As The Father Sent Me

First off, Happy New Year - 2020!

I open this new year off with an apologetics posting - which I have not done much of lately. Below is a message I posted to a forum on "Ex Catholics For Christ" (apologetics forum). Your thoughts and comments are appreciated (pro or con).

I would agree with the statement that most Catholics do not know their Faith. I disagree with the statement that knowing the Faith leads one OUT of the Catholic Church!

Jesus Christ formed One, True Church - FACT (History itself proves there was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for over 1000 years when in 1054 the first major schism took place).
Jesus Christ selected 12 Apostles (1 defected, leaving 11) to lead His Church after He ascended into Heaven - FACT (Matthew 28:15-20).
Jesus Christ commanded those leaders do as He had done - FACT (John 20:21).
Jesus Christ gave His Authority to the Apostles - FACT (Matthew 28:18).
Jesus Christ gave His Authority to forgive sins to those Apostles, and sins THEY do not forgive, are NOT forgiven - FACT (John 20:23).

Considering these few facts alone should convince Catholics to stay Catholic and those who are not Catholic should flee the false teachings they have been taught and come home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which Jesus Christ founded. If your "fellowship" does not have direct apostolic succession, it has no authority to even exist. Without true and valid apostolic succession, there can be no forgiveness of sins - regardless of what you have been taught or come to believe.

FACT - One of the first things the Early Church did was to replace the "bishoprick" or "office" of Judas (Acts 1:20-26).
The first one in apostolic succession, to fill the seat once given to Judas, was Matthias.

FACT- The apostolic office was not limited to "The Twelve" as clearly Sts. Paul and Barnabus are referred to as "apostles" too! (Acts 14:14).
FACT - The Early Church leaders (apostles/bishops) were commanded to do as Jesus did (John 20:21) and part of what Jesus did was select leaders for His Church, thus these new leaders HAD to go out and select more leaders, especially as the Church was growing.

Certainly there have been problems "in" the Church - by men "in" the Church - but the actions of these men, not unlike Judas' betrayal, does not make the Church wrong or bad, it makes those men wrong and bad. Those who cling to those errors and leave the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church because of them are merely looking for excuses to leave. One could speculate that they leave because they do not want to yield to the authority Jesus Christ breathed upon His Church and do not want to face one who has been empowered to forgive sins. One could make all sorts of speculations as to why they leave, but there are no valid reasons to leave THE Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded.

Low Sunday

"As the Father has sent Me, I also send you..."

Jesus, speaking to His Apostles, tells them that as the Father sent Him, He also sends them. And the very next line is, "Receive the Holy Ghost... whose sins YOU forgive, they ARE forgiven them..." THIS is why His Apostles, our first bishops, have the authority to forgive sins AND since Jesus sent them to forgive sins - they too must pass on this authority to their successors - our bishops are those successors!  THIS is why our priests, IF they have THIS authority from a valid bishop in succession from the Apostles, can forgive sins at the Sacrament of Reconciliation (aka, the Sacrament of Penance). Those sins THEY do not forgive (are retained) are NOT forgiven ("they are retained"). One who is not of this valid succession has NO AUTHORITY to forgive sins.

THIS is His Divine Mercy, which is what this Sunday is also referred to in the modern lectionary.

The Sunday After Easter is traditionally Low Sunday (Extraordinary Rite).

Some highlights from the Extraordinary Rite:

Introit: 1 Peter 2:2 - "As newborn babies, alleluia, desire the rational mile without guile, alleluia!"

Epistle: 1 John 5:4-10 - "For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth, that Christ is the truth.  And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth in the Son of God, hath the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son, maketh him a liar: because he believeth not in the testimony which God hath testified of his Son."

The Greater Alleluia: Alleluia, alleluia. On the day of My resurrection, saith the Lord, I will go before you into Galilee. Alleluia. (John 20:26) After eight days, the doors being shut, Jesus stood in the midst of His disciples, and said: Peace be with you. Alleluia.

Gospel: (which is the same for the Ordinary Rite too on this day) John 20:19-31 - "Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God.

Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name."

Offertory: Matthew 28:2, 5-6 - "An angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it. And the angel answering, said to the women: Fear not you; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Come, and see the place where the Lord was laid."

Authority

What an interesting sequence of Gospel readings we have when we look at last week’s Gospel reading and then the one for this week.  We read last week that Jesus told the Apostles: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And then He breathes on them and says: “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

 

We see here that Jesus sent the Apostles as the Father sent Him, with the power to forgive, or retain, sins.  Now, when we look at the specifics of how Jesus was sent we find that he was sent not only with the power to forgive sins but that He can confer this power to others as seen in Matt 9:6 where even the scribes and publicans were in awe that God had given authority to forgive sins to ‘human beings’.  Notice the plural.  Not just to Jesus but to ‘men’, plural.

 

What other powers did Jesus give the Apostles?  Well, in Mark 6 we find that Jesus, “[c]alling the Twelve to him, he began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.” (v.7) Jesus gave them authority over impure spirits.  We also find in Matthew’s Gospel that Jesus gives the Apostles the power to bind and loose infallibly (“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Mat 18:18)  Since whatever they bound or loosed on Earth would also be bound and loosed in heaven because we know that nothing untrue can be bound or loosed in heaven.

