Combox for:
Fifth Reply to "Traditionalist" Ryan Grant (Ecumenism and St. Paul the Good "Vatican II" Ecumenist)
[6 June 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...ryan-
grant.html
In the quote from Mortalium Animos, Pius XI apparently believed that all ecumenicalism was indifferentism.
He probably would have thought that the Assisi event was inherently indifferentist.
As per usual Jeb you are confused.
Actually Pius XI was objecting to the Pan Protestant Movement that wanted to unite all Protestant sects into a loose confederacy of churches each teaching different doctrines. They wanted unity at the expense of doctrinal truth.
Catholic Eccumenism as taught by Vatican II is predicated on the idea that the Catholic Church still teaches She alone has THE FULLNESS of truth & that dialog is merely a stepping stone to built trust & bridges so we may invite non-Catholics to embrace the Ark of Salvation which is Christ True Church.
Assisi was merely the Pope showing good will toward members of other religions. This has been discussed before & Shawn M has givent he diffinative answer. I would recomend his thoughts on the matter even thought neither Dave nor I are on speaking terms with him anymore.
BTW Jeb you need to return to the Catholic Church or you are in danger of going to Hell.
Shawn's classic defense is still a keeper.
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/a...om/
assissi.html
BTW I don't know what David Palm's current views on Assisi are but I still like him & I liked him back then when he expressed his contra-Assisi views.
Still David Palm to his credit addressed the issue theologicall(even if I think he made some mistakes in aplication) by discussing it in terms of ditrect material participation in evil Vs remote material participation in evil. It's a cut above some of the mindless kneejerk crap some anti-Catholic fundies spew toward the Assisi gathering.
That does look like a great essay, Jim. I'll have to make a link to it on my "trad" page.
Sorry, what's up with Shawn M? I've found his stuff very valuable in the past. Why are people not speaking to one another? Have I missed something? I'd hate to think god catholic apologists were a odds like that.
He decided to go after my honesty and integrity and sincerity and basic intellectual competence as an apologist in various ways, as a result of the debate on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (he for and I against). I tried for months and in many different ways to achieve a reconciliation, including a mediator who was a mutual friend (whose position on the issue was actually closer to his own) but he wouldn't give an inch (including recently again on this blog when I touched upon the nuclear ethics subject again). I can say nothing at all about my own opinions or even internal states of mind. It's all rejected carte blanche. Shawn knows better than I do about those things.
During a failed attempt to correspond to try to break the impasse, I said I wouldn't read two of his letters (for various reasons that made perfect sense in the overall context). But eventually I did read them, as I informed Shawn later. He tried to "get back" at me by deleting unread the last two letters I sent (and he has not ever indicated that he read them subsequently). Thus, there was nothing left that I could do. I wrote to his friend Greg Mockeridge and asked him to convey the message that I had given up trying.
The mediator suggested to both of us that we remove our materials about each other from our websites, for the reason you give (because it was scandalous). I was happy to do so, but Shawn refused, so to this day he has papers posted such as:
"On David Armstrong's Tragic Mental Meltdown"
http://rerum-
novarum.blogspot.co...682245845042316
"Armstrong Illusions" (four parts)
http://rerum-
novarum.blogspot.co...597686021412009
http://rerum-
novarum.blogspot.co...597709451111600
http://rerum-
novarum.blogspot.co...597709451111600
http://rerum-
novarum.blogspot.co...804648929434603
Etc.
He also regularly trashes the Catholic apologetics movement on the whole (especially Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, and Karl Keating, along with myself) and highly resents being called an apologist himself. See, e.g.,:
"See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" Dept.
http://rerum-
novarum.blogspot.co...580303487671882
Typical excerpt:
"The bottom line though is this: any attempts to oppose what I wrote with anything that does not deal with my arguments on their merits or lack thereof will reveal these people as grandstanding demagogues interested not in truth but instead in how they can protect their own backsides from legitimate scrutiny. And no matter how Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants try to spin it to sound differently, that is the bottom line folks."
