Gavin Ortlund thinks the Reformation was doing this:
I disagree, I don't think an error can creep in and go unchallenged for many generations so one has to leave the Church Jesus founded or what one hitherto reasonably thought to be so, to fight it. This would be contrary to Matthew 28:16—20.
But clearly SSPX agreed that this is sometimes a reason to leave your own parish and go to an SSPX parish instead. Please note, the SSPX was founded as a diocesan association, in the diocese of Fribourg, by a retired archbishop in good standing. But people started to flee the liturgic reform and to get to priests ordained with the stated intention of keeping up traditions, and then came the "split" if any.
Obviously, Pope Michael I thought, "popesifting" is not fulfilling that, as it's opposed to the Vatican Council of 1869—70, and remaining simply sedevacantist seems disingenious with "perpetuos successores" ... he was elected in the election he convened, 32 years after Pius XII died. A bit less than the 39 year long doubtfulness of two papacies in Rome and Avignon. So, Bawdenism as some call it (even after he died and Pope Michael II is already elected?) simply improves on Mgr Lefebvre's method, not of restoring, but of saving the Church.
Is Private Judgment a Problem for Protestantism?
Truth Unites | 4 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGIRwS_da4
In these times, it's not a uniquely Protestant dilemma.
Who's Pope? Michael II or Francis or Peter III?
Btw, did you know that no Catholic official text directly condemns "private judgement" as such?
Both Trent Session IV and the Mortalium Animos are saying sth about "own talent" or "private judgement" but both are saying sth else than condemning it.
Trent Council says / Council fathers say its wrong to push your reliance on your own talents to the point where you twist the Scriptures away from Patristic Tradition and Catholic Magisterial Decisions. But not that it's wrong to have confidence in it.
Pius XI said Protestantism is in disunity, because it makes private judgement the basis or bread and butter of exegesis, but not that private judgement has no place at all.
1:56 The only half and half good argument I can imagine for remaining for some time Protestant (mind you, not accepting Protestant sacraments, like Eucharists or in some denominations Absolutions) is the question whether one should go "East or West" after that.
It was the only question I was really not well founded in when I converted, so I am now, as a revert from Orthodoxy. Both times to Roman Catholicism.
2:49 The Medieval Era may have held some overreactions.
I'm pretty sure burning Waldensians (if they were not publically burning crosses like Petrobrussians) just because they were in the bad company of Albigensians was somewhat severe, and not necessary to achieve the goal of delaying the time when society and the state are ripe for the Antichrist.
I can hope that Catholics and Orthodox mostly describing each other in terms borrowed from "Catho-Dox" descriptions of Arianism was somewhat over the top. Seeing Protestantism and Modernism after those times, well, those are actually closer to Arianism. By Protestantism I mean mainly the mainstream which had less and less faith after for instance the era of Lutheran Orthodoxy.
Two examples stand out against this background. Vlad Tepec and Nicolas Cabasilas. Both of them were "biritual" on that divide.
But "if X is right, the stakes are so much higher" is hardly an argument for "let's believe X is false to keep the stakes low" ... is it?
4:02 I'm not using the 30 000 denominations argument.
I might use it for Africa. A sexually abusive pastor was invited to submit to mediation from other churches, he refused, there was nothing they could do about it as strict congregationalists.
I'm not using that in general.
In fact, if anything, I'd say that the problem is more like each trying to stand out and risking to cheat people who depended on sth different.
E g in some places, Lutherans and Anglicans are joining Neo-Himerite Orthos and part of the Vatican II crowd in chosing the refusal of Fundamentalism as a way to stand out against "Calvinism" or "Radical Reformation" and this can then be a deception for some who joined them for other reasons elsewhere or under a lack of information even locally.
The year I was "confirmed" after getting baptised as a Lutheran, I was not really told that they (at least more than half of the vocal ones in the youth group) considered Young Earth Creationism a "primitive" type of error. I found it out only afterwards.
The year I was entering Catechesis for conversion to the Catholic Church, I was told I did not need to be a Young Earth Creationist, i e there were other options, but I was definitely not prepared to find, in 2000 or 2001 that CCC at § 283 gave a wholehearted support to "modern science" and therefore could be interpreted pretty reasonably as a ban on Young Earth Creationism. Obviously, in 1988 that book did not exist. In 1992, when I think it came out, I was already gravitating to FSSPX, and so I only later came to a Novus Ordo parish where that CCC was on display, namely in 2000. I think it was in 2001 that I found out about § 283.
So, part of the beauty of converting to Catholicism in 1988 was, I could be Young Earth Creationist and no Catholic had a right to upbraid me for it. If I abandoned strict YEC for a creation 20 000 years ago or so and "forgotten history" on the lines of Conan or LotR, it was only through friends. I left that on reading St. Augustine, City of God being very clearly Young Earth Creationist. And when at a sensitive moment I was not quite prepared to stand away from Novus Ordo masses, when no Latin mass was available, and I did what the priests of FSSPX never recommend I did not feel I was disobedient. But when I found § 283, I was kind of feeling trapped.