 

The context in each of these selection of verses makes it clear that Jesus gave this power to the Apostles and not to all followers.  This is why we know that for this power to be here in His Church until His return means that the power to confer this power to others must have been given to them as well.  This idea of ‘succession’ is found in many different places in Scripture but the clearest ones are found in today’s Gospel reading.  “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to [Jesus].” (Mat 28:18)

Jesus was sent with the power of heaven and earth and confers the power to forgive and retain sins, authority over impure spirits and the power to bind and loose infallibly.  I also contend that the Apostles were also given the power to confer these attributes to others who would succeed them since we know that the Apostles were described as the authority in the

 

Church.  Just have a quick look at Matthew 18 and you’ll see what I mean.   Speaking to the twelve Jesus tells them: “if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.  “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (v.17-18)

 

And because we know that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church means that this authority to bind and loose infallibly will always be present in the world, which means that there will always be those who have authority to bind and loose infallibly in the Church, at least until His return.  For this to be possible tells us that the power confer these attributes to others was also part of what was handed down to the Apostles from Jesus Himself.  Jesus was sent with the power to impart the powers to bind and loose, to forgive or retain or authority over impure spirits because we read in today’s Gospel that “[a]ll authority in heaven and on earth has been given to [Him]”.  This tells us that the Apostles received the power to impart these same powers to others as well.

 

The handing on of these powers has always been done through the laying on of hands throughout the centuries via there successors all the way to today’s bishops beginning with Jesus handing on this authority to His Apostles and they to those who would succeed them.

 

God Bless
Nathan

 

 

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments?  Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com
 Prepared by a St.Denis parishioner

Apostolic Succession

Since we know that all of Scripture is profitable for teaching (2 Tim 3:16), how about we have a look at what the Old Testament has to say on the subject of forgiveness of sins.

And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin. (Lev 5:5-6, KJV)

We see that the sinner would confess his sin to the priest and offer a sin offering, what we would now call a penance. So one would confess sin, offer a sin offering (penance) and the priest makes atonement for him. This fits extremely well with the Catholic practice of the Sacrament of Penance. But beyond the Old Testament, has this practice stopped? Let’s see what the New Testament has to say.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity. (1 John 1:9, DRB)

Confess our sins to whom? God? Yes, but could it be through men?

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. (James 5:16)

It only makes sense that James would ask us to confess our sins to each if there are individuals who could do something about them. Some who could forgive us our sins. So now we know that we must confess our sins to others but can some men forgive sins? Those individuals who agree with the Scribe that said: “Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” should take heed in remembering that to be on the side of the Scribes is usually not a group you want to be associated with. In fact, in the same incident as told by Matthew we have a little more details given to us.

“And he got into a boat and went across and came to his town. And they took to him a man stretched on a bed who had no power of moving; and Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man who was ill, Son, take heart; you have forgiveness for your sins. And some of the scribes said among themselves, This man has no respect for God. And Jesus, having knowledge of what was in their minds, said, Why are your thoughts evil? For which is the simpler, to say, You have forgiveness for your sins; or to say, Get up and go? But so that you may see that on earth the Son of man has authority for the forgiveness of sins, then said he to the man who was ill, Get up, and take up your bed, and go to your house. And he got up and went away to his house. But when the people saw it they were full of fear, and gave glory to God who had given such authority to men.” (Matt 9:1-8)

Scripture tells us that MEN (plural) were given the authority on earth to forgive sins (Mat 9:8). But which men is Matthew speaking of? Look no further than John 20.

“Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” (John 20:21-23, DRB)

The Father sent Jesus with the power on earth to forgive sins (Mat 9:6) and Jesus sends His Apostles in the same way as He was sent…with the power on earth to forgive sins. Context tells us that Jesus is speaking to the Apostles only. Please notice also that these apostles were sent in the same way as Jesus was sent (John 20:21) therefore these Apostles also have the authority to confer this same authority to others as Jesus did to them. Our Bishops were sent by others who were sent in the same way as Jesus was sent.

 Paul commented in his letter to the Romans that for one to preach, one has to be sent (Rom 10:14-15 “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?”  Well, our bishops were sent by other, previous bishops who they temselves were sent  by previous bishops all the way back in history beginning with Jesus sending out the Apostles and the Apostles sending out their successors which we call bishops.

Today’s bishops are sent by the successors of Jesus and the Apostles.  If anyone tries to convince you that they know the true teachings of Jesus, just ask them who sent them?  Who sent their pastor?

God Bless
Nathan

It Is Pentecost Sunday!

Happy Birthday to the Catholic Church!

It is today that we celebrate the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles and the Blessed Virgin, and they go forth into the world, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ!  From the time of the Resurrection (Easter) until the Ascension Jesus remained with the Apostles, teaching them what they needed to build His Church, upon which they were the foundations.  Of all the "churches" of the world, only Catholicism and Orthodoxy can trace their roots all the way to the Apostles and Christ through valid bishopric succession.  No other "church" can validly make this claim!