Shawn has called me every name in the book; even compared me directly to Benedict Arnold.
If you search the words "apologetics" or "apologists" on his sidebar (or my own name) you can find an avalanche of vitriolic personal insult. It's truly scandalous and ridiculous.
Recently, Shawn tried to make out that he is so eminently fair-minded because he posted a review of my book, The Catholic Verses, on amazon and on his site.
Big wow. So he can write a review without launching into the stratosphere. I have links to James White and defend him on occasion from slanderous comments. Shawn needs to retract and remove his damnably slanderous materials about me and other apologists.
As it is, he holds the infamous record for the most personal attacks and lies about myself that I've ever heard from anyone in my life. And that is truly remarkable, if you've followed my writings and unfortunate interactions with anti-Catholics, who have tried every way imaginable to attack my person rather than actually grapple with my arguments.
You (Laurence) didn't know about this precisely because I have removed all of our exchanges from my site. You'd have to go to his site, and obviously you haven't visited much, or you would have known about it. He only gets about 20-30 regular readers (literally, according to Site Meter), so I'm not surprised you weren't one of them.
Ouch! I think I missed most of this. Admittidly, arguments betweens apologists (normally between Catholic and Protestants) can have 'road crash' fascination to a degree but where it becomes purely personal it becomes tedious. I probably 'tuned out' at the time. It rings a very vague bell but I didn't follow the hiroshoma/Nakasaki debate. The whole atom bomb ting makes me kinda sick. I have a powerful imagination and a sensitive nature.
Thanks for letting me know. A crying shame because shawn's done some really good work.
Ahh, the arrogance that bedevils apologists! One reason I come here is that I DON'T see such arrogance exhibited by yourself but it certainly seems to be the temptation the evil one uses specially on apologists (of all stripes!)
May God grant us all humility!
Anyway, thanks again for filling me in.
Dave,
What if Pope Benedict invited Gene Robinson, Fred Phelps, Jeremiah Wright, Rosemary Radford Reuther, Hans Kung and the chaplain for Planned Parenthood for a prayer meeting at Rome for world peace.
Assume that before and the event he said "The catholic church has its differences with these people and I don't advocate indifferentism."
Would you support such a prayer meeting?
That should be "before and after the event . . ."
I would not because liberalism has an inherent element of dishonesty that other world religions do not usually have. The liberal is claiming to be some kind of Christian while rejecting tenets that are required to claim such a thing.
Thanks Laurence, for your kind words. I pray to God for the grace to not be arrogant. It's poison for anyone, but especially for apologists and any kind of teacher, because it turns people right off.
Of course I've been accused of this at times by the usual suspects. Whether it is true or not is for others and God to judge. You're one witness who doesn't see it in me. I hope your perception is accurate!
Dave,
But does the Catholic Church say that dialogue or joint prayer events should not include liberals?
The World Lutheran Federation is a radical leftist group and the Vatican signed a statemnt with them on justification.
The WCC and NCC are made up of the most part of leftist protestant groups.
Dear Dave,
Polytheism also of necessity involves dishonesty. Anyone who does not worship the one true God is without excuse (Rom 1:20).
>Polytheism also of necessity involves dishonesty. Anyone who does not worship the one true God is without excuse (Rom 1:20).
I reply: The Catholic Encylopedia of 1910 does not seem to endorce that interpretation my friend.
Or perhaps you mean something else?
