tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post6246954216736339266..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: We Still Don't Get It, Mike SaysFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-62216408718141467892008-07-09T11:16:00.000-04:002008-07-09T11:16:00.000-04:00Father Kirby,I appreciate the interaction and the ...Father Kirby,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the interaction and the instruction. As I re-read your essay, the substantial agreement between us became more apparent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83955612717205012332008-07-09T06:43:00.000-04:002008-07-09T06:43:00.000-04:00Andrew,It seems that we agree on the substance. I ...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>It seems that we agree on the substance. I object to nothing you have said in this last post, and I now see that we were somewhat at cross-purposes on the truth of the DMU, which I was giving the common maximalist connotation and rejecting, but which you were asserting as true, while allowing it might be presented in a nuanced way that was not subject to the same objections.<BR/><BR/>The only thing I would add is that "acts are facts", and potentially "dogmatic facts", so that if the Church has commonly acted in way that contradicts an absolutist or maximalist DMU, or its theologians have taught in ways that contradict it without being censured, then it becomes dangerous to claim such a DMU is binding dogma. After all, the Church's indefectibility and infallibility are supposed to encompass more than dogmas overtly defined.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50037898861751391522008-07-07T12:57:00.000-04:002008-07-07T12:57:00.000-04:00Frs,My purpose in making these comments is not to ...Frs,<BR/><BR/>My purpose in making these comments is not to convince you that your ecclesiology is defective. I hope that what Fr. Kirby says in his initial comment is true:<BR/><BR/>"What is undeniably asserted as dogmatic fact by the RCC is that it is the True Church. It is the same for the EOC in its self-understanding. However, neither of these churches has dogmatically declared that every person or institution outside their visible canonical boundaries simply must be, in some sense, separated from the Catholic Church, the OTC. In other words, they are each absolutely sure where the Church is, but not absolutely sure where it is not." <BR/><BR/>Something like this is what I refer to as a "hopeful uncertainty." And, as the historical evidence you both cite suggests, there is some precedent for that hope, as well as grounds for a more nuanced DMU than, per Fr Kirby's claims, exists among some Catholics and Orthodox.<BR/><BR/>So I agree with Fr Kirby's opening paragraph in his last comment. I am unaware of how the DMU is commonly presented. But I suppose that everyone interested in evidence and in forming one's beliefs in a proportionate manner, even if we disagree as to what is the weight of some bits of evidence (e.g., papal teaching), will want to hold an appropriately nuanced DMU, if they hold that doctrine at all. Again, not knowing exactly what the un-nuanced, or commonly held, DMU is, I prefer to speak of essential visible unity, which seems to be a corollary of the doctrines of the essential visibility and the essential unity of the Church. <BR/><BR/>Once again, I did get the point that you are trying to establish the acceptibility of the non-essential visible unity opinion within the pale of orthodoxy (as measured by the VC). I was merely pointing out that the line you take is itself not binding (by VC criteria); I suppose you are not trying to claim that it is.<BR/><BR/>As to my "false" characterization of your non-essential visible unity position being limited to a few Catholic and Orthodox theologians: I make a disctinction between how the Churches themselves act, and how theologians judge of the theological significance of those actions. Thus, your invocation of how the Churches themselves have occasionally acted, unless they were acting to define non-essential visible unity as dogma, is not evidence contrary to my statement unless you can show that those actions have been commonly understood to establish a doctrine of non-essential visible unity.<BR/><BR/>The question of whether or not any common consent that exists among the Churches on this crucial matter of doctrine is up to the VC standards of dogma is left, of course, to the judgement of competent scholars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38544181707239221902008-07-07T08:37:00.000-04:002008-07-07T08:37:00.000-04:00Andrew,The question is whether easily visible disu...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>The question is whether easily visible disunity can coexist with a remnant of not-easily-visible unity such that the bonds are not completely severed that join real parts of the One True Church and yet that a majority but mistaken opinion exists at the time of the disunity that a true and proper schism based on real heresy or rebellion obtains. And the answer is yes, it can, as I showed. The DMU, as commonly presented, effectively denies this.<BR/><BR/>Your appeal to the Vincentian Canon completely inverts the application of the principle. The Vincentian Canon is a standard binding and certain doctrine must reach. Permissible opinions do not have to reach this level, and never have. The point you are missing is that <B>it is the DMU that must be shown to satisfy the Canon</B> in order to dogmatically exclude Anglican Catholic self-understanding or to assert that Roman and Eastern self-understandings are necessarily and absolutely incompatible. If it does not satisfy the Canon, then the contrary opinion is permissible, and may even later come to dominate. This has happened with minority opinions in the past. For example, the view that torture and executions are valid instruments for the Church to use to protect the Gospel was once not only a majority opinion in the Western Church, it was authoritatively backed. No longer. It was, even more relevantly, once clear majority opinion backed up by authority in the Roman Catholic Church that shared prayer with Protestants was forbidden by divine Law. No longer.<BR/><BR/>Finally, your characterisation of this ecclesiologically nuanced approach as limited to a few orthodox theologians is false anyway. The Churches themselves have acted in a way consistent with this approach and inconsisent with the DMU by liberally canonising saints on the "wrong side" of outward separations and occasionally treating the "others" even at the time of the "schisms" as part of the Church. And the opinion about the non-infallibility of excommunications is in fact virtually universal, it's just that its ecclesiological implications are seldom considered.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54312950532178902702008-07-07T06:59:00.000-04:002008-07-07T06:59:00.000-04:00"Have not both Rome and Constantinople, as early a..."Have not both Rome and Constantinople, as early as 1964, declared that the mutual excommunications of 1054 were invalid on both sides? (Of course, they were invalid anyway, because neither patriarch was under the jurisdiction of his equal- oh, I forgot. That was the issue.)"