Bind and Loose Argument

The "Bind and Loose" Argument Rebutted Over at GreenBaggins, Scott tried to make an argument for an infallible rule of faith other than the Bible.  He wrote: "The fact is that Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 teach that man and/or those men can bind or loose, not just sin, but whatsoever they choose."  Let's consider this argument piece by piece: "that man and/or those men" Peter and the other apostles are gone.  Francis, like his predecessor Benedict XVI, is not an apostle of Jesus Christ, he did not personally receive revelation from Jesus as they did, It is a leap to say that the apostles could do X, therefore someone who is not an apostle can do X. "bind and loose" Of course, "bind and loose" doesn't sound anything like "define dogma."  It sounds more like freeing people from their sins or leaving people in condemnation for their sins. "not just sin" That sounds like Scott is saying, "sin and more."  But Rome's teaching of infallibility is that Rome is infallible only in her doctrinal and moral definitions, not in her exercise of discipline.  So, if it is "sin and more" and implies infallibility, then Scott has proved a point that is stronger than what Rome can adopt.  After all, a Roman bishop exonerated Pelagius (and then later condemned), a Roman bishop condemned Athanasius (and then later exonerated), and let's not even get into the trial of Galileo. "whatsoever they choose" In Roman Catholic theology, the definition of dogma is (officially) not arbitrary.  For example, CCC 86 states: “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” Of course, I acknowledge that in practice the power is arbitrarily exercised (contrary to CCC 86), but this is just an internal inconsistency. Likewise, to be precise the text does not mention choice, it just states that what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven. - TurretinFan

This post from TF (which I’ve already responded to) is flawed in many ways, not the least of which is the fact that he rips my words from their context and then presents his straw man argumentation. Let us examine his statements one at a time below and the "bolded" text was from my posting on Green Baggins.

"that man and/or those men"Peter and the other apostles are gone.  Francis, like his predecessor Benedict XVI, is not an apostle of Jesus Christ, he did not personally receive revelation from Jesus as they did, It is a leap to say that the apostles could do X, therefore someone who is not an apostle can do X.

Popes Francis and Benedict XVI are successors in the office of the Bishop of Rome - which was initially St. Peter's office.   Jesus explicitly stated in John 20:21 that as He was sent by the Father, so also He sends them (the Apostles).  He sent the Apostles with that authority so it follows that IF they are sent in the same way Jesus was sent, they too must choose others for the apostolic office (bishopric - Acts 1:20).  There is no alleged "leap" here, as TF would have the reader believe, that is if one accepts the Scripture which says the Apostles were sent in the same way the Son was sent.  So yes, even though someone who is not one of "The Twelve" (St. Paul and Barnabas were not of "The Twelve" either, yet both are called "Apostles" Acts 14:14) can do the "X" that an Apostle was given authority to do - IF that authority has been validly passed on to him.

"bind and loose"Of course, "bind and loose" doesn't sound anything like "define dogma."  It sounds more like freeing people from their sins or leaving people in condemnation for their sins.

Frankly, we cannot be overly concerned about what this "sounds like" to TF.  The fact is the authority to bind and loose was given in a specific context of to whom it was given - AND this binding and loosing was not limited to the forgiveness of sin.  How does TF limit the word/phrase "whatsoever?"

"not just sin"That sounds like Scott is saying, "sin and more."  But Rome's teaching of infallibility is that Rome is infallible only in her doctrinal and moral definitions, not in her exercise of discipline.  So, if it is "sin and more" and implies infallibility, then Scott has proved a point that is stronger than what Rome can adopt.  After all, a Roman bishop exonerated Pelagius (and then later condemned), a Roman bishop condemned Athanasius (and then later exonerated), and let's not even get into the trial of Galileo.

Taking these in reverse order...  Distraction point: Yes, let's not get into the trial of Galileo, there was nothing infallible going on there.   Distraction point: The condemnations/exonerations of Pelagius and St. Athanasius were not matters of infallibility.

My point is not "stronger than Rome can adopt."  The problem with attempting to apply infallibility to an "act" is that an "act" alone is amoral, it is neither right nor wrong.  Right or wrong (keep in mind, to be fallible means it has the ability to be "wrong") implies morality.  For example, the "act" of sexual intercourse, alone, is amoral.  If one has consensual sex with his/her spouse - that is moral.  But the same "fundamental act" when it occurs in the case of a rape is immoral.  It is the same "act," fundamentally - but the "actors" and "intent" are changed.   

"whatsoever they choose"In Roman Catholic theology, the definition of dogma is (officially) not arbitrary.  For example, CCC 86 states:

“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

Of course, I acknowledge that in practice the power is arbitrarily exercised (contrary to CCC 86), but this is just an internal inconsistency.

Because the exercise of infallibility is not arbitrary does not mean it is limited in any way, shape or form.  Again I ask TF, what is "whatsoever" limited to?  He gives an answer that in practice it only goes so far, but that does not change the reality that the charism can be applied to "whatsoever" they choose.

Likewise, to be precise the text (Matthew 16:19 and Matthew 18:18) does not mention choice, it just states that what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Perhaps this is about as close to a concession as we will see from TF.  The precise text is imprecise!  It DOES mention "choice" because it does not limit this charism in any way, shape or form - again TF, how is "whatsoever" a limiting word/phrase?

AMDG,

Scott<<<

(the comments on TF's blog thus far follow...)

