That large numbers of humanity continue to view the American Catholic Church as a legitimate arm of Christendom is puzzling. Considering its refusal to purge the priesthood of homosexuals and pedophiles, its effective departure from expository preaching and normative doctrine, as well as the recent announcement by the U.S. Catholic bishops to forgo evangelization of Jews, one can only logically conclude that the ‘Church’ has abandoned Jesus Christ and divine revelation as contained in the Scriptures. Not only is the Catholic hierarchy rejecting both the totality of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20) and the conversion experience of first century Jewish Christians Paul, Peter, Stephen, Matthew and John, but the papal system is also cementing the great divide between orthodox Christianity and the various heretical apostasies which no doubt includes modern Roman Catholicism.

In a total misunderstanding of Scripture, American bishops fallaciously deduced that “…campaigns that target Jews for conversion to Christianity are no longer theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church.” Their syllogistic reasoning is as follows: 1) God has established an eternal covenantal relationship with the Jewish people; 2) Jews have been given a divine mission ‘to witness to God’s faithful love’; conclusion, Christian witnessing to Jews is a mistaken venture. Of course, it helps that Catholics grant human traditions and whimsical magisterial edicts equity with God’s written Word, allowing Rome to periodically issue amendments to previously infallible maxims.

After negotiating with Conservative and Reform rabbis, the bishops determined that Jews were not in need of salvation through acceptance of Christ as Savior. The brazen decision contradicts centuries of Catholic tradition and Scripture long accepted as authoritative, which makes the decision all the more puzzling.

Consider first the church’s newfangled position that the Abrahamic covenant precludes the Jews of their need for salvation. While no Scriptural justification for the new position is forthcoming, they nonetheless decided to strike at the legitimacy of passages such as John 3:16, Romans 3:23-30 and Romans 9, segments which prescribes salvation for both Jew and Gentile alike.

The implications of this negation of Scripture are immense. The conversion of Saul of Tarsus (later changed to Paul) on the road to Damascus (Acts 9) was unnecessary and ultimately invalid. Logically, Jesus Christ lied to Saul, seeing as there was no real need to take the Gospel to Jews, least of all for Saul, himself, to convert. Moreover, Peter’s exposition of the Gospel in Acts 4 was also alarmist and misguided, as was Peter and John’s healing of and preaching to Jews in Acts 3. Jesus Christ lied to Peter in Acts 10 when it was revealed to Peter that both dietary and spiritual prohibitions formerly observed were no longer valid as a barrier to reaching others with the Gospel.

Perhaps most devastating, though, is the effect this pronouncement has on Catholicism’s ‘triad’ of authority: Scripture, apostolic tradition, and the teaching office of the church (magisterium). Implications of this authority system include: the Petrine doctrine (primacy of Peter), apostolic succession, papal supremacy and infallibility, and, as it relates to Scripture, the acceptance of the Apocrypha.

Whether they know it or not, the bishops’ edict undermines this entire authoritative structure, however! Indeed, the apostles, including the Jewish Peter whom Catholics venerate as Christ’s vicar on earth, subscribed to Christ’s dying for all mankind, Jews and Gentiles. Accordingly, if we accept this latest installment of arbitrary Catholic dictum, the Catholic Church is built on a misguided Jewish ‘convert’. Of course, this presupposes that the Petrine doctrine is truth, a belief soundly rejected by evangelicals. But that’s an entirely different debate.

Unless the Catholic Church cleanses itself internally, erasing the stench of liberalism and its accompanying heresies, evangelical Christians have every reason to distance ourselves from Rome’s errant ways and attempts to affix Christendom under one broad umbrella.

The bad American Catholic Bishops are not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, Who is as pristine, faithful, and authentic as She always was and always will be. The American Bishops who were bad, on the whole, are unfaithful and perhaps hereticalmembers of this Church, who, by their sins, have removed themselves from Her grace.

Your comment that evangelicals are justified in keeping their distance from Rome, that is, in remaining outside the True Church, is ridiculous. There is no justification for error! There is never any reason to leave the Roman Catholic Church, because She is the only Bride of Christ. And there is every reason to remain within Her, and return to Her, at this time. As she is being crucified from within and without, the place Our Lord wants us to be is with Her on Golgatha with St. John, Mary of Clopas, and the Mother of God.

Evangelicals and other protestants can look condescendingly from the crowd all they want, but this is not pleasing to Our Lord.

