen did) would explain a lot of that.
Bottom line: once we both clarify, I think our positions are probably quite close on this matter. I would love to see your longer paper.
In any event, I'm delighted to "meet your acquaintance" and I would enjoy very much dialoguing in the future if you would like to do that. My favorite Protestant dialogue partner has been the Anglican Edwin Tait, who just received his doctorate in Church history (we have also discussed development a lot), so you can see the sort of person I really enjoy talking and working through the issues with.
Development is fun to talk about because it is a concrete enough theory to be identified as an objective entity, yet subjective and open to interpretation enough so that men of good will with honest disagreements can have a great discussion.
Of course, narrowing it down to what Cardinal Newman believed on thus and such is much more a strictly "factual" matter than a general discussion on legitimate principles of development.
Thanks again for the good discussion, and please do clarify anything else that you think would be helpful. I certainly don't want to misrepresent anyone's opinion or accuse them falsely of holding something that they don't hold (having often been subjected to the same thing myself). As you say, the explanation for some of that on my part might very well be the fact that this was a condensed version of your fuller argument.
There is a lot of terms that are difficult for the person who doesn't know -- "ultamontanes", etc.
Nevertheless, it is still a very interesting discussion.
Didn't Newman think the infallibility Dogma was unwise to make it Dogma, but he says and writes that he held it on a personal, private opinion as a "pious opinion" ??
Did he not pray to the saints of the 3rd and 4th Centuries, "O my fathers, save the church from making a terrible mistake!" ( something like that) I am confessing these are not direct quotes -- but it is documented in John Page's book, "What will Dr. Newman Do? ( I checked it out from a library, but had to turn it in, so I don't have the reference in front of me.)
In that book, Page also documents that Newman wrote, "What will they do with Honorius, for he wrote on the de fide basis?"
Also, when I tried to read some of Newman's material on the web-site, The Newman Reader, there was one point, and I cannot remember if it was in "Development of Doctrine" or "The Grammar of Ascent" or some other work, where he wrote something like this, "An honest Protestant cannot remain protestant, Either one will go all the way to Roman Catholicism or give up his faith" ( When studying church history and being honest about it) that is, one cannot remain an honest Protestant.
Where is all this stuff? I lost my references and notes on it.
Hi Ken,
>Didn't Newman think the infallibility Dogma was unwise to make it Dogma, but he says and writes that he held it on a personal, private opinion as a "pious opinion" ??
He thought it was unwise at that particular time, which was what was known as an inopportunist. One can be against defining at the highest level, while still believing in the doctrine itself. I do that, e.g., with regard to the Mary Mediatrix doctrine. I believe it, but I don't think now is the right time to make it a de fide dogma.
>Did he not pray to the saints of the 3rd and 4th Centuries, "O my fathers, save the church from making a terrible mistake!" ( something like that) I am confessing these are not direct quotes -- but it is documented in John Page's book, "What will Dr. Newman Do? ( I checked it out from a library, but had to turn it in, so I don't have the reference in front of me.)
I think he was saying that the big mistake would be to define the doctrine too broadly. The actual definition was quite limited, compared to what many folks wanted, and so Newman saw that as the Holy Spirit protecting the Council.
>In that book, Page also documents that Newman wrote, "What will they do with Honorius, for he wrote on the de fide basis?"
I don't think so. Honorius, as far as I know, did not attempt to define any doctrine which has to do with his mistaken utterances. They were in private letters, after all, which is hardly binding the whole Church to something. The definition of papal infallibility as it stands, would not apply to Honorius, so it overcame any of Newman's trepidations over too-broad of a definition.
>Also, when I tried to read some of Newman's material on the web-site, The Newman Reader, there was one point, and I cannot remember if it was in "Development of Doctrine" or "The Grammar of Ascent" or some other work, where he wrote something like this, "An honest Protestant cannot remain protestant, Either one will go all the way to Roman Catholicism or give up his faith" ( When studying church history and being honest about it) that is, one cannot remain an honest Protestant.
I don't know if he used the word "honest" but he said something to the effect that Catholicism and atheism were the only two final options. I think that is a bit extreme myself. But he was thinking in strictly logical terms, not dogmatic.
>Where is all this stuff? I lost my references and notes on it.
I don't recall. You could look on that site under atheism and it might turn up.
Thanks for all your participation on the blog, Ken!
Thanks Dave -- Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you. I am learning a lot by the challenges of you and the other brothers on the blog.
Interesting that Michael Pahl writes that John Page's book is more extensive and gives more details than Ker's. I did read that statement, "What will they do with Honorius, for his letters are on the De Fide basis" I don't have it in front of me, but I need to go back and find it.
And did not the RCC say for 300 years after that every other Pope had to anathemtize "Honorius" ?? "Anathema to Honorius, Pope of old Rome, for his heresies". Seems pretty formal type of heretical teaching to me.