* John Lollard · 27 weeks ago wrote: I'm not trying to discount your main argument, but I think there is a slight error in your point about binding and loosing. You say: "Of course, "bind and loose" doesn't sound anything like "define dogma." It sounds more like freeing people from their sins or leaving people in condemnation for their sins. " The underlying Greek text (hoping it embeds properly) is καὶ ὃ ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς where the word for "bind" is δήσῃς and for "loose" is λύσῃς, from δἐω and λὐω. I've only had one semester of Greek, and it was Attic Greek and not Koine Greek, but these words are quite often used to mean that a thing is necessary (bound) or permitted (loosed). For instance, just later in verse 21 when Jesus explains how he must go to Jerusalem to be killed, the word for "must" is again δἐω; i.e., Jesus was "bound" to go to Jerusalem. I wasn't trying to nitpick or anything, but I know you appreciate precision, so I thought I'd point that out. TurretinFan61p· 27 weeks ago replied: John Lollard: We have a similar expression in English. When someone acts negligently and then dire consequences ensue, we say "Well, it was bound to happen." But my point was, and is, that there is nothing at all in the context to suggest that the text has the least bit to do with identifying certain doctrines as true and others as false. Instead, in both cases, the binding and loosing seem to have to do with sin and its consequences. Matthew 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 18:18   Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. In Matthew 16, the binding/loosing is associated with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which allow people to escape death (the gates of hell) or not. In Matthew 18, the verse comes right on the heels of  Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. And right before: Matthew 18:19-20  Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. It's not really a Greek translation issue (although it is helpful to be aware of the Greek), but rather a contextual reading issue. -TurretinFan 1 reply · active 27 weeks ago John Lollard· 27 weeks ago wrote: TF,   I'm afraid that I have to still disagree. The English idiomatic usage of "bound" means that something is inevitable. The Greek idiomatic usage means that something is necessary. To "bind" something is to declare it necessary, while to "loose" something is to declare it permissible. The Greek words do also occur in the passage in Matt 18 in a discussion of settling disputes with other believers. In Matthew 16 it isn't about sin and its consequences but about the nature of Jesus. In either case, the words used are the words meaning "make necessary" and "make permissible". Really, I think the meaning of these words as they were used in the Greek language of the time requires an understanding of these two passages as Christ affirming a ministerial power of the Church as it relates to prescribing discipline. To "bind" definitely doesn't mean "define dogma", but it does mean to tell people what they must do. So, if the Apostles say "you must be baptized", or if the Apostles say "you can eat pork if you want". I dunno, a little Greek is a dangerous thing. As it happens, you are very close friends with a world-renowned biblical Greek scholar; I am fairly certain that if you asked Dr. White the meaning of the words δἐω and λὐω, that he would tell you they most usually have the meaning of something being necessary or permitted. If not, then I'll retract my statement about the Greek words. The issue is, of course, probably way too trivial and Dr. White is way too busy with a million other things, but if you ever get a chance to ask him, it might be helpful. I'm just trying to point this out as it presents a slight weakness in your rebuttal, and it is easy for people to see a single flaw in an argument and run away with it to total dismissal. A RC might see this, see that point, ignore everything else you said, focus on the meaning of δἐω and λὐω, dismiss you with reference to all kinds of lexicons, and somehow think the issue of papal infallibility even more settled despite the rest of your post being unaddressed. Your rebuttal would be stronger, I think, to point out that the underlying words absolutely have an established meaning in Greek, and the meaning is in reference to certain actions being required or allowed, and nothing at all about dogmas, like the "immaculate conception" of Jesus's mom. That δἐω means "make an action necessary" and not "declare with infallibility some belief to be absolutely true" is unassailable, and might be a more proper route. Thought I'd point it out, is all, especially before someone else did. Be blessed. TurretinFan 61p· 27 weeks ago wrote: I don't think I have anything new to add to my comments above, but thanks for the feedback! cathapol 0p· less than 1 minute ago wrote (but as of yet, this response has not shown up): For my part... thanks John for the Greek arguments. Naturally, since they support the Catholic position and not TF's, he will (and has) dismiss(ed) them. Now, since TF is responding to a discussion which took place on another blog, and took place a couple months before his posting here, AND since I would like to include a bit more formatting in my response than the combox allows, I too have responded (months later) on my blog: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2013/10/bind-and-loose-argument.html AMDG, Scott<<<

Validity - Part 2

Well, I posted a couple more responses to Triablogue, but since the original message is more than 5 days old now, new responses go into moderation.  The last messages which went into moderation there were never posted - so, rather than wait, I am posting here.  This is related to the earlier post on "Validity" in response to John Bugay.  Steve Hays added his input and here are my responses to Mr. Hays.  The first message below did show up on Triablogue, but as of this posting - the second two have not...

Scott  10/05/2013 10:03 PM

>> sw: "Steve, Thank you for providing the rationalization
>> which validates my point."
>
> sh: I presented a detailed argument. If you were either
> unable or unwilling to argue in good faith by presenting
> a counterargument, then don't waste our time by posting
> comments here.

sw: And why would I "counter" an argument which supports my own?  Well, I'll respond in more detail...