None of this is new. One basic difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants believe that human corruption justifies rebellion against those human institutions that derive authority from God. It is in that sense that liberalism and protestantism converge: in the notion that human corruption justifies rebellion against divinely authorized institutions. The justification seems to be a variation on some argument from perfection. But God never promised that the human authorities He placed over you would be perfect; He just commanded your obedience to them.

The history of the Arian heresy is instructional here, for anyone who is interested in actually understanding how Catholics can remain faithful in the face of manifest corruption. Certainly running into the arms of those who started the liberal rebellion in the first place is not the answer for any serious Catholic.

I agree with Mr. Brewer, by the way, that the pronouncement about evangelizing Jews is, if taken as doctrine and if interpreted as he has interpreted it, utterly heretical. I also agree that to NOT interpret the non-binding musings of some American bishops in that way (with the exception of the ludicrous notion that it was an authoritative doctrinal statement) requires Clintonesque parsing. I expect Mr. Brewer and I would agree on a great deal that we would not share in common with the bishops who wrote the document. The question, however, is what sort of thing could theoretically justify outright rebellion; does the postulation of such a state of affairs in itself reflect a lack of faith in the Holy Spirit that guides the Church; and to what extent does our current state of affairs meet that requirement. Anyone who has not yet discovered the meaning of the word “sedevacantist” and contemplated it in all of its ramifications with a full understanding of Church history and teaching has not yet seriously considered those questions.

I absolutely agree with Matt’s first comment, ‘It is in that sense that liberalism and protestantism converge: in the notion that human corruption justifies rebellion against divinely authorized institutions.’

Indeed, it was in Luther’s pride that he rebelled against the Holy Catholic Church, which was founded by the Son of God.

The other side of the equivocation is the denial of Tradition, Petrine doctrine, and “give unto Caesar”. Rather than being a rebel against (partly human and therefore always plagued by the Mystery of Iniquity) divinely commissioned institutions one can simply claim that there are no divinely commissioned institutions. This also converges with liberalism: if there are no divinely commissioned institutions then I personally become the measure of all things.

The debate over rebellion against authority, whther it is legitimate in light of Scripture or whether it is not is certainly debatable. However, I think the weight of Scripture falls on the side of exposing corrupt authority, either temporal or in the Church.

When teachings handed down from a particular sect are squarely opposed to Scripture, liberals and even some conservatives regard as divisive those Christians who speak out against such inbiblical musings. BUt the Word of God blatantly instructs Christians to guard the purity of Scripture. Recall passages like 1 Tim 1:18-19; 6:20; 2 Timothy 4:2-5.

We read in Acts 20 and 2nd Peter 2 that false teachers within the church will arise, peddling destructive heresies, distortions of the truth and destroying the faith of some. These teachings certainly promise that these false teachers come from both inside and outside the Body of Christ.

As with this apostasy of the American Bishops, I am simply testing all things as 1 Thes. 5:21 says to do. Recall that in Acts 17:11 the Berean believers examined the words of Paul to determine his veracity.

Christians are held accountable for proclaiming the whole Word of God, warning others of false teachers, as Acts 20:26-28 and Ezekiel 33:7-9; 34:1-10 instructs.

This isn’t a suggestion but rather divine mandate, and should whoever the offender is not repent, we have the obligation to espose them before the church (1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 2:17-18; 4:14-15; 3 John 9-10)

The Catholic bishops are compromising on one of the essential doctrines of orthrodox Christianity and to keep mum on the subject would be a sin. Indeed, you allege that this is American Catholic decision and not sanctioned by Rome. However, in 1967 during the Second Vatican Council, the Church said as much, that Jews were not to be witnessed to. Moreover, it stretches the Church’s credibility and Rome’s authority to believe Rome would sit idly by as th American Catholics rendered null and void the atoning work of Christ. Rome certainly knew about it, and if by chance they didn’t, their silence in rebuking the American bishops since last week’s pronouncement wreaks of duplicity.

I think Mr. Brewer may be exaggerating what that one very confused and confusing published document, with the word “Reflections” initiating its very title, purports to be:

http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2002/02-161.htm

Furthermore, he seems to be under the impression that Catholics are sworn to silence and abject servitute to clerics, contra both Sacred Scripture and Tradition. In that he is simply mistaken. I personally have grave reservations about John Paul II’s phenomenalist approach to Thomism, and I am willing to explain why to anyone with a hope of understanding, just as an example.