Tim Staples could not handle that question in the debate with James White and JW clearly won the debate.
This is another subject, but I cannot resist, as it relates to one of Jon's points with me about Muslims. It sort of relates to the issue of Newman and infallibility, because it is related to infallibility, and what Tim Staples said recently in regard to Islam and the Catechism.
Jon said he thought I was more sympathetic to the Muslims than his Catholic Christian brethren. (Because I agree with them that the over-emphasis on Mary and statues give the impression to Muslims, as is also in the Koran, that Christians worship Mary and that she is the 3rd person of the Trinity. ( Koran 5:116)
Actually, we want to witness to the Muslims the gospel, because they do NOT have the gospel and they are lost and they need Christ. We are motivated by love for God and love for the Muslim who needs Christ to witness to him the gospel, in a culturally relevant way that he or she can understand.
But the Catholic Catechism says, ( # 841) that "the plan of salvation also includes . . . the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God . . . "
The plan of salvation does include the Muslim, as God has redeemed some frome every people,nation, tribe, and tongue ( Rev. 5:9), but the church must go and share that message of salvation with them. How can they believe in Him in whom they have not heard?" Muslims have not heard the pure gospel in their language in a culturally relevant way. The Catholic emphasis on Mary puts up stumbling blocks and walls and mis-understandings and distorts the gospel and the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the Fatherhood of God.
I would say that they cannot adore the One true God, because they cannot come to God except through Christ, whom they call "Isa El Massih". Since they do not beleive He is the Son of God or God the Son or in the Trinity, they cannot adore or worship the one true God. Here the Catechism makes a great mistake and this also proves to me that the RCC is not infallible.
Also, recently, a good lay Catholic called into "Catholic Answers" and asked about the Catechism saying "the Muslims also adore the one true God with us" and it implies that they have salvation, "through no fault of their own". Tim Staples danced and qualified and played games and did not answer the man's question. TS said that the RCC goes and shares the details of the "inner life of the Trinity" and then the Muslim might know the fullness of the truth.
My question to Tim and other Catholics here is:
But if the Muslim rejects then, then he is certainly accountable and certainly lost to hell. Now you make evangelism criminal, but John 3:18 says all are "already condemned", even without evangelism and that is one of the great Biblical motivations of evangelism. Have you not just destroyed most of the Biblical motivation for evangelism?
But if you say that if he or she never hears the gospel, then there is a possibility that God in His mercy will save them by general revelation or monotheism. This makes evangelism and missions criminal and I and most evangelical protestants would say that this is false doctrine. There is no salvation except throught Christ. ( Acts 4:12, John 14:6, John 3:18.)
This is an example ( to me) of a clear contradiction in the official document, the Catechism. Islam worships a false god. ( there is nothing wrong with the phonetic sounds, Allah, -- that is the word for God in Arabic, and is the equvalent to Elohim in the OT and Theos in the NT, but the content of the Doctrine of who Allah is in Islam makes him a false diety.)
There may be Muslims who are TRYING to worship the One true God of Abraham, but they never attain to it, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and they clearly reject the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the Sonship of Christ and the Fatherhood of God, so NO, they do not worship the same God. But they are monotheistic and they when they speak of God or "Allah", they have only part of the Revelation of Him, that He is One and the Omnipotent, Sovereign, Omniscient Creator. But that is not enough to save. That is one of the great motivations of missons -- because those who have never heard are going to hell. Romans 10:9-15 "How can they believe in Him in whom they have not heard?" Muslims have heard of "Isa El Massih", but not in a way that they can understand the truth of who He truly is. Most of the message that has been given to the Muslims in all history up until recently has been a distortion of the real truth of the gospel.
Good book on this is Timothy George, "Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammed?" (Zondervan). Also, "Answering Islam, by Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb. Baker.) And also www.answering-islam.org
John Piper's "Let the Nations Be Glad" ( Baker) and Robertson McQuilkin's "The Great Omission" (OM books) are also very very important on the question of those who have never the gospel.
Ken,
Again, you take things out of context. To pull #841 out of the Catechism and ignore all of #830-856 is definitely to take the RCC teaching out of context.
In #843 the RCC acknowledges that Muslims (and other non-Christian religions) are seeking God, but are missing the complete picture. In #844 we clearly state that these errors (of faith held by non-Christians) are caused by Satan. Finally, in #845-856 we see nothing but the missionary call to all Christians to spread the Word and bring the world to the Church.
When put in context, none of your "errors" exist.
Do you object to #841? It is a fact that Muslims claim to be descendants of Abraham and that they try to worship the same Father that Abraham worshipped. When you object that their worship is incomplete and inaccurate, you're simply agreeing with #843-844.
Do you object to #847 (the "through no fault of their own" clause)? If so, then you must object to Rom 2:14-16, which is what this paragraph of the Catechism echoes.