>> sw: "And we've never heard the Calvinist say, 'he wasn't
>> really saved' when someone leaves Calvinism for any
>> number of alternatives, including Catholicism? So, the
>> 'improperly catechized' is not something only Catholics
>> use."
>
> sh: Scott, you need to learn how to reason.

sw: I used sufficient reason, you supplied a bit more "detail."

> sw: i) To begin with, if someone leaves Calvinism, the
> comparison wouldn't be "he wasn't really saved," but
> "he wasn't really a Calvinist."

sw: OK, I accept the distinction, but it is really one without difference to the point I made.  You have just affirmed that point!  So reword my initial statement to say, "he wasn't really a Calvinist," and my point not only stands - but you have supported it!  I accept the correction and stand by my point.

> sh: Moreover, there are cases in which that's true.

sw: And you affirm it again. 

> sh: On the other hand, you have some individuals who
> were well "catechized" in Calvinism, and knowingly
> reject it. In their case, they really were Calvinists.
> Arminius is a paradigmatic example.

sw: And I have not denied that there may be some who may have known the truth and have left in in Catholicism - for whatever reason.  Some, I know of, leave the faith because they are divorced and remarried without an annulment and rather than get their life straight - they will be like King Henry VIII and leave the faith - in fact, he is a prime example of just that.

> sh: ii) In addition, we wouldn't say someone wasn't really
> saved just because he's an ex-Calvinist. It depends on his
> adopted alternative. We wouldn't say a former Calvinist
> who becomes a confessional Lutheran (to take one example)
> wasn't really saved. We wouldn't say Arminius wasn't really
> saved.
>
> If, on the other hand, someone leaves Calvinism for
> Mormonism (to take one example), then he's behaving as
> though he wasn't never really saved. Even in that case,
> he might be a backslider rather than a full-blown
> apostate. Time will tell.

sw: And I agreed with your distinction without a difference (to my point) so I accept what you're saying here.

>> sw: "However, in the case of Mr. Dreher, he left for
>> personal reasons, HE wasn't being challenged, etc.
>> He didn't leave (at least according to his testimony)
>> because the Truth was not there."
>
> sh: He says that all he heard on a regular basis was
> antinomianism. So he was hearing falsehood rather than
> truth.

sw: The word "antinomianism" is not used in that article even once.  I cannot answer to unsupported evidence.  Your point is invalid insofar as this discussion is concerned.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Next message:

Steve wrote on 10/06/2013 11:31 AM

>> sw: "And why would I 'counter' an argument which
>> supports my own?"
>
> sh: It doesn't support your position.

sw: Well, it does.  I have shown how it does - your simple denial is not a valid argument. 

>> sw: "I used sufficient reason, you supplied a bit more
>> 'detail' which I accepted."
>
> sh: To accept my details would be using my reason rather
> than yours. Try to keep that straight.

sw: The reasons are laid out perfectly straight.  I fully
understand that you do not wish to be seen as agreeing
with me - but you did, and I thank you.

>> sw: "OK, I accept the distinction, but it is really
>> one without difference to the point I made. You have
>> just affirmed that point! So reword my initial
>> statement to say, "he wasn't really a Calvinist,"
>> and my point not only stands - but you have supported
>> it! I accept the correction and stand by my point."
>
> sh: Since, by your own admission, I corrected your
> initial claim, I'm hardly affirming your point. I'm
> not affirming your claim; rather, you're affirming
> my claim. You have your wires crossed.

sw: Steve, you made a distinction without a difference to my original argument.  I agree with you, "he wasn't really a Calvinist to begin with" is a better comparison in this arena than "he wasn't really a Christian to
begin with."  The point of my argument is in countering John's statement regarding the "improperly catechized."  When I said, "he wasn't really Christian," in the context of Calvinism - I should have said, "he wasn't really Calvinist" and THEN the arguments are in perfect logical agreement.

>> sw: "And you affirm it again."
>
> sh: I see that arithmetic is not your forte.

sw: I see that you cannot resist ad hominem attacks.

> sh: To allege that I "affirm it again" implies that
> this is the second time I affirmed your point,
> when–in fact–this isn't even the first time.

sw: Again, your statement was a distinction without a difference - do you understand that concept, Steve?  Your distinction did not change my point, it only clarified it - and I accepted your distinction - and I still do.  Whether or not you're admitting to it in public or not is irrelevant.  We are in agreement.

> sh: You made a blanket statement. I made a qualified
> statement. My qualified statement doesn't affirm your
> blanket statement.

sw: Again, your qualified statement did not change my point.  Calvinists use the statement "he wasn't really a Calvinist to begin with" when someone leaves the Calvinist camp.  Not all Calvinists use this argument, but you cannot deny that some/many do/have.

> sh: You need to learn how to think. You also need
> to (learn) how to count.

(I didn't "save" the notepad file I used after this point after I copied and pasted my responses to Triablogue, so I am re-creating what I wrote last night.  What I posted last night to Triablogue still has not been posted there, so I am posting this re-creation to the CathApol Blog).

sw: My thinking and math are fine.  Your qualified statement fit precisely with my original point, not the ultra-literalist spin you put upon it.  You put all the focus on the word "Christian" but THE POINT was that Calvinists use the same argument - THAT point remains the same, AND you AGREED with it!  You just qualified that the Calvinist would say, "he was never really a Calvinist."  The argument is THE SAME!