<BR/><BR/>Neither the pope nor the patriarch declared them "invalid" in 1964; rather, they both "withdrew" them. If that implies anything, it implies that both sides were unwilling to doubt the validity of their respective predecessors' excommunications.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19241073185181959402008-07-06T17:48:00.000-04:002008-07-06T17:48:00.000-04:00especially if, as you suggest, sentences of excomm...<I>especially if, as you suggest, sentences of excommunication are not necessarily infallible (e.g, they may be illicit judgements).<BR/><BR/>And this possiblity, however slight...</I><BR/><BR/>Have not both Rome and Constantinople, as early as 1964, declared that the mutual excommunications of 1054 were invalid on both sides? (Of course, they were invalid anyway, because neither patriarch was under the jurisdiction of his equal- oh, I forgot. That was the issue.)<BR/><BR/><I>the opinions of some few among those of impeccable orthodox and catholic standing...</I><BR/><BR/>The word heresy means opinion, so to be opinionated may disqualify one from impeccable orthodox and catholic standing. <BR/><BR/>It is not possible to persuade us that our own orthodox and catholic standing is less than impeccable.<BR/><BR/>That's my opinion.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59021304253312042682008-07-06T13:23:00.000-04:002008-07-06T13:23:00.000-04:00Father Kirby,I can appreciate the point that the D...Father Kirby,<BR/><BR/>I can appreciate the point that the DMU has epistemological connotations. It is, after all, a doctrine of "Manifest" unity. My point about visible unity and the ontology of the Catholic Church is intended to highlight the possibility of making an illicit judgement with respect to that which appears; in the case at hand, what appears to be "sacramental and jurisdictional" disunity. I am not suggesting that appearances themselves can somehow be non-veridical. I am suggesting that we do on occasion make illicit judgements with respect to appearances (e.g., as when a straight stick appears to be bent when held underwater, and we form the illicit judgement: 'this is a bent stick'). <BR/><BR/>So it is possible, even if unlikely, that there are at least a few analogous cases regarding visible unity and the Church, especially if, as you suggest, sentences of excommunication are not necessarily infallible (e.g, they may be illicit judgements). <BR/><BR/>And this possiblity, however slight, does create some space for ecumenical dialogue between bodies who each believe that visible unity is of the essence of the Church. Obviously, such an approach must take a close look at the theological, historical, and canonical data available. We cannot proceed on the basis of a hopeful uncertainty alone.<BR/><BR/>Another thing: I wonder whether the case you make in the essay, as measured against the Vincentian Canon, does not fail to meet the criteria of the latter, vis-a-vis whether or not visible unity is of the essence of the Catholic Church. <BR/><BR/>Your appeal to the judgement of a few ecclesial historians and theologians is important and possibly useful for non-Anglicans, but if it estabishes the logical compatibility of Anglicanism and the opinions of some few among those of impeccable orthodox and catholic standing, it nevertheless falls short of your own criteria for genuine Catholic doctrine.<BR/><BR/>So you may have made a point which you did not intend to make.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86198470886389194362008-07-06T05:52:00.000-04:002008-07-06T05:52:00.000-04:00Andrew,I'm afraid you are missing the point. Visib...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you are missing the point. Visibility of unity is precisely both ontological and epistemological, and is posited as such. If the DMU is true, justifying the commonly taught (but not dogmatically necessitated) exclusivism that says "If your jurisdiction is not within our visible communion, it is definitely not in the Church", then the exclusivists are making a claim about the nature of the Church <I>as to its essential recognisability as a manifestly and outwardly unitary body</I>. They are saying not only that the Church is One in essence, but that that unity is of such a kind that it must, without exception, correspond to an identifiable institution whose internal integrity is maintained by full sacramental communion, such that those outside that integral communion are properly not part of the Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>The cases I gave (and others of similar import can be adduced) are not merely cases where there was doubt as to visible unity, but where outward sacramental and/or jurisdictional disunity existed and was visible, yet there was strong evidence that orthodox Catholic Churches and/or theologians came to interpret those outward divisions inconsistently with the view that only one side or the other constituted the Church. If you were to say that this showed unity was visible after all, you would be ignoring the fact that the unity perceived was not outwardly, contemporaneously and institutionally identifiable, yet this is precisely what most exclusivists present as the guaranteed accompaniment of inward unity. Otherwise, for example, the claim by many Eastern Orthodox that the Roman Catholic Church must be outside the true Catholic Church because it is obviously not in full communion presently with the Eastern Orthodox Church, which is the One True Church, could not be maintained with the simplicity and certainty it normally is. And the same goes, <I>mutatis mutandis</I> for the standard Roman Catholic claims about the Eatern Ortodox churches.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9347395006187575412008-07-05T18:28:00.000-04:002008-07-05T18:28:00.000-04:00Something I meant to say early on, and forgot:The ...Something I meant to say early on, and forgot:<BR/><BR/><I>The Continuum is a traditional-Anglican blog whose contributors have, of late, grown gloomier than ever about the prospects of salvaging the Anglican Communion.</I><BR/><BR/>If he knows so much about us, what makes him think we are trying to salvage the Anglican Communion? Doesn't the very name of this blog give some indication about who we are?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-69005317366811691522008-07-05T01:23:00.000-04:002008-07-05T01:23:00.000-04:00Andrew:I think you fail to understand that we agre...Andrew:<BR/><BR/>I think you fail to understand that we agree with Pontificator's Fourth Law. Furthermore, we identify ourselves as <I>part of</I> "the Church, outside of which there is no salvation."<BR/><BR/>Because we see it this way, his law says nothing against our ecclesiology.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-30057377293037781682008-07-04T17:37:00.000-04:002008-07-04T17:37:00.000-04:00Father Kirby,As ever, I appreciate your analysis. ...Father Kirby,<BR/><BR/>As ever, I appreciate your analysis. I am wondering, however, whether your argument concerning DMU, as presented in the essay to which you referred in your comment (above), does not involve an equivocation. <BR/><BR/>Before submitting my particular concern for your consideration, I take the liberty of re-presenting (what I take to be) the gist of your argument here: <BR/><BR/>"Al Kimel, in his Pontificator’s Fourth Law states that 'A church that does not understand itself as the Church, outside of which there is no salvation, is not the Church but a denomination or sect.'" <BR/><BR/>This "Fourth Law," as you point out, is not axiomatic but based upon an implicit arugment, the crucial premise of which is:<BR/><BR/>"1. Any truly Catholic ecclesiology must not only teach that the Church is visible and one, but that it is visibly one."