As to the status of Vatican II and its actual authoritative pronouncements, I have already indicated that the history of the Arian heresy is instructive, whether one views Vatican II as legitmate or not. Mr. Brewer has not referenced any specific authoritative Vatican II document or authoritative encyclicals with respect to evangelization of Jews, so it is difficult to assess precisely what is troubling him there. But lets assume for the sake of argument that the situation is far worse then Mr. Brewer supposes: for example, suppose just for the sake of argument that John Paul II is personally a closet Satanist bent on destroying Christianity by promulgating heresy. Even during the most radical circumstance of rampant heresy among clerics of all ranks the most one might attempt to justify is sedevacantism. In that sort of circumstance one would want to be utterly certain of one’s own prayerful humility and personal holiness. None of what Mr. Brewer (or anyone, ever, to my knowledge) has stated justifies actual deliberate separation from the Church.

Specifically the history of the Arian heresy (and really of all the early Christological heresies) is instructive in that even actual radical doctrinal conflicts do not justify open rebellion. Nor do they require a passive silent body of orthodox faithful. Mr Brewer has not indicated that he sees any possibilities for an orthodox Christian other than open rebellion or prayerful silence. Perhaps he does see other possibilities and has simply not stated as much.

Repudiation is quite different from open rebellion. That is what I am doing.

Arian’s heresy as really promulgated at the Council of Nicea was indeed a excellent example of the doctrinal rebuke I am attempting to undertake here. Arius was in attendance, at the command of the Emperor, along with a few supporters. Most notable of these were two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, as well as Eusebius of Nicomedia. This group represented the viewpoint that Christ was of a different substance (Greek: heteroousios) than the Father, that is, that He is a creature. Obviously, this was heresy.

The determinants at Nicea were forced to see that they needed to use a term that could not be misunderstood or manipulated by the Arians, that would clearly differentiate between a belief in the full deity of Christ and all those positions that would compromise that belief. Therefore, they focused on the term homoousios as being completely antithetical to the Arian position, and at the same time reflective of the scriptural truth that Jesus Christ is not a creature, but is fully God, incarnate deity.

They were not compromising the existence of three Persons, but were instead safeguarding the full deity of the Persons, and in particular, the Son. The resulting creed, signed by all but Arius and two bishops, was quite clear in its position:

“We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made….”

Now consider this Matt: The creed also contained the “anathema” (i.e., condemnation) for those who rejected these truths, and for the first time, such anathemas carried with them civil repercussions. Arius and some of his followers were banished, even though for a short time. This set a precedent that eventually would have tremendous impact on culture and church, but it is also a separate issue from the theological proclamation of the council. Nicea was not creating some new doctrine, some new belief, but clearly, explicitly, defining truth against error.

Hence, there is certainly precendent for rebuking and even banishing heretics, such as even the American Catholic Bishops.

Heresy certainly derives from Satan, and so while Rome has not signed off on the Bishops’ announcement, the Vatican’s silence speaks volumes and suggests tacit agreement.

Furthermore, what the Catholic church since Vatican II has ignored is that when a religion’s view of God (or Ultimate Reality) and salvation is fundamentally false, then it must be considered a false religion, no matter what truth it may teach on ethics or other matters. Judaism falls into this category of false religions because it rejects Christ.

If taken to its logical conclusion, Vatican II and even Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio (1991) portend that religious dialogue with members of other religions is to replace actual missionary efforts.

Paul repudiates Catholicism’s descent into apostasy in Romans 1:16, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”

This is one of many verses that reveals the heresy of the Roman Catholic Church and the two covenant theory.

I scoured the first part of Mr. Brewer’s comment for something to disagree with and found nothing. In fact certain heretical acts can result in automatic excommunication (which as a formal matter isolates the heretic from the sacraments). Archibishop Lefevbre experienced this recently.

The notion that the Vatican should pronounce on every theological comment that any Bishop ever makes is more than a little unreasonable. The idea that this is all taking place in a vacuum of complete submissive silence is, again, simply uninformed. For example:

http://www.thrownback.blogspot.com/2002_08_18_thrownback_archive.html#80530899
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2002_08_11_markshea_archive.html#80205712

as a few among thousands.

