tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post1785227397342185642..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Sixth Sunday after TrinityFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-14306235247432905442009-07-22T12:06:14.435-04:002009-07-22T12:06:14.435-04:00Thank you kindly, Ed. I'll be patient and look...Thank you kindly, Ed. I'll be patient and look back for your response on that issue. That's one specific issue and example and I suppose I’ve some broader things on my mind prompted by our exit from our continuing parish. Some thoughts prompted by comments above:<br /><br />A guess would be that the LCMS inconsistency of the type you experienced was an inevitable result of trying to form their consciences in the way you describe (although maybe with less emphasis on antiquity and St Vincent’s canon and more emphasis on scripture?? – I don’t know). Inconsistency seems less of a problem for them given “Simul Justus et Peccator” and their understanding of authority than for, say, Rome whose inconsistencies (it was once a sin to eat meat on Friday, now it’s not) and claim to singular, decisive authority make it look ridiculous.<br /><br />I’m not sure Simil Justus et Peccator and Law-Gospel distinctions prevent one from shaping his conscience in the manner you describe. Maybe there are more inconsistencies but the Fathers don’t address everything and we must use (in addition to the Holy Spirit) deductive reasoning, extrapolations, etc. and we’re far from perfect.<br /><br />On Shaughn’s point about Luther’s “There's Justification, period. One is either Justified, and thus saved, or not”, S.M Hutchens wrote (in an ecumenical response to the Vatican declaration Dominus Iesus) that scripture has no example of a “half-Christian” or “half-wheat or half-tare, or a tare that is honored with the name of wheat.” Note, this is not the same as teaching “once-saved by the alter call, always-saved by the alter-call.”Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63497819384022564102009-07-21T22:22:15.811-04:002009-07-21T22:22:15.811-04:00Bruce,
I've been asked to develop some of the ...Bruce,<br />I've been asked to develop some of the things I've said before in reference to your question, and will be attempting to do so in the next day or so. Your question"<br /><br /><i>Can anyone tell me (authoritatively) whether or not artificial contraception is a sin?</i><br /><br />raises several rather thorny issues. Is it fitting for Christians to do it? Is it an actual sin? How grave a sin? Has it been declared so by ecclesiastical authority? Can it be? What does the informed Christian conscience have to say about such issues?<br /><br />I think it rather good that I, as a layman, have been asked to speak to such a serious issue. As such I do not speak with <b>ecclesiastical</b> authority, but with the conviction that I do not avoid sin because of the pronouncements of men speaking for the church, but out of a desire to know and do the will of God. At least that is what a Christian conscience is <b>supposed</b> to impel me to do. I need to know the Word of God, both by the teaching of the Church AND by my own learning and internalization of the Scriptures. As Anglicans and Catholics we know ourselves to be responsible for the formation (by the Holy Spirit) of our comsciences from Scripture, wuth the guidance of the Church, not merely from directives from above.<br /><br />This specific question requires a more detailed answer than I can give quickly and simply. Please be patient while I try to organize my thoughts. For the moment, I can summarize my own conclusions without quite answering the question as asked. Though we lack a single clear and authoritative directive in this matter, I fail to find how the concept of contraception reconciles with what Scripture has to say about the mind of God, and what the Fathers seem to see as His will. I don't believe it to be a practice that reconciles itself with an informed Christian conscience, and have to think of it as, on some sense sinful. More I won't say at the moment. Apparently I'm committed to write on a subject I've been avoiding.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64651306898125156902009-07-21T12:33:22.825-04:002009-07-21T12:33:22.825-04:00It's "simul justus et peccator." Fr ...It's "simul justus et peccator." Fr Hart's Touchstone colleague S.M. Hutchens had a nice article a while back that was useful for me.<br /><br />http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-06-041-b<br /><br />I don't think Luther's teaching had to lead to antinomianism. I think his point was that Christ's teaching points to the fact that we're so sinful we don't even always know when we sin and our sin certainly goes beyond not following the letter of the law. Isn't this the point of the law and Gospel distinction? <br /><br />Luther flogged himself, and when he thought he was done, he'd always think of a new sin and end up mortifying himself more.<br /><br />Can anyone tell me (authoritatively) whether or not artificial contraception is a sin? If memory serves (possibly it doesn't-sorry if I get this wrong) Fr. Hart and his bishop had differing opinions. His Bishop merely said it was HIS opinion. But who decides? The Pope for Roman Catholics. The answers I got here seemed academic but not practially useful (or authoritative). Doesn't his relate to Luther's point?Brucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26383049487042386522009-07-20T23:53:59.825-04:002009-07-20T23:53:59.825-04:00This line...