>> sw: "And I have not denied that there may be some
>> who may have known the truth and have left in in 
>> Catholicism - for whatever reason."
>
> sh: So you're backtracking on your original claim.

sw: My original claim had nothing to do with whether or not some Catholics have left the Catholic Faith with full knowledge of the Catholic Faith.  I presented King Henry VIII as a prime example of one whom I believe did just that!  Just a few years prior to his departure from the Faith, he was called "Guardian of the Catholic Faith" by the Pope who was lauding his work in opposition to Martin Luther.  He could not get a "divorce" from his wife, who could not bear him a son, so he took matters into his own hands and declared himself (or had Parlaiment do it) "Head of the Church of England."  I'm quite certain many have left for similar reasons - but AGAIN - that was NOT the point of my argument, so there is no backtracking - not in the least.

>> sw: "Again, I was not saying there are other
>> alternatives only that the Calvinist will make
>> the same sort of argument when someone leaves
>> Calvinism."
>
> sh: Which is a overstatement, as I explained,
> and you conceded. You need to learn how to think.

sw: The "overstatement" was when I said, "not a Christian," to which you said (and I agreed) that the Calvinist would say "he was not really a Calvinist."  If you wish to brand my agreement with you as "concession" - fine, I concede that "he was not really a Calvinist" would more likely be the phrase - now, how about dealing with the REAL POINT instead of your constant attempt to distract from that REAL POINT?

>> sw: "And I agreed with your distinction without
>> a difference (to my point) so I accept what
>> you're saying here."
>
> sh: Since your point was a hasty generalization,
> my distinction is substantially different from your 
> original claim. You need to learn how to think.

sw: You really need to stop being so pompous.  The original claim was the ARGUMENT, not the precise wording.  To say "he was not really a Calvinist" fits with my original point, PRECISELY. 

>> sw: "The word 'antinomianism' is not used in that
>> article even once. I cannot answer to unsupported 
>> evidence. Your point is invalid insofar as this
>> discussion is concerned."
>
> sh: Your response is invalidated by your resort to
> the word-concept fallacy.

sw:  Really?  I would (and I sincerely mean this) like to see a valid argument of how Mr. Dreher's article even implies antinomianism (ironically, a trait applied to some Calvinists!).  I stand by my statement - antinomianism is not mentioned in Dreher's article - and not even alluded to.

>> sw: "I believe that would be a valid comparison."
>> (That "Jews attack Christianity as a theological
>> innovation" is validly compared to Catholics
>> attacking the Protestant innovation).
>
> sh: So, just as you reject Calvinism because it's
> (allegedly) a theological innovation, then by
> parity of argument, you must think we should
> reject Christianity because that's a theological
> innovation in relation to Judaism.

sw: Steve, that's a complete non sequitur!  Let's see, the Jews did not realize that their Messiah had truly come to them.  The Jews expected an earthly king, not God Almighty offering Himself up in our place to atone for our sins.  So, since the Jews did not recognize this, they attack Christianity as a theological innovation.  Well, I've got news for you, Mr. Hays, Christianity IS a theological innovation!  Jesus Christ did NOT come to continue the Jewish religion!  Jesus came to build His Church and promised He would do so (Matthew 16:18).  What Jesus built was VERY different from the Jewish religion.  Now, are there some similarities and carry-overs from Judaism into Catholicism?  Certainly!  It's still the Chosen People of God and our belief in the One, True God did not change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.  To posit that Christianity was NOT a theological innovation to Judaism is a bit ludicrous.  Christianity (specifically Catholicism) is the COMPLETION of the Jewish Faith.

sw: Now - does that change the FACT that there is no history of Calvinism more than 500 years (or less) ago?  No, it does not!  Can there even BE a "Calvinist" before John Calvin left the Catholic Church for his heresy?  No, there cannot be.

> sh: I take it that if you were a member of the
> Sanhedrin, you'd condemn Jesus to death.

sw: You would take it wrong.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

NEXT RESPONSE:

Steve Hays wrote on 10/06/2013 5:09 PM

> sh:Scott
>
>> sw: "You have no validity to anything Calvinist,
>> no Eucharist"
>
> sh: i) We have the Eucharist which Christ instituted.

sw: You have SYMBOLS, but Jesus didn't say the Eucharist was symbolic of His body and blood, no, He said it IS His body and blood (Luke 22:19-20).

>> sw: "no history beyond or even a bit less
>> than 500 years"
>
> sh: i) On the one hand, no serious Catholic
> historian imagines that Calvinism popped in out
> of the blue.

sw: Not out of the blue, but certainly not before John Calvin!  I realize that Calvinists try to rationalize their way into a pre-Calvin history - but said rationalizations are just that, rationalizations.

> sh: ii) On the other hand, modern Catholicism
> has plenty of theological innovations, where it's
> broken with the past.

sw: More attempts to distract!  I'm actually currently working on another article on "projection," this may interest Mr. Hays.

>> sw: "no apostolic succession"
>
> sh: i) Calvinism has no need of apostolic
> succession to validate it.

sw: Well, at least you're not artificially trying to claim some sort of apostolic succession.  The fact is, succession has always been one of the "Four Marks" of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) as testified to in the earliest of Christian creeds.