Mr. Brewer’s characterization of what John Paul II call’s “The Church of Mary” — that is, religions like protestantism not in explicit communion with Christ’s Church — can most charitably be interpreted as simplistic and uninformed.

I have grave problems with John Paul II’s phenomenological discursive approach precisely because it encourages errors like the one being made — no doubt in good faith — by Mr. Brewer. Once he has explained in detail the categorical difference between mission and dialogue perhaps we can understand how the use of the word “dialogue” in Vatican II as a prudential pastoral emphasis entails an objective change in the deposit of faith. Clearly the introduction of “one in being with the Father” at the Nicene counsel, which dispute actually was about specifically the deposit of faith rather than the pastoral emphasis of the evangelical commission, doesn’t give him any trouble. So I think there must be a confusion of criteria going on.

Vatican II under its own representation, like the counsel of Nicea, changed no doctrines whatsoever. If it did, it would automatically invalidate itself (and that might justify a sedevacantist in taking that position). But Mr. Brewer has certainly not made the case simply by quoting Paul against an obscure document that does not pretend to be even a coherent finished theological statement, let alone part of the deposit of faith.

In the encyclical that Mr. Brewer references, John Paul II says, among other things:

“In reply to the Jewish religious authorities who question the apostles about the healing of the lame man, Peter says: “By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well…. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:10, 12). This statement, which was made to the Sanhedrin, has a universal value, since for all people-Jews and Gentiles alike - salvation can only come from Jesus Christ.”

But perhaps for Mr. Brewer this is the objectionable part:

“The speeches in Lystra and Athens (cf. Acts 14:15-17; 17:22-31) are acknowledged as models for the evangelization of the Gentiles. In these speeches Paul enters into ‘dialogue’ with the cultural and religious values of different peoples. To the Lycaonians, who practiced a cosmic religion, he speaks of religious experiences related to the cosmos. With the Greeks he discusses philosophy and quotes their own poets (cf. Acts 17:18, 26-28). The God whom Paul wishes to reveal is already present in their lives; indeed, this God has created them and mysteriously guides nations and history. But if they are to recognize the true God, they must abandon the false gods which they themselves have made and open themselves to the One whom God has sent to remedy their ignorance and satisfy the longings of their hearts. These are speeches which offer an example of the inculturation of the Gospel.”

But it is tough to see it as being heretical. In fact it is framed as a response to the question which preceded it:

“Nevertheless, also as a result of the changes which have taken place in modern times and the spread of new theological ideas, some people wonder: Is missionary work among non-Christians still relevant? Has it not been replaced by inter-religious dialogue? Is not human development an adequate goal of the Church’s mission? Does not respect for conscience and for freedom exclude all efforts at conversion? Is it not possible to attain salvation in any religion? Why then should there be missionary activity?”

If anything, John Paul II seems to be emphasizing that the Christian evangelical mission has not changed. It is hard to see what Mr. Brewer finds specifically to disagree with in this encyclical.

Oh, and the whole encyclical is here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html

in case there is any concern about context or other content.

Don’t you think Matt, that the Vatican has an obligation to speak out about something so key as that issued by the American bishops? We’re talking about the invalidation of two thousand years of Scriptural mandate. If the Vatican should speak out about anything it should be this.

No. Nothing heretical was being presented as being ‘of faith’. In fact nothing at all was presented as being ‘of faith’. Mr. Brewer seems to think that it is the Vatican’s job to run around and shout down every stupid ecclesial voice, even when those ecclesial voices are explicitly “reflecting” on personal opinions. On what precisely does he base this cry for papal tyranny?

Matt, you’re parsing words here now. Semantics aside, what the American bishops issued was a repudiation of doctrine accepted for centuries. That is the point.

You can retrieve cyclicals from Pope John Paul dating back some time, but that is really irrelevant. He needs to condemn this act of capriciousness carried out by his heretical underlings.

I don’t see how this is meeting with so much resistance from you. This is a major, core theological doctrine, not some environmental or social justice pronouncement. In other words, the Pope should speak out against this, assuming he disagrees with it.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if the Pope disagrees with it, since the bishops speak goes against the Word of God, rendering their stupor as heretical.

Nonsense. For all Mr. Brewer knows, the published clarification of that document’s status (I provided the link earlier) was the result of a behind-the-scenes bitch-slapping by the Vatican.