A church that teaches us to overcome...This line...<br /><br /><i>A church that teaches us to overcome everything- except temptation, and to rise to anything- except an occasion, is not the Church of Jesus Christ.</i><br /><br />...is a classic! And I will use it (giving credit due to the author, of course).RC Colanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56485893832358384412009-07-20T18:32:50.513-04:002009-07-20T18:32:50.513-04:00As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I grew up amid a lot...As a Missouri Synod Lutheran, I grew up amid a lot of loud noise about "sola fide", and a lot of ascription of "works righteousness" to those insisting on a strict moral standard -- but hold on -- those accusations were directed at those who had a different moral standard from the speaker. Missouri Synod Lutherans of that period disallowed such things as ballroom dancing (square dancing being OK) life insurance (though Lutheran cooperative societies performed precisely the same function) and membership in secret societies. Yet those who disapproved alcoholic beverages were considered legalistic. It simply wasn't consistent -- and that is what saved it from being heresy. Heresies pretty generally come from applying a rigid logical standard to the full extent it can go, thus pushing doctrine far away from the golden mean of truth Real orthodoxy uses logic as a tool, but cheerfully recognizes that it isn't always the proper tool. <br /> A fully logical extrapolation of Luther's own principles leads to horrendous false teaching, as does a fully logical extrapolation of Calvin's, or of any of the Catholic writers who appear to have opposing viewpoints. This is why a truly Catholic view does not hearken back to a single authority, but to "the Fathers". In short, I am thankful that my Lutheran teachers were less than entirely logical in applying their theology. Because of that I ended up with a reasonably balanced foundation in spite of the tendency to go off into extremes.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28742647911500341372009-07-20T13:16:52.068-04:002009-07-20T13:16:52.068-04:00Based on the conversations I've had from many ...Based on the conversations I've had from many Episcopal clergy, I think this radical view of baptism comes from a heavy influence of Liberal Protestantism (their label, not mine) and a particular, almost anti-nomian strand of German Reformed and/or Lutheran theology.<br /><br />My understanding of Lutheranism is very limited, but from what I've been taught, there isn't a system of sanctification in Lutheranism as there is in Calvinist or Anglican theology. There's Justification, period. One is either Justified, and thus saved, or not. Good works flow from it, but there's a great deal of emphasis in what I've read on the notion of <i>iustus et peccator</i>. Some take it so far as to mean, more or less, that Baptism and Justification entitle one to go do the hamartiological equivalent of playing naked in the rain because, by God, we're Justified. So, sin boldly! Now, Luther would be horrified by that strand of the theological tradition that bears his name, I'm sure, but it follows toward a logical conclusion. I imagine <i>someone</i> here knows Lutheranism and Reformed theology better than I do. Please tell me that this anti-nomian conclusion that I see all over the place is based on some sort of logical fallacy. :>RSC+https://www.blogger.com/profile/00639369749327986414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34095099609538499132009-07-19T06:49:03.801-04:002009-07-19T06:49:03.801-04:00You mean there's a play out there, and a film ...You mean there's a play out there, and a film made of it, about the struggle to get a man baptized? Must check it out.<br /><br />I recently subscribed to a local theatre company for a few years with a friend, and often by the interval in a contemporary play, we'd be looking at each other and saying, 'Another parable of life without God.' One of the reasons I gave up subscribing was that I found that amongst the classics were too many plays that reflected a view of contemporary life from which I felt quite alienated.Sandra McCollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15452475999110574881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-75220102477414116162009-07-18T19:59:45.193-04:002009-07-18T19:59:45.193-04:00As one who came to know and believe in the Christi...As one who came to know and believe in the Christianity of the English Reformation and the traditional, orthodox Books of Common Prayer through playing the priest in my high school's production of Life With Father, I am especially moved my this sermon. I never saw the movie, but in the play the mother had taken to her bed and was dying because she discovered that her husband was not baptized and therefore was not in her eyes a Christian.<br /><br />The local paper contains a letter from an Episcopal deacon who bemoans the fact that TEO has been cast as the 'bad guy' when they are just trying to follow the 'way of Jesus.' Somehow all of our Lord's admonitions to 'go and sin no more' seem to have escaped him as well as all of the other things found in the New Testament and the Old which they are also ignoring if not flouting. They just don't seem capable of understanding that there is only one way of being truly Christian and that is do things not in the Church's way but in the Way in which God has given us in the fullness of Holy Scripture.<br /><br />Father finally got it because he loved his wife and did not want to lose her. He would do for her what he was incapable of doing for himself. I am very thankful that my high school drama coach believed that I was perfect for the role of the priest. It changed my life and is still changing it.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.com