> sh: It only needs revelation.
> Truth is self-validating.

sw: Actually, revelation is not self-validating.  The revelation you speak of operates from a presumption of faith in God AND that Scripture is God's Word (revelation) and since God IS truth then His Word is truth and thus is validated.  Now, be objective for a moment - that's a circular argument.  If you have a better way of demonstrating "Truth is self-validating," then I would be very interested in it.

> sh: But let's play along with Scott's
> criterion. Does his own denomination measure up?
> How does Scott propose to verify every link in
> the chain?

sw:  Yes, I do believe Mr. Hays will find the article on "projection" to be interesting.

> sh: i) Since valid administration of holy orders
> requires right intention on the part of the ordinand 
> and the officiate alike, how does Scott verify the
> presence of right intent? He has no direct access to
> the mental states of the concerned parties.

sw: I understand Mr. Hay's attempt to "turn the tables" here - it's a common debate tactic, but again, we are looking at "projection" here.

> sh: ii) Who was the true successor to Gregory XI?
> Was it Urban VI? Clement VII? Or Alexander V?

sw: It was Urban VI, if you think it really matters.

> sh: iii) Can Scott point me to an infallible list
> of the true popes and antipopes?

sw: Ah, "the request" for that "infallible list!"  Why do so many Protestants THINK that is a valid question?!  We have the list, no pope or council has declared it infallibly - so no, there is no such a list, and we don't need it!  The FACT is God's Church has existed throughout history from the time of the Apostles through to the current episcopate.  Jesus, like it or not, selected the office of bishop to be the leaders of His Church in His absence.  These bishops will continue to be His leaders until He comes back again in glory.  I reiterate my point (which Mr. Hays seems to be attempting to divert us from) that Calvinism did not exist 500 years ago.

> sh: iv) According to the Annuario Pontificio,
>
> "At this point [i.e. Pope Leo VIII], as again in the
> mid-11th century, we come across elections in 
> which problems of harmonising historical criteria
> and those of theologyand canon law make it
> impossible to decide clearly which side possessed
> the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees 
> the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of
> Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases 
> results has made it advisable to abandon the
> assignation of successive numbers in the list of the 
> popes," p12.
>
> sh: In light of that admission, how does Scott
> verify every link in the chain?

sw:  It seems like more than a few have tried to "make hay" over this quote.  The fact of the matter is popes do not elect their successors and there can be, and has been, a period of "sede vacante" (empty seat) with the death of every pope.  Even with Pope Benedict XVI, he stepped down prior to the election of Pope Francis - all Catholics were sede vacantists for a while.  Does it really matter if there are gaps and even conflicts over who was "the true pope" during parts of Catholic history?  No, not really.  Another put it this way... 

} "The Church does not actually need a Pope. In one
} instance, the Chair was vacant for more than a year
} and a half. Hypothetically, the Chair could be vacant
} for a century or more, and the Church would continue
} along just fine (and could then finally elect a Pope).
} If the Church went a century without ordaining a
} Bishop, She would cease to exist, but a gap in the
} line of Popes ultimately would not matter. 
} http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=10868979&postcount=2

sw: Well, that should say "If the Church went a century without consecrating a bishop..." for bishops are already ordained priests who are consecrated to the office of bishop by other bishops.  Apostolic succession is based upon the succession of bishops - of which the Bishop of Rome is just one.  We don't need to verify every single link, we have faith that Jesus kept His promise and that His Church exists from the time He left it and will exist until He comes again - and, back to the point of this response - His Church didn't start less than 500 years ago, He built it nearly 2000 years ago.
AMDG,
Scott<<<

Validity

John Bugay10/05/2013 5:53 PM

Scott: You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years. Just a word about "validity". Apostolic succession itself has no validity -- especially not the Roman version. In reality, it's a late second century invention -- it may have been descriptive of the way that the second century church established its legitimacy vis-a-vis the Gnostics, but to then turn that around and suggest that this method "is prescriptive for all time" is a heinous usurpation of Christ's own authority in the church. In effect, the Reformation sought to purge the church from its later, unbiblical accretions. In the sense that the Protestant churches are Biblical, that is where they achieve their "validity". Roman authority is simply a lie that has been foisted on Christianity, and it's something that the mindless and the thoughtless and the deceived have latched onto.

Since this was a distraction to the point I had made on Triablogue (and I accept the responsibility for introducing the distraction) and I cannot create a new entry on Triablogue, I am creating a new topic here.

Well, in reality here, the article by Michael Kruger [1] which Mr. Bugay refers to is not really about apostolic succession, rather the establishment of the Canon of Sacred Scripture - which was INDEED a process which went way BEYOND the second century!  In fact, there was not a relatively stable canon until the late fourth century.  That being said, Kruger's article is talking about sola scriptura - which is the Protestant root of authority, the "sole infallible rule of faith for the church" [2].  In that sense, he is opposing sola ecclesiam, the Catholic position.  I'll get back to the sola scriptura v. sola ecclesiam argument in a moment.  Let me remind the reader, MY POINT was:  "You have no validity to anything Calvinist, no Eucharist, no apostolic succession, no history beyond or even a bit less than 500 years."   Mr. Bugay, in his attempt to divert the discussion to sola scriptura, has not answered to any of my objections!  Let me enumerate them, just to be crystal clear.  