Furthermore, I did not “retrieve the encyclical.” I simply quoted from the encyclical that Mr. Brewer himself referenced as an example of the Pope’s supposed heresy. Mr Brewer stated that the logical conclusion of _Redemptoris Missio_ is “that religious dialogue with members of other religions is to replace actual missionary efforts” (Mr. Brewer’s own words), but when confronted with the actual text and the fact that it does no such thing he chides me for bringing it up; as if it were me who brought it up in the first place.

I agree that in all likelihood any number of, and perhaps the majority of, the American Bishops hold and promulgate heretical beliefs. Even if we assume out of Christian charity that this is not the case, it is clear that the majority are utterly incompetent, and that their ass-covering public-relations-focused politically correct orientation is beneath contempt. I furthermore agree that the document that has Mr. Brewer in such a tizzy certainly looks heretical as a prima facie matter, although Mr. Brewer still seems to have missed the fact that it was expressly published as not-fully-formed personal opinions for further discussion rather than proclaimed ex cathedra as clarified doctrine.

That is somewhat analogous to (but far less extreme than) the Arian/Nicene period: but Mr. Brewer doesn’t seem to have any problem with Catholics having remained faithful rather than rebelling in protestant schism during that period.

In summary, Mr. Brewer’s initial lament that “one can only logically conclude that the ‘Church’ has abandoned Jesus Christ and divine revelation as contained in the Scriptures” is, in the most charitable possible interpretation, deeply ignorant of both the facts and of basic logic.

Finally, I might respectfully suggest that while parsing words is by no means the only important aspect of rational discourse it is most certainly a necessary one.

Matt, again, you miss the most important aspects of the Pope’s opus. Consider this import from said:

“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that “this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God.”(19)

The first sentence expressing his belief that salvation is offerred to others besides those who accept Christ is damning enough. He later heads off into another goofy direction with talk a mysterious grace that offers salvation to those who haven’t heard the Gospel. He offers no Scriptural basis for this belief, and indeed, I think it’s contrived rather than legitimately deduced from the Word.

Read further and you find the Pope relating an earlier correspondence with the Asian Bishops in which he states, “I recently wrote to the bishops of Asia: “Although the Church gladly acknowledges whatever is true and holy in the religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam as a reflection of that truth which enlightens all people, this does not lessen her duty and resolve to proclaim without fail Jesus Christ who is ‘the way, and the truth and the life.’…The fact that the followers of other religions can receive God’s grace and be saved by Christ apart from the ordinary means which he has established does not thereby cancel the call to faith and baptism which God wills for all people.”(100) Indeed Christ himself “while expressly insisting on the need for faith and baptism, at the same time confirmed the need for the Church, into which people enter through Baptism as through a door.” (101) Dialogue should be conducted and implemented with the conviction that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation and that she alone possesses the fullness of the means of salvation.(102)

Matt, the Pope here is expressly saying that there is salvation besides that offered by Christ. So no matter the orthodox posturing in other portions of the REDEMPTORIS MISSIO, the Pope contradicts himself here, placating other religions with unscriptural compromise.

In light of this, the quotes you provide are rendered meaningless. if a non-believer read this from the Pope, I doubt he would feel the need to abandon Islam or Buddhism for Jesus Christ. After all, the Pope says that all religions have kernels of truth and even have touches of that ‘mysterious grace’ he pulls out of nowhere.

Mr. Brewer apparently thinks that he has discovered a new and novel modern innovation in the problem of salvation for the unevangelized (e.g. foreign natives, old testament prophets, MTV dancers, etc). I suppose the old testament prophets and sixth century Samoans are all in Hell.

No doubt this will be dismissed as irrelvant parsing. I am at this point unconvinced that there is any possibility of productive discussion: for Mr. Brewer the Pope is the whore of babylon and that is that.

If one is encountering this basic theological problem for the first time, and one is further willing to suspend belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon long enough to make a genuine inquiry, the following might be more easy to understand than an encyclical intended for advanced theologians:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/teachframes.htm

————————

Sorry, try this link:

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/chura5.htm

I think frames-based web sites are a modernist heresy.

I doubted you would be able to refute the Pope’s own words. You still, though, obfuscate several important things.

First off, even if you grant that salvation was possible previous to Christ coming (I certainly believe this), after the Messiah came, salvation is only through Him. Paul and Peter both make it quite clear that Christ supersedes everything else.