From the Entry on Idolatry:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/...then/
07636a.htm
Moral aspect
............ The guilt of idolatry, however, is not to be estimated by its abstract nature alone; the concrete form it assumes in the conscience of the sinner is the all-important element. No sin is mortal — i.e. debars man from attaining the end for which he was created — that is not committed with clear knowledge and free determination. But how many, or how few, of the countless millions of idolaters are, or have been, able to distinguish between the one Creator of all things and His creatures? and, having made the distinction, how many have been perverse enough to worship the creature in preference to the Creator? — It is reasonable, Christian, and charitable to suppose that the "false gods" of the heathen were, in their conscience, the only true God they knew, and that their worship being right in its intention, went up to the one true God with that of Jews and Christians to whom He had revealed Himself. "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ . . . . . the gentiles who have not the law, shall be judged by their conscience" (Romans 2:14-16). God, who wishes all men to be saved, and Christ, who died for all who sinned in Adam, would be frustrated in their merciful designs if the prince of this world were to carry off all idolaters. END QUOTE
Ben Remember we have a Church that interprets Scripture. Pius IX clearly taught there was such a thing as invincible ignorance. You CAN'T compair pagans who lived in the area of ancient Israel & saw the miracles of the one God with the pagans of today.
>What if Pope Benedict invited Gene Robinson, Fred Phelps, Jeremiah Wright, Rosemary Radford Reuther, Hans Kung and the chaplain for Planned Parenthood for a prayer meeting at Rome for world peace.
I reply: What if Martin Luther rose from the dead tommorow & said "I WAS SO WRONG! The Reformation is cancelled go back to the true church."?
BTW the Pope did invite Hans Kung to the Vatican since he was his teacher. But HE STILL didn't give Hans back his theology license that he took from him under orders from JP2 when he was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
>Assume that before and after the event he said "The catholic church has its differences with these people and I don't advocate indifferentism."
>Would you support such a prayer meeting?
I reply: BTW are you REALLY so stupid as to believe Phelps who believes the RC is the Whore of Babylon (like you do), Reuther who is an anti-Catholic Feminazi & PP who hates the Church with a passion would ever what to set foot in the Vatican? You are a nutcase buddy.
>But does the Catholic Church say that dialogue or joint prayer events should not include liberals?
I reply: You are truely clueless Steve Jackson...um...I mean Jeb! ALL Protestants are "liberals"(since you use the term liberal synomously with heterodox). The only difference between Fundamentalists like youself & Liberals is one of degree not nature. All of you are heretics. Only Catholics can be fully orthodox.
You have said ALL OF THIS nonsence before. I have corrected you before & you keep repeating yourself. You are still a one note tune dude.
>The World Lutheran Federation is a radical leftist group and the Vatican signed a statemnt with them on justification.
>The WCC and NCC are made up of the most part of leftist protestant groups.
I reply: Jeb for you ANYONE who doesn't endorce 6-day young Earth creationism is a leftist liberal. So cut out the crap come up with something original for a change. Also you are being dishonest. The ultra-Conservative Lutherans (i.e. he MSLC or the Wisconsin Synod) refuse to dialog with the Vatican. So all we have to talk to is "liberals" who don't hold your pathological fear of non-christian cooties,
>I would not because liberalism has an inherent element of dishonesty that other world religions do not usually have. The liberal is claiming to be some kind of Christian while rejecting tenets that are required to claim such a thing.
I reply: I don't agree with you here either Dave (I'm out tonight swinging my Clamore, so don't feel Bad Ben my Lad. My hand is against everyman tonight). 
The Socratic Principle demands we take people at their word till by their actions or argument prove themselves dishonest rogues. Otherwise we can't have constructive dialog being suspicious all the time.
Believe it or not many liberals really do believe their watered down "Christianity" is authentic just like guys like Jeb really believe in heresies like Sola Fide. Mormons objectively speaking are NOT Christians but I personally have met many a Mormon who acts like a Christian & deeply believes his errors are true Christianity. Pope Pius IX taught there is such a thing as invincible ignorance also known as Unbelief by Negation. God can save such people by the Light of Grace he grants them BUT we can never use the existence of such people as an excuse not to preach the Gospel since we CAN'T know why an unbeliever doesn't believe. Only God knows his heart.
Carry on Gang!
I didn't say they weren't sincere or don't believe what they do in a subjective sense. But it is objectively dishonest. The Mormon is perfectly sincere, but it is dishonest for him to claim that Mormonism is Christian, based on any reasonable historic definition of the word.