<BR/><BR/>As you further observe, this premise (1), which supports the Fourth Law, "has the following corollary for historical interpretation":<BR/> <BR/>"1* Any break in communion that discontinues the visibility of unity between one Christian body and another, if the two groups were previously united within the Catholic Church, must leave one group outside the Catholic Church until that breach is visibly healed."<BR/><BR/>You go on to point out that the existence of manifestly Catholic and Orthodox interpretations of historical circumstances, which interpretations are contrary to <BR/>1* (constituting "C-1*"), would in turn undermine both 1 and the Fourth Law: <BR/><BR/>[C-1*] "Thus, if any historical circumstances exist that have very commonly been interpreted by theologians with undisputedly Catholic ecclesiologies in ways that conflict with this corollary, then it must be accepted either that the corollary is oversimplified and requires denial or modification or it must at least be admitted that its denial does not prove a theologian is an ecclesiological heretic!"<BR/><BR/>You then cite the historical evidence for C-1*, on the basis of which you conclude:<BR/><BR/>"Hence, it is clear that C-1* obtains, the corollary 1* is deniable without automatic loss of Catholicity, thus the foundational premise of Pontificator’s Fourth Law is false as stated. There is thus no reason to apply the Law in its present form automatically to define as unCatholic Anglican Churches because they claim to be a part of the Catholic Church and recognise the RCC and EOC as also belonging to the Church, refusing to see the visible disunity between these bodies as proof of true, fundamental disunity."<BR/><BR/>Now to my concern: <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that 1 and 1*, which undergird the Pontificator's Fourth Law, are propositions about ecclesial ontology (what the Church is), and not ecclesial epistemology (how the Church knows what, and where, she is).<BR/><BR/>Yet C-1* appears to be an epistemological claim, in which case it is not contrary to 1* after all (i.e., to be is not the same as to know). This reading of C-1* seems to be supported by the historical examples you cite, which, with the possible exception of the first, seem to be cases of uncertainty about whether or not visible unity had been maintained, not as to whether visibly disunited bodies were yet (invisibly?) part of the Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, there are visible differences within the Catholic Church, but the question is one of visible disunity. I can believe, with perfect consistency, that the Church is always visibly one yet claim not to know, in particular cases, who is visibly united to her. We might not, at a given moment, see what there is to see.<BR/><BR/>It might be argued that visible unity which may, in some circumstances, be hard to see is not particularly "visible" at all. However, to be visible is not to be at all times apparent to all people. I think that the evidence you cited illustrates this dilemma, which I maintain is an epistemological one. <BR/><BR/>But the Pontificators Fourth Law, together with 1 and 1*, are ontological claims. The fact that in some cases (by no means all) it is difficult to estimate whether visible differences<BR/>constitute "visible disunity" (which I would not contrast, as you do in the essay, with "true, fundamental disunity") is an epistemological dilemma and does not imply that visible unity is not of the essence of the Catholic Church (the ontological claim).<BR/><BR/>Such epistemic dilemmas, though not laudible in themselves, do create a space for ecumenical discussion between Catholics and the Orthodox which can dispense with the dichotomies (e.g., East and West "cannot reunite without one of them denying its identity," and "who is coming back to whom?") which you suggest are endemic to the ecumenical movement given the ecclesiologies of these two bodies.<BR/><BR/>I appreciate your concerns vis-a-vis the catholic Anglican's place at the table, and you may have created some space for discussion pertaining thereto, but I do not think that you made your case with respect to the ecclesiologies of Orthodox and Catholic Christians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3272727413340829212008-07-04T17:35:00.000-04:002008-07-04T17:35:00.000-04:00Diane:I hardly expect yo convince you of anything,...Diane:<BR/><BR/>I hardly expect yo convince you of anything, since to you "Catholic" means only the Pope's church and none other. To me it <I>includes</I> the Pope's church, and it includes us as well. <BR/> <BR/><I>Who, after all, gets to decide "what really matters"?</I><BR/><BR/>Who dares not learn what truly matters? It is my office as a priest not only to identify the essential doctrines, but to teach them with authority. I make no apology for doing what Christ through his appointed Apostolic minister, the bishop, ordained me to do. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>By falling into error, I mean becoming a heretical sect, or losing the graces that must be in the Church for it to retain both the Gospel and valid sacraments. Rome never lost these things, and neither did Constantinople. We also have retained them by the grace of God.<BR/><BR/>You may call that the branch theory if you want. It is the power of life given by God's Holy Spirit, and it cannot be destroyed by men or demons.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9567488140898166012008-07-04T17:08:00.000-04:002008-07-04T17:08:00.000-04:00Fr. Robert Hart,You said....It has taught both tru...Fr. Robert Hart,<BR/><BR/>You said....<BR/><BR/>It has taught both truth and error, but has never fallen into error....<BR/><BR/>Is it not that to teach error is to fall into error? Our Lord promised that is Church would not err. Was Christ wrong in His promises?<BR/><BR/>CPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-30904257997448492752008-07-04T14:58:00.000-04:002008-07-04T14:58:00.000-04:00Something is very uncatholic about such a picture....<I>Something is very uncatholic about such a picture.</I><BR/><BR/>You can say that again.<BR/><BR/>Even Father Hart's clarification fails to convince. Who, after all, gets to decide "what really matters"?<BR/><BR/>Dianedianonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11535007125972445811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-89401627617787016482008-07-03T23:26:00.000-04:002008-07-03T23:26:00.000-04:00Scott Carson:I will answer you first of all by quo...Scott Carson:<BR/><BR/>I will answer you first of all by quoting scripture.<BR/><BR/>"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.<BR/>20: <B>But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.</B><BR/>21: I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.<BR/>22: Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.<BR/>23: Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.<BR/>24: Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have <B>heard from the beginning.