Romans 4 sees Paul lay out the reason why Abraham and the prophets of old were saved:
1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Galations Chapter 3 expounds a bit more on the idea of the faithful Jews and Gentiles of earlier times having been saved as well because they believed and had faith in Jehovah God. Consider the Scripture:

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

As for those natives and non-believers down through the centuries who have never heard the Gospel, it’s my belief taken from Scripture that these people are without excuse; Paul says that the Lord has placed within everyone who has ever lived an impetus to find the one true God. Read Romans 1, which I have provided for you.

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:
7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.
11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.
15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

If you disagree with this then take your beef to God, not with me. In light of this, as well, the Pope’s nonsense about a mysterious grace is just that…nonsense.

Could the “impetus to find the one true God” that Mr. Brewer references in Romans 1 be the same as the “mysterious grace” that the Pope speaks of? That is, both would seem to involve the possibility of a person coming to saving grace without, on the one hand, possession of concrete knowledge of Christianity, or, on the other, possession of true Christian doctrine?

Well, lets look at what Mr, Brewer has actually criticized here. He only ever actually quibbles with one of the Pope’s actual sentences. In the entire rest of the verbal deluge he is purely arguing against his own interpretations, which he describes initially as a “goofy direction”, so there isn’t much I can do to help him there. I have no intention of attempting to comprehensively address Mr. Brewer’s personal interpretations of anything, but I will happily review the one actual comment that addresses some actual words from the actual encyclical:

The one actual statement in _Redemptoris Missio_ that Mr. Brewer critiques (or attempts to critique) is the following:

“The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church.”

Mr. Brewer’s critique consists of the following:

“The first sentence expressing his belief that salvation is offerred to others besides those who accept Christ is damning enough.”

Mr Brewer then goes on in his latest comment, amidst a deluge of cut-and-pasted scriptural quotes, to confirm that he believes that the same premise is scriptural; but yet he has privately determined that a proper interpretation is less universal and just than the one promulgated traditionally by the Church through the last two millenia; to wit:

“As for those natives and non-believers down through the centuries who have never heard the Gospel, it’s my belief taken from Scripture that these people are without excuse; Paul says that the Lord has placed within everyone who has ever lived an impetus to find the one true God.”

Just so. Mr. Brewer’s private opinion on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture is that he agrees with the Pope about the universal offer of salvation, but somehow he extra-scripturally comes to the conclusion that it requires the damnation of American Indians who failed to answer God’s call in the fourth century by building ships and sailing to Rome for baptism. (Might “a mysterious grace” be an apt description of the nature of this universal call? Or would that be too goofy?)

I believe that my prior assessment, that little was to be gained from further discussion, has been proven out.

Matt instead of playing the part of unwavering papal apologist, why not step back and actaully look at what it is that you are defending here.

First the Pope is contending that salvation is available outside of Jesus Christ. That is clear. However, the idea in Romans 1: 16-25 in which Paul says that those who have not accepted Christ are without excuse, is that these people, whether they be Muslims, Buddhists, tribal sorts, or anything else, have been offered proof of the existence and presence of a loving God through His creation. Everywhere they look they can see His handiwork—His fingerprint is everywhere.

If these people are prodded the Holy Spirit will lead them into a knowledge of the Truth in Jesus Christ.

Really, though, the fact that we must discuss these things is an indictment of the Catholic Church’s abstaining of evangelization for so many centuries and the Church’s repression of those who would. Read about the Catholic Church’s general loathing of Christopher Columbus and others before him who wished to explore and carry Christ to the rest of the world. The Church often times stood in the way of such endeavors.

As a result, there were certainly other peoples in other lands who died and went to hell because they never heard the Gospel. The Church was not carrying out the Great Commission. Consider also the hostility of the Church when Gutenberg invented the printing press/movable type; they tried in vain to curb the spread of different vernacular’s to foreign peoples. WHy would they do this, Matt, knowing that there were hundreds of thousands who needed the Gospel and who weren’t going to get it?

I am rather humored by your straw man argument attempting to cast doubt on my explanation because I cut and pasted Holy Scripture so that you and others could read the passages commonly accepted by leading theologians as the support of the postion I just enunciated. Using cut and paste as a pejorative is cute, but it has no bearing on the Scripture contained therein.

You also can’t seem to grasp what universal salvation actaully entails. It means that the Gospel is available to all who seek the Truth of Jesus Christ. Yes it’s offered to everyone, but no it is not available outside of Jesus Christ. Paul is clear about this, and attempts to charge that this is my own ‘private’ interpretation is absurd. It’s clear with a simple reading of the passage in Romans.