BTW Jeb you need to return to the Catholic Church or you are in danger of going to Hell.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
Why?
I thought "all validly baptized Protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ", according to what Dave has written many times here; and what Vatican II and subsequent official teachings say?
If they are truly ignorant or invincibly ignorant, they can possibly be saved outside of formal membership in the Catholic Church. If, OTOH, a Protestant knows full well what Catholicism is, and rejects it, he is in distinct danger of hellfire. And that includes you, Ken. We don't know the state of individual hearts and souls; that's for God to know and judge. But we can make the above warning, which remains Catholic teaching, as it has always been; and it is not contradictory to Catholic ecumenism.
In Jeb's case, he used to be a Catholic, too, and has been answered many times when he does his usual "Catholicism is overrun by liberalism" schtick. That makes him relatively more culpable, though it could be that he was very ignorant as a Catholic, as most who leave the Church were.
Dave,
So your position is that some validly baptized protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ?
Incidentally, your webpage on C.S. Lewis calls him a "20th-Century Christian Knight." Shouldn't that be changed to "a 20th-Century protestant Knight who was in distinct danger of hell fire for his potentially culpable rejection of the Catholic Church"?
>Incidentally, your webpage on C.S. Lewis calls him a "20th-Century Christian Knight." Shouldn't that be changed to "a 20th-Century protestant Knight who was in distinct danger of hell fire for his potentially culpable rejection of the Catholic Church"?
I reply: Protestants are Christians (i.e. according to Catholicism), remember? Thus C.S. Lewis can be called one & he championed basic truths all Christians believe in (like the Deity of Christ, the Resurrection, existence of God etc) against the claims of non-believers thus he was a Knight.
Jeb like some Protestant heretics equates being "Christian" with being saved (he can't make the mental seperation) hence his confusion. Catholics aren't Calvinists Jeb my dim friend.
He has been corrected before when he mixes & matches theologies, by myself, by Dave & others. Here & over at Jimmy Akin's blog. It seems he would just rather repeat himself & be a jerk.
>who was in distinct danger of hell fire for his potentially culpable rejection of the Catholic Church"?
I reply: Lewis is also dead & has been judged & only God knows if He is in Heaven or Hell. Thus what purpose would it serve to point that out? Lewis can benefit from being postumously implored to join the True Church. By now hopelfully he is either in it forever or out of it forever.
Duh!
For Jeb anything that is non-Christian (Christian being defined as his own denominational preference) is simply evil & it somehow (in his mind )offends God.
Fore example if John Paul II praises whatever is good & true in let us say Hinduism, in Jeb's mind that is equivalent of praising the whole of Hinduism including it's errors. He can't intellectually make the separation. I theorize it's because he holds to a certain Reformation heresy (condemned by Trent) that teaches in our fallen state even our natural good works are regarded as sins in the eyes of God.
Thus he can't even conceive speaking positively about any non-Christian religion.
He manifests this mentality every time he takes a pot shot at the Pope. Till a light is shined on it then he beats a sound retreat.
>So your position is that some validly baptized protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ?
I reply: Try ALL validly baptized people without any exceptions. That is the clear teaching of Trent. What you have been trolling Catholic Blogs for how many years & YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT!
Wow that is thick!
Note Dave like I said in Jeb's mentality he equates "Christian" with being once saved always saved.
He has no concept of Sacraments that work Ex opera operatus. It's all Sola Fede to him.
So when Jeb asks "So your position is that some validly baptized protestants are brothers and sisters in Christ" what he is really asking is "So some Protestants can be saved?".
>I didn't say they weren't sincere or don't believe what they do in a subjective sense. But it is objectively dishonest. The Mormon is perfectly sincere, but it is dishonest for him to claim that Mormonism is Christian, based on any reasonable historic definition of the word.
I reply: I guess our quibble is over the use of the term "dishonest".
I'm using the dictionary definition.