</B> If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." I John 2:19-24<BR/><BR/>Acceptance of heresy is a moral issue, a manifestation of being separated from God. If you belong to Christ, the Holy Spirit gives you knowledge of the truth, and no false teacher can lead you away from Christ. <BR/><BR/>When the Arians had their brief period of political dominance, driving St. Athanasius into heresy, what really made the orthodox Christians able to reject the heresy? It was not the pope, because during that crisis the Bishop of Rome was an Arian heretic himself. It was not even any organized help, because the churches were suddenly dominated by the heretics. <BR/><BR/>No, it was the Holy Spirit. He made the distinction between true believers and those who did not remain in the Church (though they possessed its assets and real estate for a time). It was like Goshen and Egypt.<BR/><BR/>It is not private judgment to know the truth, but the property of all faithful people, even when they don't really know <I>why</I> they know. Those who bend their ears to hear, though they may take long detours as they learn, will not follow a stranger, for they know not the voice of strangers.<BR/><BR/>The idea that we can create so perfect an earthly structure that we will not need the Holy Spirit anymore, is an idea that runs afoul of the New Testament. <BR/><BR/>About your second point: if a papal document is true, it is not because it is a papal document, but because it just happens to have stated correct doctrine (and obviously, we reject the one from 1896 that embarrasses Roman Catholic scholars no end). It is not private judgment, but rather the judgment of the Universal Church, that rejects error. We say, Rome has produced both over the centuries: It has taught both truth and error, but has never <I>fallen into</I> error. That is, it remains a true church.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48226423240690599422008-07-03T23:04:00.000-04:002008-07-03T23:04:00.000-04:00To my friend, Fr. Alvin Kimmel- using the handle S...To my friend, Fr. Alvin Kimmel- using the handle <B>Strider</B>:<BR/><BR/>Al:<BR/><BR/>The reason all of your arguments cannot phase me is simply this: Everything you say about the Catholic Church, and that K- says about the Orthodox Church, I say is true of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, <B>which Church we also belong to.</B> We are in the same Church as you, divided by nothing but man made polity.<BR/><BR/>And, everything you say about mere denominations is no more true of us than it is of the Roman Catholic Church. That too is a matter of man made polity interjected on the Church which the Lord has promised never to forsake. Its current teachings are not <I>perfectly</I> consistent with the Apostolic Faith. Because we see differences between some (not many) portions of Roman Catholicism with both the Scriptures and the Fathers, we see that the Church of Rome hath also erred. That is not the private judgment of Anglicans, but the manifest truth that we gain from Scripture and Tradition, and to which our fathers bore witness.<BR/><BR/>I don't expect you to agree. But, we exercise no more private judgment in this observation than you do by submitting in like manner to the Magisterium in Rome.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I am a Protestant, and that is because I am a Catholic. That is Anglicanism.<BR/><BR/><I>But issuing a confession of faith is different from making irreformable doctrine that binds absolutely the conscience of believers.</I><BR/><BR/>We have no need to make doctrine at all. If the Pope <I>makes</I> a doctrine, he exceeds the authority given to the whole Church. I assume you mean teach or define, or even pronounce. But, since our churches bend to the full authority of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, not due to any Anglican doctrine, but to due to the authority of the Church as something larger than our portion of it, your entire criticism has no relevance to us. <BR/><BR/>You write as if you never heard that "Anglicanism has no distinctive doctrine of its own, but only that of the Catholic Church." That is what the Affirmation of St. Louis is all about. It is a confession of faith, yes (so is the Catechism of the catholic Church). The Affirmation of St. Louis is also, for us, absolutely binding as are the Formularies.<BR/><BR/>It reaffirms the Anglicanism of past generations. That is, the religion you never experienced, and the likes of which you never saw, in the Episcopal Church.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73888521379494468232008-07-03T18:26:00.000-04:002008-07-03T18:26:00.000-04:00RobertYou write:What do I think about the pope's o...Robert<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/><I>What do I think about the pope's office? Unlike some Roman Catholics and some Orthodox, Traditional Anglicans never say to other members of the Body of Christ, "I have no need of thee." Does the pope have a teaching office for the whole Church? Actually, I say yes. No one else has been nearly as diligent and faithful as Rome in applying Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition to every new ethical challenge created by the times.<BR/><BR/>But, I do not need to believe in Universal Primacy or Papal infallibility to appreciate the truth when I hear it.<BR/><BR/>Also, I believe that Joseph Ratzinger is as close to being infallible as any one man can be, whether he had been made pope or not.</I><BR/><BR/>If there were an electronic form of giving a high-five, I would give it to you now. I have no disagreement at all with what you write here, though I would nuance one thing.<BR/><BR/>What does it mean, exactly, to say that one does not "need" papal infallibility or papal primacy? You say that you do not need them because you recognize the truth when you hear it: if some pope were to teach something false, you, using your own God-given faculty of reason, would soon enough see through it. That is, of course, a possibility: some people are capable of that sort of insight. The difficulty lies not so much in recognizing that such a possibility exists, but in recognizing a further possibility: the possibility of being in error oneself without knowing. Suppose you were living in the 1st century, and you were confronted with any number of different versions of the course and meaning of the life of Our Lord. Some of these versions will be orthodox, others heretical. How will you be able to tell the difference? In the 1st century there were no canonical texts to settle the matter--you would have had to trust in one or another human messenger. Later, in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the texts existed, but in varying forms; even within single communities using a single form there were rival interpretations of what the texts were trying to say. Here there are only two ways to know which is orthodox and which heretical. One way is to put your trust in a human teacher whom you believe to inhabit an office that is authoritative; the other way is to trust in your own capacity to determine what the texts mean for yourself. Clearly the latter option is nothing other than "private judgment". You can, of course, use your private judgment to navigate around among competing explanatory theories about the meaning of scripture--who doesn't do that? And of course you would need to follow your conscience in this, assuming that your conscience has been properly formed. But you cannot use your private judgment to <I>determine</I> which interpretation is <I>true</I>--that is arrogating to yourself a faculty that has been granted exclusively to "the Church", whatever we wind up deciding that phrase is going to refer to. Instead, you use your private judgment to make a personal choice.