5:42 "SSPX split off some time in the seventies"
Moot point whether it was 76 or 88 or ever, or when accepting a wrong pope they shouldn't have accepted in the first place (Mgr Lefebvre was in fact shy of coming out as sede because he feared to be elected as antipope if he did, plus he was pretty cool with John XXIII whom many sedes see as a first shill of Communism or objective heretic or whatever) ...
6:22 "unavoidable for all of us"
Well, except for cradle Catholics and cradle anything else, who can say "well, it was already decided before I was born" ... (and in the case of cradle Protestants, this is obviously pretty bad, objectively).
10:18 Note, please, he did not state that novelty actually could contaminate the whole Church.
That's the pretty obvious difference between Mgr Lefebvre and Luther, between opposing a novelty known to be such from childhood memories of people who were recently alive and or known to be such from memories a decade old in the trio opposing modernism in South France, Revd Houghton, then Prior or Superior Gérard Calvet, and on and off visits by Monseigneur Lefebvre, and opposing a novelty detected by brave reanalysis of centuries old texts, like the Reformers did.
Error can come creeping in, sure. But defeating it can never be a task of finding bits and pieces over different authors a millennium back (Sts Jerome and Augustine were obviously c. a millennium before Luther and Calvin).
10:40 Do I take your view as being Vincent of Lérins was denying infallibility, because he said error could seek to infect the whole Church (and obviously in the Arian crisis come close to achieving it)?
I think that's over-reading him, quite a lot.
10:58 Ah, as I thought, you are denying there is reasonably a middle ground between a Catholic saying "if Pope Francis says we must accept science, that's the Holy Spirit leading him and us through him" and a Reformer saying "if error crept in 1000 to 500 years ago, we need to get it out or to get out of it" as if there were no middle ground?
And because you see no middle ground, you deny St. Vincent being precisely on such a middle ground ... i e error can at any point in time, but especially near the end times come close to seducing all Catholics, but at no point ever quite achieve it. Not even temporarily while waiting for a Reformer.
11:16 Bodily assumption of Mary.
"crept into the whole Church" on your view c. 5th C. (at least it is accepted by:
- Roman Catholics (including Old Catholics etc)
- Eastern Orthodox
- Copts
- Armenians
- Assyrians
"Resisted" very retroactively on what your view would reasonably be, by Reformers, perhaps Waldensians before them, I don't think you want to bring in Tondrakians a bit earlier than Waldensians, and I definitely don't think you want to bring in Paulicians and Albigensians who reject the Body of Jesus was ever entering Heaven on Ascension day.
Not a good parallel to Arianism creeping in by 325 and defeated by 383 at least among Romans, or Priscillianism, also pretty close between beforethe death of Priscillian in 385 and defeated by the First Council of Toledo (which expresses the filioque!) by 400 AD. Therefore also not a good parallel to Catholics these days resisting errors that were condemned 100 years ago by Catholic authorities as such.
11:34 There is a huge difference between sth being (in the sources remaining to our time!!) "unheard of" simply and it actually being pretty directly opposed.
The remaining sources from the first centuries, say the Ante-Nicene fathers, are not giving in their remaining texts a very complete doctrine compared to later questions arising. They definitely do not directly endorse "sola fide" justification and some Protestants admit this as the first thing "creeping in" in the post-Apostolic generation or two or three generations. How can you affirm "sola fide" justification, when it's not explicitly in the early Church, and also not explicitly in the Bible, at least not incontrovertably so, and then upbraid us for Bodily Assumption of Mary?
Especially as St. Vincent was not referring formally to Antiquity ending by the fall of the Western Emperor in opposition to the Middle Ages, but "antiquity" in a more general sense as "get as far back as you can, like before the conflict at hand arose"? Materially, that would in his case coincide with Antiquity, as he died before Romulus Augustulus was deposed, but he was obviously not making any such formal identification, which would make the questions turn on fine points in the expertise of philologists (much as I value us) knowledgeable about matters a thousand years ago.
12:50 Well, will you believe that the woman clothed in the Sun:
- gave birth to Jesus
- was assumed into Heaven?
[Partly my bad memory, partly my understanding when I was converting, but She did appear as a sign in Heaven which is arguably enough for my purpose. I had a comment challenge me on it, but cannot respond to it from this library, only see it in the inbox and then add this here.]
- JM
- @JM-jj3eg
- The woman in Revelation 12 was not "assumed into heaven".
Rev. 12:1-5
Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.
John is seeing all the apocalyptic events as signs in heaven, including the woman giving birth and the child, and the dragon. It no more teaches the bodily assumption of Mary than the bodily assumption of Satan, even if you think the woman is Mary.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- I am sorry for a slight mistake, @JM-jj3eg , I referred from memory without directly checking.
Now, I actually do think it is sufficient She appeared as a sign in Heaven, but I must admit I slightly misread the passage, back when I was converting, and didn't correct it by closer reading after that.
My bad, thanks for pointing it out.
No comments:
Post a Comment