I do not have issues in discussing doctrinal differences. But when you frequently distort the Catholic position, while maintaining that you understand and appreciate that same position (just disagree with it), you demonstrate that you truly do not understand and appreciate. Instead you create caricatures and strawmen.
In His Name,
Jamie wrote:
"It is a fact that Muslims claim to be descendants of Abraham and that they try to worship the same Father that Abraham worshipped."
Jamie,
The key words in this sentence are "claim" and "try". Your sentence is better than the Catechism at 841. -- and yours is very closer to my position -- the Catechism says they are adoring the same God with us. It does not say "trying" or "claiming".
Yes, I know they "claim" to worship the God of Abraham; I have been among them for 22 years.
I am not trying to deliberately build a strawman – and I hope you can see my point about “trying” and “claiming”. But I will study the context of what you gave me and come back later.
Ken,
Thank you for your clarification. I better understand your disagreement with #841. However, I respectfully disagree. First, it must be understood to be a part of the 26 to 30 paragraphs which surround it.
Second, I think we may be playing semantics here. Do the Muslims worship, but without understanding? Or do they worship something completely different. When answering, recall that Christ told the Samaritan woman that she worshipped what she did not know (John 4:22) and that Paul preached to those who worshipped the unknown god (Acts 17). In both cases, Jesus and Paul took the listeners from partial and inaccurate knowledge to the full truth.
Were I to take the way you describe it in a consistent manner, I'd have to conclude that Paul was incorrect while in Athens.
However, the Catechism describes, with the greatest charity affordable, that the Muslims correctly identify and adore the God of Abraham as the one and only true diety. But the Catechism doesn't stop there. It also affirms, as I pointed out above, that the Muslim understanding and worship are incorrect. They are flawed. And the only way to correct their worship is to bring them into the Church by teaching the true faith.
Well I'm not really comfortable with calling Pio Nono an "Ultramone" or whatever. I bet all my fellow Catholics here would be mostly offended if someone named JPII or BXVI some sort of name for any postion X they happened hold even if (for argument's sake) they were wrong and the namer correct.
Any way while the defintion isn't so broad as to make everything infallible with carefully laid down conditions and restrictions I must say that it is more broad than many think it is. Many think there are only two ex cathedra statements in all of history. In fact in his offical relatio (quoted four times by VII) bishop Gasser said there were "thousands and thousands" - a statement said in passing mind you not as a point in itself - as if he were taking it for granted. Now I will very quickly add that it wasn't meant LITERALLY but as a more common sense interpretation would have it - a fair few.
The main consternation is people misunderstanding the word "defines." Speaking of development VII worded this a bit better as "proclaims by a definitive act." A lot of people don't realise that the ex cathedra statements don't have to be of things that are strictly dogma (de fide - of faith). Gasser was very careful to explain that in his offical explantion to the Fathers on the meaning of that word, on belhalf of the deputation de fide. The Fathers were concerned that it would make it seem as if the Pope had to use some set formula or something like that as well. A fear Gasser dispelled.
Jamie,
Thanks -- yes, of course, I also use Acts 17 as a pre-evangelistic model that is a valid way of trying to show that people without Chirst still have general revelation ( monotheism or the one true God up there somewhere, or the unknown God), but this is not enough to save. They must believe in the name of Jesus Christ, meaning His person and all that He is. ( not just phonetic sounds) -- John 3:18 "they are already condemned because they have not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. Acts 4:12, Romans 10:13-15, Romans 15:20-21.
So Paul was not incorrect, he was using something already in their culture as a bridge or point of contact with them to then talk about Christ. Yes, Muslims are claiming and trying to reach the one true God, but the content or doctrine of "Allah" in Islam is a false deity, but has some truth from Monotheistic Judaism in it. The Allah of Islam is incomplete and insuffiecient to save. General revelation and monotheism is insufficient to save.
Ken,
I think we're very close to agreement!
Yes, Muslims are claiming and trying to reach the one true God, but the content or doctrine of "Allah" in Islam is a false deity, but has some truth from Monotheistic Judaism in it. The Catechism is focusing on the area where I've added the emphasis to your quote. From this common point - where Islam does teach truth (however incomplete it is) - we can move forward with evangelization. The RCC does not teach that Islam, nor Allah, saves. But that by developing their partial, incomplete truth into the full Truth (and becoming Christian in the process), Muslims can be saved.
It's nice to work towards an agreement for a change!
calculate loan payment student calculate loan payment student calculate loan payment student. loan for woman in business loan for woman in business loan for woman in business.
advance cash loan payday qualification qualification advance cash loan payday qualification qualification advance cash loan payday qualification qualification. student loan stafford loan student loan stafford loan student loan stafford loan.
Commenting by HaloScan