<BR/><BR/>You also write:<BR/><BR/><I>But, in so doing they place their teaching on the table for debate among Christians. No matter how much authority they claim to possess, their facts, reason and logic come under scrutiny; and they prepare for that the best they know how.</I><BR/><BR/>This is, of course, quite true, but it does not cut any ice against the position I was outlining. If the texts are designed to present the authoritative interpretation of the Deposit of Faith rather than to prove some element of it, then the failure of the text to make its case does not affect the truth of the claim. The fact that a particular scientist cannot convince a creationist that evolutionary theory is true does not show that the theory is <I>not</I> true, it shows only that this particular scientist did not do a particularly good job of laying out the evidence for it, or that this particular creationist is particularly dimwitted. So one may accept your characterization of the <I>content</I> of papal documents without accepting your characterization of their essential nature.Vitae Scrutatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-5826954188174230792008-07-03T17:33:00.000-04:002008-07-03T17:33:00.000-04:00Ahn now the discussion is taking on some reality. ...Ahn now the discussion is taking on some reality. My objection to Dr. Liccione's statement was not that he disagreed with Fr. Hart. That's the purpose of this kind of board. It was very simply that I did not recognize the statements of Fr. Hart, nor the assertions of other Anglicans, myself included, in what Liccione presented them as saying. Fundamentally my snaswre to his article would have to be, "But we didn't say that." and I'd be at a loss to answer it for that reason. I like what is happening since enough that I was going to let those comments lie -- but came to feel that this kind of non-discourse is so common in disputation berween various traditions as to be sometimes paralyzing.<BR/><BR/>I will stick with my labeling of trndencies of thought I often see in RC apologists, and admit cheerfully that Anglicans undoubtedly have similarly deficient mindsets that we may not always be aware of. Seeing these background phenomena, recognizing them, and taking them into account is an essential part of this kind of discourse. <BR/><BR/>Apologetics akways begins with listening, deep listening, and more listening, and thast is what I missed at the outset here.<BR/><BR/>Long enough.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-3964429770053493482008-07-03T17:19:00.000-04:002008-07-03T17:19:00.000-04:00Hi, Bob. You write: "Furthermore, since when does...Hi, Bob. You write: "Furthermore, since when does that description of the Episcopal Church apply to the kind of Anglicans over here? What is our Affirmation of St. Louis if not the very kind of dogmatic and uniform statement you say we aren't able to have?"<BR/><BR/>Bob, I don't believe that I mentioned anything about the Episcopal Church in my comment. Regarding the St Louis Affirmation, I certainly do not deny that Anglicans can issue confessions of faith and regard them as true and authoritative, just as I do not deny that Lutherans can issue a confessions of faith and regard them as true and authoritative. But issuing a confession of faith is different from making irreformable doctrine that binds absolutely the conscience of believers. This is the point, I think, that Khomiakov is making in his 3rd Letter to William Palmer. Even if, he says, all Anglicans are orthodox in their beliefs, even if their creed and faith are in full accord with the creed and faith of the Orthodox Church, still they necessarily lack that which only the Orthodox Church can give, namely, "the assurance of truth." Why can only the Orthodox Church give this assurance? To answer this question is to see the essential difference between being the Church and being a Protestant denomination--and it is to see why Anglicanism, including those churches that define themselves by the St Louis Affirmation, is essentially Protestant. Of course, as a Catholic I disagree with Khomiakov in his exclusive identification of the Orthodox Church as the Church; but I think he is correct in his discernment of the critical difference between Church and all forms of Protestantism. I do not know the best way to formulate this difference, but it is a difference that Catholics and Orthodox, and especially converts, understand and experience. When asked what it felt like to become Catholic, <A HREF="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=154" REL="nofollow">Rusty Reno</A> replied, "It felt like being submerged into the ocean." He goes on to explain:<BR/><BR/>"The ocean needs no justification. It needs no theory to support the movement of its tides. In the end, as an Episcopalian I needed a theory to stay put, and I came to realize that a theory is a thin thread easily broken. The Catholic Church needs no theories. She is the mother of theologies; she does not need to be propped up by theologies. As Newman put it in one of his Anglican essays, 'the Church of Rome preoccupies the ground.' She is a given, a primary substance within the economy of denominationalism. One could rightly say that I became a Catholic by default, and that possibility is the simple gift I received from the Catholic Church. <I>Mater ecclesia</I>, she needed neither reasons, nor theories, nor ideas from me."<BR/><BR/>Becoming Catholic, and I presume Orthodox, is different than joining a denomination. It is coming into a community that possesses true authority. Hence the profession made by those who are received into full communion: "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." The convert is confronted with the present-tense, concrete reality of a Church that authoritatively teaches in the name of God and is invited to subject himself to this Church. This Church is neither a theory nor historical construct. She is just offensively, irreducibly "there," proposing to us teaching she claims to enjoy divine authority. Hence Henry Cardinal Manning critique of the Anglican appeal to antiquity:<BR/><BR/>"The doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? No individual, no number of individuals can go back through eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity. We may say with the woman of Samaria, 'Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with.' No individual mind now has contact with the revelation of Pentecost, except through the Church. Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount at most to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition. (<I>The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost</I> [1881], p. 227) <BR/><BR/>Whatever else one might say about this, it certainly represents an apprehension of the role and authority of the Church in the mediation of the apostolic deposit of faith that is very different than the Anglican. <BR/><BR/>You ask: "In order to believe that the RCC is the The One True Church, with an infallible Magisterium, do you not use your private judgment? Not even a little? When you were judging between Rome and Orthodoxy, did that thinking never make use of private judgment? Does your continued adherence to the RCC not involve your own private judgment?"<BR/><BR/>I take it that you are asking me if I had reasons to become Catholic and if I have reasons to remain Catholic. And of course the answer is yes. As Newman explained to Mrs. Helbert: “Private judgment must be your guide, till you are in the Church. You do not begin with faith, but with reason, and you end with faith.” What does it mean to end with faith? I think Scott Carson rightly describes this faith as a kind of abandonment, a surrender of one's private judgment to the authority of another. The person who becomes Catholic has decided to trust unreservedly the community of the Catholic Church and her definitive teaching. Does this make me a fundamentalist, as you accuse? I suppose. If fundamentalism means assenting to the teaching of God because it is taught by God, then I gladly accept the designation. But I reject the intimation that this kind of "fundamentalism" means mindlessness. Catholics are always wrestling with the teaching of the Church, always seeking to understand, always seeking to apprehend and appropriate the truth. This means that there may be times when the Catholic will find himself in a position of disagreement with the teachings of specific bishops and theologians, perhaps even the majority of bishops and theologians. For one thing, there is always debate in the Catholic Church on what constitutes the definitive and irreformable teaching of the Church. These things are not always clear. Discussion, deliberation, and vigorous argument are necessary for the Church to achieve clarity in her discernment of the apostolic revelation. But even when apparent clarity appears to have been achieved, the individual believer may find it difficult to embrace in good conscience the proposition in question. At these painful moments, it is the duty of the Catholic believer to "to remain open to a deeper examination of the question. For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail" (<A HREF="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html" REL="nofollow">Donum Veritatis</A>). Is this fundamentalism?Striderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07859685939890312325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-46160295766933194452008-07-03T14:06:00.000-04:002008-07-03T14:06:00.000-04:00Amen, Father Hart.Amen, Father Hart.Rev. Dr. Hasserthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14350737386756722887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-15007315114808735462008-07-03T14:04:00.000-04:002008-07-03T14:04:00.000-04:00It is evident that papal documents lay out their c...It is evident that papal documents lay out their case in detail for both teaching and apologetic purposes. Furthermore, it is evident that they understand, as do we, that learning requires an active use of the mind (and only a mind with Right Reason can understand). <BR/><BR/>For the purposes of teaching, it is obvious they do not want to have people check their brains. My criticism of the "private judgment" charge (if not obsession) is exactly what I said before. It reduces acceptance of teaching from the Magisterium to this very thing. It reduces the practice of Roman Catholics to "pray, pay and obey," when, in fact, that is quite obviously <I>not</I> what the Magisterium is trying to produce. <BR/><BR/>Never do those documents make their case from the argument of authority. Never do they say, "because I told you so." <BR/><BR/>The fact that these documents are also detailed for the sake of apologetics is simply reasonable. The men in Rome know that they will encounter debate, because not everybody says "credo" automatically to whatever the pope says. <BR/><BR/>But, in so doing they place their teaching on the table for debate among Christians. No matter how much authority they claim to possess, their facts, reason and logic come under scrutiny; and they prepare for that the best they know how.<BR/><BR/>What do I think about the pope's office? Unlike some Roman Catholics and some Orthodox, Traditional Anglicans never say to other members of the Body of Christ, "I have no need of thee." Does the pope have a teaching office for the whole Church? Actually, I say yes. No one else has been nearly as diligent and faithful as Rome in applying Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition to every new ethical challenge created by the times. <BR/><BR/>But, I do not need to believe in Universal Primacy or Papal infallibility to appreciate the truth when I hear it. <BR/><BR/>Also, I believe that Joseph Ratzinger is as close to being infallible as any one man can be, whether he had been made pope or not.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-25295209772214154082008-07-03T10:56:00.000-04:002008-07-03T10:56:00.000-04:00RobertHere are a couple more thoughts, then.When y...Robert<BR/><BR/>Here are a couple more thoughts, then.<BR/><BR/>When you say something like "turning off our brains", I am reminded of the old canard "Catholics have to check their brains at the door". Is this something that you actually accept as a fair interpretation of what it means to submit to an authority? Surely not, else it would mean that, in submitting to the authority of the Gospel, you are shutting off your own brain. "Ah," you may object, "But the Gospel is the Word of God, not the command of man." But this, of course, begs the question, since to submit to the teaching authority of the Church is to submit to the authority of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church, as you well know--and <I>agree!</I>--you only disagree with what constitutes the teaching authority of the Church. So let's not be silly by saying question begging things like "Catholics have to check their brains at the door".<BR/><BR/>Second, is it really true that papal documents intend to "prove" what they teach? I think that depends upon what you mean by "prove". Certainly they intend to lay out the background and supporting documents, but they do not necessarily do this as a matter of presenting a proof. If you will permit me to stray into the boring domain of my own profession for a moment, let me mention what I think of as a parallel sort of case, the text of Aristotle's <I>Posterior Analytics</I>. In this text, Aristotle discusses the nature of definitions, first principles, and scientific reasoning. For a long time scholars were puzzled by this text, because in his own scientific treatises (the <I>Physics</I>, for example, and the various works on biology) Aristotle does not appear to follow the guidelines he himself lays down in the <I>Posterior Analytics</I> in terms of how one ought to go about proving scientific theories. What most scholars these days think about this issue is that Aristotle is not giving guidelines for how to discover and prove scientific theories, but how to <I>present</I> theories to an audience, that is, how to lay out the evidence and background materials in such a way that the audience can be lead to understand what the theory says. It seems to me that papal documents fall rather into this category than the category of persuasion that you seem to want to assign them to. A papal document lays out what the Church has always taught, and shows how it is best to be interpreted in light of the deposit of Faith. It need not attempt to <I>prove</I> that any of this is true: if the Church is indefectible, the truth of the deposit of Faith is not at issue. Rather, the document explains the deposit of Faith in such a way as to lead people to believe in more clearly articulated statements of that deposit.