Dishonesty- is a word which in common usage may be defined as the act or to act without honesty; a lack of probity, to cheat, lying or being deliberately deceptive; lacking in integrity; to be knavish, perfidious, corrupt or treacherous; charlatanism or quackery.
I'm using the word as a moral adjective. Persons who are perfectly sincere by definition can't be dishonest. Misguided, in error or ignorant yes but dishonest never.
Ours is a difference over terminology. Naturally I believe my use is correct.
After all how could a member of the Clan of Uchtred filius Scot be wrong? LOL!
Cheers!
ALBA GO BRAGH!
Dear Jim,
Well, you manage to confuse your Gaelic cheers, so I guess it's possible even for a member of your clan to be wrong. The Scots Gaelic for "Scotland forever" is Alba gu Bràth. The Irish Gaelic for "Ireland forever" is Éire go brách which is Anglicized as "Erin go bragh."
You are also wrong in your application of the Council of Trent to mean that all validly baptized persons, without exception, are brothers in Christ. Schism, heresy, and apostasy, by their very nature, sever one from the body of Christ (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 23). As such, no one who is guilty of a mortal sin of heresy, schism, or apostasy is a brother in Christ. Validly baptized Protestant children are our brothers in Christ. Validly baptized Protestant adults may be or may not be; we cannot know. They are at least materially schismatic and heretical, and possibly formally so.
If they are truly ignorant or invincibly ignorant, they can possibly be saved outside of formal membership in the Catholic Church. If, OTOH, a Protestant knows full well what Catholicism is, and rejects it, he is in distinct danger of hellfire. And that includes you, Ken.
Dave, what does it mean “if a Protestant knows full well what Catholicism is” ? Knowing what it is; is different than agreeing with its claims. It is understanding the intellectual arguments and claims that you (and others and the official Vatican claim) make at your website and reading the Catechism, etc.? If I knew it was the real true church, of course I would repent and join. But I do not know it as the true church; it is a corruption of the truth of the Biblical gospel. The modern Roman Catholic Church is not Biblical Christianity (but it is a historical offshoot of the history of Christianity) nor is it the catholicism of the early church, having added so many things over the centuries to become something completely different. This I know what modern Catholicism is; and I completely reject it as the only true church that teaches the full truth. It is a shell of externalisms with the mass and relics and formulas and the sacramental system that overshadows true internal faith and trust solely in Christ alone to save. It has some true things, some good history (but mixed with lots of bad history), teachings on the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the incarnation of Christ, the Deity of Christ, that Christ died for sinners and rose from the dead, the ascension of Christ; and moral and ethical teachings against adultery, fornication, homosexuality, abortions, etc.
I understand you sincerely believe that (that I am in danger of hell) and you have every right to believe that if you want to. But it is surely false doctrine and unbiblical. It is the same basic statement as Boniface VIII’s false doctrine in Unam Sanctum of 1302 AD.
I am sure I am not in danger of the fires of hell because of the promises of God’s word, that those who repent of their sin and trust Christ as their Savior and Lord are justified and saved; because of His righteousness applied to my account. (I John 5:12-13; John 3:15-18; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-10; Galatians 2:16-21; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:1-8; Romans 5:1-11; Acts 15:9; Acts 16:31) The promises of God are “yes and amen” and not “yes and no”. (2 Corinthians 1:18-22; 2 Peter 1:3-4)
Part 1
Part 2
No where in the word of God is anyone’s justification or salvation tied to becoming members of the modern apostate Roman Catholic Church, full of superstition and false doctrines that were never a part of the apostolic faith or the true doctrinal tradition.
Why would I want to join a church that has drifted so far from the apostolic deposit for centuries, and refuses to repent of false doctrines?
All of these false doctrines of the RCC have corrupted the truth and the gospel; false doctrines such as Papal infallibility, baptismal regeneration initial justification, indulgences, treasury of merit, purgatory, ex opera operato sacerdotal sacramentalism, transubstantiation, a false priesthood, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the sinlessness of Mary, the immaculate conception of Mary; the bodily assumption of Mary, icons and statues used in worship contexts, adding to the one mediator of Christ thus violating I Timothy 2:5, claiming the apocrypha is inspired, prayers to dead people and Mary; and using all of these doctrines and practices to think they are good works that increase your own righteousness as a basis for merit on the inside of you.