1. No Eucharist
2. No apostolic succession
3. No history beyond, or even a bit less than 500 years.

NONE of these points are answered!  In essence, Mr. Bugay's diversion is concession to my points.  I thank him for such an easy victory!

Let us look at what he did argue for himself, instead of the diversion of Krugar and sola scriptura:

In effect, the Reformation sought to purge the church from its later, unbiblical accretions.

What are these alleged "unbiblical accretions?"  An undocumented, unsupported assertion is wholly an invalid argument.

In the sense that the Protestant churches are Biblical, that is where they achieve their "validity"

The Gnostics, whom Bugay even refers to here, a "Biblical!"  They based their beliefs in Scripture too, albeit an invalid reading/interpretation of Scripture - but their claim to being "Biblical" is just as valid as Mr. Bugay's!  For that matter, the Catholic Church is also "Biblically based," in that we point to many Scriptures as supporting our arguments.  Merely stating "Protestant churches are Biblical" is a relatively meaningless statement.

Roman authority is simply a lie that has been foisted on Christianity, and it's something that the mindless and the thoughtless and the deceived have latched onto. 

Again, no substance, just an unsupported assertion.  Mr. Bugay does not present a single alleged "lie" which has allegedly been "foisted on Christianity."  And he tops that off with nothing less than a direct ad hominem toward anyone who has accepted Catholicism as the one, true Faith.  

Does Mr. Bugay think he's making a valid argument here?  He has done nothing of the sort!

Let us now look at what Mr. Bugay said regarding authority...

it may have been descriptive of the way that the second century church established its legitimacy vis-a-vis the Gnostics, but to then turn that around and suggest that this method "is prescriptive for all time" is a heinous usurpation of Christ's own authority in the church. 

Right here he gives away the store!  First off, if it was a legitimate establishment of authority against the Gnostics, then what makes it illegitimate after that period of time even up to the present?  Secondly, there can be no usurpation of Christ's own authority when it was upon His authority (Matthew 16:18) the Church was built!  Again, that Church did not wait 1500 years to be built either, and as Bugay concedes, it establishes a legitimacy in presenting its case against the Gnostics in the second century!  

Let the reader be reminded, the "first century" are the years before 100ad!  That was the apostolic era, seeing as how St. John (according to Tradition) lived well into the 90s of that first century.  The "second century" then begins with the first generation of bishops in the post-apostolic era.  It is precisely those bishops, most notably St. Ignatius, a disciple of St. John the Apostle and direct successor to the Petrine seat at Antioch, who specifically declares the validity of the authority of the office of the bishop:

You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid. [3]  (emphasis added)

St. Ignatius lays it out strong and hard here!  To be "valid" it must be permitted by the bishop and/or one whom he has approved.  Period, end of story!  Keep in mind folks, St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John the Apostle!  This apple fell straight off the tree!

So how about late second century:

St. Irenaeus 
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]). [4]

And third century:

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]). [5]

And fourth century:

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]). [6]

Clearly the matter of apostolic succession is brought up early and often in the writings of the Early Church Fathers (and there are many other quotations with citations which could be brought out). 

So, How About Sola Scriptura?

Well, at the root, sola scriptura is a non-scriptural concept, even anti-scriptural.  Why do Catholic apologists say this?  First off, no where in Scripture will one find the teaching that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church, no where.  Secondly, Scripture itself points us to ANOTHER infallible authority!  In Matthew 16:19 Jesus states that St. Peter (speaking to him alone at this point) has the authority to bind or loose whatsoever he chooses - and whatsoever he binds or loosed is bound or loosed in Heaven!  Now, unless you contend that error can be bound or loosed in Heaven, that is infallible authority given to St. Peter!  Then later in the same Gospel, Matthew 18:18, this authority is similarly given to the rest of the Apostles as a group.  So, on one hand you have the authority given to the one (pope) and on the other hand you have this infallible authority given to the group (the college of bishops).  Sola scriptura is utterly refuted at this point!

In short, sola scriptura is a lie - so who has, in Mr. Bugay's words, been "deceived and latched on to" the lie?

In over 25 years of my defending the Catholic Church and challenging sola scriptura, NOT ONE PERSON has been able to document the teaching of sola scriptura from Scripture!  Certainly there a many attempts to use verses which support a concept of satis scriptura (sufficiency), but NOT ONE speaks to "sola."

Back to the argument from Kruger and the establishment of the Canon of Sacred Scripture...  where does Scripture dictate to us which books are to be counted as Scripture?  Certainly there are some clues, but no where is there an "infallible table of contents" in Scripture alone.  The process of establishing the Canon of Sacred Scripture is itself an argument AGAINST sola scriptura because Scripture itself, or alone, does not define the canon!

[1] http://michaeljkruger.com/is-the-church-over-the-bible-or-the-bible-over-the-church/
[2] James White as qtd. on: http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/sola-scriptura-self-refuting.html
[3] http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ignatius_smyrnaeans.htm (paragraph 8)
[4] Qtd. on: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
[5] ibid
[6] ibid