<BR/><BR/>Why should we believe the Pope's own "private judgment" about what the deposit of Faith is? Well, the answer to that depends upon what you think the referent of the term "pope" is. If you think that all that the word pope refers to is the man "Joseph Ratzinger", then of course we shouldn't just hand over our brains to him. But if you think that "pope" refers to a teaching office of the Church, then handing your brain over to that office is nothing more than submitting to the authority of the Holy Spirit to speak to us through the agency of men.<BR/><BR/>Of course I understand full well that not everyone accepts this picture, I offer it only as an anodyne to the rather poor representation of my point of view that is showing itself in your comment.Vitae Scrutatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-90670938092566973422008-07-03T06:28:00.000-04:002008-07-03T06:28:00.000-04:00Mike’s argument may be fairly summarised as follow...Mike’s argument may be fairly summarised as follows:<BR/><BR/>1. Anglo-Catholicism has these two theologically characteristic positions:<BR/>1a. Anglo-Catholicism accepts the standard of the Vincentian Canon and is thus committed to the authority of the consistent consensus of the Catholic Church in interpreting Scripture and formulating doctrine and dogma.<BR/>1b. Anglo-Catholicism does not accept the claims made on behalf of either the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) or the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) to be exclusively the One True Church (OTC) and, as a corollary, makes its own claim that its particular jurisdictions are part of that OTC.<BR/><BR/>2. Whether one limits one’s survey (i.e., one’s search for Catholic consensus) to the Catholic Church of the First Millenium before the schism between East and West, or the RCC since then, or the EOC since then, or even a hypothetical combination of the EOC and RCC, in each case there is a consistent dogmatic consensus that the unity of the OTC is always outwardly visible and thus that any outward separation of jurisdictions cannot possibly leave more than one of the separated bodies inside the OTC. That is, East and West always have asserted and still do assert a doctrine of manifest unity (DMU) of the OTC.<BR/><BR/>3. Given that orthodox Anglican Churches, even if hypothetically included as relevant to such a survey, have made such a small proportion of any so identified Catholic Church (and did not exist as entities distinguishable from the RCC for much of the past), their non-acceptance of the DMU could not overturn or significantly affect any achievement of consensus posited in 2.<BR/><BR/>4. Therefore (2 + 3), the DMU satisfies the Vincentian Canon according to any plausible application of it to historic and present ecclesial reality, including an Anglo-Catholic one. That is, the standard purportedly accepted by Anglo-Catholics in 1a is contradictory to any denial of the DMU.<BR/><BR/>5. 1b denies the DMU.<BR/><BR/>6. Therefore (4 + 5), 1a and 1b are implicitly contradictory and Anglo-Catholicism is thus intrinsically logically incoherent.<BR/><BR/>The argument as it stands is a valid and powerful one, granting all its factual premises (1 to 3 and 5). The problem is that premise 2 is simply false. There is no binding DMU and there never has been. The DMU, at most, has been a common opinion or sometimes has been asserted or assumed in official but non-infallible teaching contexts. But the actions of the Church (using any of the hypothesised identifications above) and the statements of various of its theologians and bishops (in good standing) in the past have often been manifestly inconsistent with such an absolute position. And I have made this very point before and given the relevant evidence on this weblog in 3 parts. However, that essay may be found concatenated more conveniently here: http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=2435. Since writing that essay I have come across further similar evidence, such as the fact that at the first mediaeval “re-union” Council between East and West, neither side treated the other as properly schismatic or outside the Church.<BR/><BR/>What is undeniably asserted as dogmatic fact by the RCC is that it is the True Church. It is the same for the EOC in its self-understanding. However, neither of these churches has dogmatically declared that every person or institution outside their visible canonical boundaries simply must be, in some sense, separated from the Catholic Church, the OTC. In other words, they are each absolutely sure where the Church is, but not absolutely sure where it is not. Again, more detailed discussion of this may be found in my earlier essay.<BR/><BR/>Finally, allow me to point out that Dr Liccione’s rendering of the Vincentian Canon is in danger of being reduced to a useless tautology, and one that Catholics could not accept inasmuch as it would imply all past appeal to this principle was an invalid circular argument. That is, if it is true one cannot appeal to the Vincentian Canon to judge a controversial doctrinal issue without first successfully determining exactly who or what churches are definitely orthodox and Catholic (so that their consent counts), then one must determine who is on the “right side” of any disputed matter before one can use consensus to determine which is the right side! That really would be incoherent. Indeed, the numbered argument I have given above as, I think, an accurate summary of our friend’s position does not use the Vincentian Canon in consistency with this tautological interpretation. Instead, it attempts to show that, even without knowing <I>a priori</I> who is the OTC, one can use the principle of St Vincent of Lerins to conclusively reject Anglo-Catholicism. Hence, any polemical attempt to deny the right of Anglican Catholics to appeal to the Canon in support of their teaching and identity, such as Manning’s infamous reference to the treachery of an appeal to history or his glorying in the triumph of dogma over history, is unreasonable. So is Khomiakov’s similar effort, especially since he ignores the fact that the Church of England at the Reformation did not claim to use St Vincent’s principle to reconstruct doctrine or the Church <I>ab initio</I>, but to correct certain abuses in faith and practice in their particular jurisdiction. There was a self-conscious, official and explicit avowal of essential continuity, however imperfectly things were done.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-76557816829662424572008-07-03T03:52:00.000-04:002008-07-03T03:52:00.000-04:00Just a few things come to mindabout all that. This...Just a few things come to mind<BR/>about all that. This is how it strikes me, so I might as well just say it.