You should repent of all those false doctrines.
You have added and corrupted the gospel.
Christ saves by grace alone through faith alone, apart from conditions and merits of works.
It is you who are in danger of hellfire because you have cut the heart out of the doctrine of justification and added all those other things as conditions for salvation, including membership in the Roman Catholic Church; and you claim to understand sola fide, at least intellectually the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone as the basis for standing before God; ie, imputed righteousness, and yet willingly reject it. (But it is unclear if you really understand it fully; and the distinction between justification and sanctification, but not total separation as is charged by Roman Catholics. It is unclear if you understand that works are results and fruits of true faith, and not merit or increase of justification.)
Part 3
We are justified by faith alone in Christ alone, but that faith does not stay alone; it results in good deeds, hatred of sin, real change, holiness, more repentance, and fruits of righteousness and the fruit and character of the Holy Spirit. That is the true meaning of understanding Galatians 2-3, Romans 3-5, and James 2 all together. Galatians and Romans teaches justification by faith alone; and James 2:14-26 teaches that good works are the evidence and results of true faith.
Nothing in this is meant as a personal attack or is meant to judge someone’s soul as to their standing with God. It is a doctrinal claim, equal to Dave’s claim for his side; “If, OTOH, a Protestant knows full well what Catholicism is, and rejects it, he is in distinct danger of hellfire. And that includes you, Ken.
“But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not "Yes" and "No." For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas and Timothy, was not "Yes" and "No," but in him it has always been "Yes." For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.” 2 Corinthians 1:18-22
>You are also wrong in your application of the Council of Trent to mean that all validly baptized persons, without exception, are brothers in Christ. Schism, heresy, and apostasy, by their very nature, sever one from the body of Christ (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 23). As such, no one who is guilty of a mortal sin of heresy, schism, or apostasy is a brother in Christ.
I reply: I'm not sure I agree. Doesn't ANY mortal sin cut you off from the body of Christ? What about excommunication for sins other than Schism, heresy, or apostasy?
>Validly baptized Protestant children are our brothers in Christ. Validly baptized Protestant adults may be or may not be; we cannot know. They are at least materially schismatic and heretical, and possibly formally so.
I reply: Additionally, Ben you are my fellow Catholic & my Brother in Christ. But how do either you or I or a Third party reader know either of us is in a state of Grace?
Thus how can either of us know for sure at this moment in time we are in fact Brothers in Christ?
Also Vatican II does use the term "Seperated Brethrin" and it doesn't qualify it according to individual Protestants being in a state of Grace or not.
Can you back up your claim with an explicit statement from a Church Source or is this an inference you are making from your readings of said sources?
I would be willing to revise my view in the face of an authoritative source as I know you would as well.
OTOH maybe I just answered my own question. Validly Baptised heretics & Schismatics are NOT members of the Visable Body of Christ the Church. But they are ordered to the soul of the Church as taught by St Pius X.
So it would not be accurate to say all validly baptized persons are brothers in the visable body of Christ. But it is accurate to say all validly baptized persons are brothers in being united to the soul of Christ.
I'm not sure but I believe even mortally sinful Christians are my Brothers.
Lastly I'll give you points for using the Old English rendering of ALBA GO BRAGH instead of the modern English but it's like choosing between saying "In nomine Patris et fillii et Spiritus Sancti" vs saying "B'Shen HaAv v' HaBen v' Ruah HaKodesh".
One is a little bit older but neither is really better per say.
God bless ya son.
I guess Jeb returned to the underbelly of his bridge.
Typical.
There's still the Ben-Ben debates tho!
I like Ben Douglass now so don't expect fireworks.
The lad has great potential. He's going places.
Commenting by HaloScan