<BR/> <BR/>(By the way, "I believe" is the correct translation of the Creed as it was first used when adapted as liturgy, rather than when it was written in the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. The purpose is different.)<BR/><BR/>Turning off our brains to submit to authority sounds very pious, but it is exactly opposite what the Bible commands us to do. "Prove all things." I Thes. 5:21. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Rom. 14:5<BR/><BR/>Learning is an intellectually active affair, not a matter of turning off the mind. Such a version of Roman Catholicism is too much like Fundamentalism at its worst. It seems very opposite to the wisdom that Proverbs tells of. St. Thomas Aquinas would not have respected disregard for Right Reason.<BR/><BR/>Those who actually believe in Roman Catholicism do not need to buy into this disregard for private judgment. The papal documents are written with the intention of proving their position by presenting the very things we speak of: Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition. Just read any papal document. None of them say, "throw away your private judgment and trust us." Neither do they say: "You have to accept this because we say so." Instead, they seek to persuade the mind by Scripture, Right Reason and Tradition. <BR/><BR/>Mike and Al do the RC Church a terrible disservice and misrepresent its mind. The RC Church is not run by Bob Jones type Baptists. It is a lot like Traditional Anglicanism at its core.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27822224733087802572008-07-03T01:40:00.000-04:002008-07-03T01:40:00.000-04:00RobertSpeaking for myself, and signed in to the co...Robert<BR/><BR/>Speaking for myself, and signed in to the correct Google account to prove it (I'm even using my own computer for once), I have two things to say.<BR/><BR/>First, I think I understand you perfectly well when you say that you and your brothers think alike, and that you are "real Patristic guys". That's what I like about you and your brothers (well, I confess I only know what I read here and in First Things, but so far so good). It seems to me, at least from my own perspective, that we have a lot more in common than not, even though I do happen to agree with Mike and Al.<BR/><BR/>Second, the unity that you describe, one of a Church "called out from every kindred, tongue and nation", is nevertheless also a unity of earthly structures. As mystical as the Body of Christ may be, here on earth it consists of real live human beings forming real live relationships; these relationships are essentially "earthly structures". Needless to say, you, your brothers, and I appear all to agree on the essential nature of the mystical part of the Body; it's the less mystical part we appear to disagree about. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems to me that our differences over the less mystical parts matter a lot less to people like me than to--well, some people. You write, in your reply to Al:<BR/><BR/><I>What I believe is that both the RCs and the Orthodox are right, and so are we, about everything that matters.</I><BR/><BR/>I find this <I>very</I> congenial, but I would be willing to bet that it is congenial to Mike and Al as well, since its truth seems to me to hinge upon the clause "about everything that matters." What, in the end, <I>does</I> matter? Papal primacy? Accepting such a doctrine is a form of unity, but it is only <I>one</I> form. Does it matter <I>more</I> than other forms? I doubt it. While I myself yearn very deeply for a reunification of sorts with Anglicans and Orthodox, I'm realistic enough to know that it's not going to happen--certainly not in my lifetime, perhaps not before the eschaton (though <A HREF="http://www.wdtprs.com/media/audio/08_06_29_PETERPAUL_CREED.mp3" REL="nofollow">this sort of thing</A> encourages me to some small extent--call me a Romantic). When I was an Anglican the custom was to invite all Baptized Christians to receive Holy Communion; that, too, is a form of unity. Accepting the licitness of such an invitation is to accept the idea that unity of praxis is, in some sense, more important than unity of belief. Catholics and Orthodox do not make similar invitations--they appear to believe that unity of belief is a deeper sign of unity than mere unity of praxis. Does it come as a surprise to me that, within a communion in which unity of praxis trumps unity of belief, there should be umbrage taken at the suggestion that folks submit to a centralized teaching authority (here, of course, "authority" must mean "institution charged with the definitive interpretation of the deposit of faith")? No, not at all.<BR/><BR/>If different communions (and here we're talking about only three such communions) can have such markedly different commitments to the notion of what are the necessary and sufficient conditions of unity, how can there be any <I>real</I> unity? I confess that I don't know the answer to that, even though I believe that you are right to say that some differences may not matter.<BR/><BR/>You chide Al (perhaps "tease" is a better word) about the notion of "private judgment", but surely you are far too intelligent to think that "I believe" entails such a thing (ignoring for a moment the fact that it is a mistranslation of the original anyway). The difference between you and Al surely must be grounded in something more substantive than a disagreement over what it means to submit oneself to an interpretive "authority". Since it is so obvious, I must assume that you know full well that Al's view is that to accept the authority of Rome is not an act of private <I>judgment</I> at all, but on the contrary a decision to <I>surrender</I> one's private judgment to the authority of another. The decision to do this is not itself a private "judgment" at all but a private "intention". As such, it ought not to be grounded in a rational judgment to the effect that "this authority is right, according to my private judgment", but is rather an intuition that one is called so to submit. It is precisely because such a decision is not an act of judgment that it is characterized instead as an act of faith, and one aided by supernatural grace at that. But surely you know all of this already. And just as surely you engaged in precisely the same <I>kind</I> of private intention when you decided to submit yourself to whatever sort of authority you now submit to. As long as you refrain from engaging in any judgments about the truth of any doctrines handed to you by this authority, or about the validity of the authority to which you submit, then it is clear that you, too, are not guilty of putting private judgment before authoritative teaching. So it seems to me that the whole issue of private judgment is quite off the mark here.<BR/><BR/>Well, that was rather long winded, wasn't it. But as it happens, although I said there were two things I wanted to say, it turns out that there were really three. Don't assume that just because you're not punching my wife you're not punching a lady; she happens to agree with me, Mike, and Al.<BR/><BR/>Well, except for the part about me not being mistaken very often. She disagrees with that one quite a bit. I could write a book....Vitae Scrutatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12808120163472036743noreply@blogger.com