It wasn’t the responsibility of American Indians to build boats and sail the Atlantic to Europe; rather it was the commission of European Christendom to get the Gospel to them. As Paul also says in Romans 10:14, how will the lost hear lest Christians tell them the Good News.

For centuries prior to the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church made no attempt at getting the Gospel either East or West. If they had attempted to go West they would have hit upon America, as Columbus eventaully did. There was certainly a spirit of apostasy and contentment that has settled in on the Church. Only after the Reformation, the advent of the Printing Press and the general freedom from the Catholic Europe that these two events afforded, did the missionary zeal rekindle and the need of others of the Gospel was re-discovered, so to speak.

To its credit, the Catholic Church sent our French Jesuits and Spanish dominicans and franciscans, but the point is that they might have encouraged these developments much earlier if they had relinquished their iron grip of illiteracy and depravity from Europe. That is my opinion, but I think it is certainly a plausible explanation.

Once men were freed up from the oppression of the Catholic Church, they produced and sailed and wrote and made a variety of different technologies that could certainly have been made centuries earlier had the Catholic Church’s death grip been broken.

The Pope’s ‘mysterious grace’ concoction is not congruous with Scripture like Romans chapter 1. The Pope posits a salvation attainable outside of Christ, while Scripture says that salvation is universally offered to all who will accept Jesus Christ.

I don’t know how to make it any clearer Matt.

Mr. Brewer once again fails to realize that his own position — that salvation is possible only through Christ, yet that mysteriously all are called universally to this salvation (see Romans 2 14-16 for example) is identical to that promulgated by the Pope. Where Mr Brewer departs from both Scripture and the Pope is in the insistence that this implies that, to repeat the example, American Indians in the fourth century are universally damned for what Mr. Brewer assumes to be a failure in their response to this universal call. Mr. Brewer will find no definitive scriptural support for this private interpretation of his, no matter how much bluster surrounds it. The fact that he is placing himself on God’s throne and judging these Indians, and the fact that he is denying God’s omnipotence in the process, seems to escape Mr. Brewer. Furthermore, changing the perspective to the requirement for Christian mission does not alter his basic contention that these particular Indians are right now burning in Hell; it is merely an attempt to change the subject.

Mr. Brewer’s contention that the Pope believes that salvation is possible apart from Christ is refuted by the Pope’s own words: “…salvation can only come from Jesus Christ.” (see above). The fact that Mr. Brewer has a personal incapacity to understand _Redemtoris Missio_ — a document intended for Catholic theologians — can hardly be blamed on the Pope.

Matt, you continue to gloss over reality. As I stated many times, the Pope contradicts his orthodoxy. You seem oblivious to this fact, even though the information is plain from a reading of his Missio. Shall I once again paste the section where he contradicts himself?

How do you define contradiction, my friend?

You are also attempting to argue that only theologians can understand the Missio? Then why are you audacious enough to tell me that how I read the Mission is wrong, considering only trained theologians, by your estimation, are worthy of interpreting the Missio. It’s logically inconsistent.

You have retreated to Catholicism’s favorite realm, that of appealing to papal interpretation of seemingly contradictory pronouncements, rendering the lay person insufficiently intelligent to read and reason on his own. This is the sort of arrogant, exclusive, unbiblical posturing that brought on the Reformation.

Christ came not so a group of miscreant vatican clerics could dispense relative truth as they saw fit, but rather for all men and women to be ale to have a personal relationship with God through Him.

YOu obviously don’t understand this, which explains your inability to grasp what Paul is saying in Romans 1.

Romans 10:14 refutes your assertion that, “Where Mr Brewer departs from both Scripture and the Pope is in the insistence that this implies that, to repeat the example, American Indians in the fourth century are universally damned for what Mr. Brewer assumes to be a failure in their response to this universal call. Mr. Brewer will find no definitive scriptural support for this private interpretation of his, no matter how much bluster surrounds it.”

By logical deduction, we can know that the blood of those who have not heard the Gospel who are in hell today is upon the Chruch who didn’t get the message to them.

It’s interesting to see the difference in your Catholic outlook and my evangelical take on this matter: You like to refer to the Pope’s own words as proof of his orthodoxy but when I show you his blatant contradictions as espoused in the Missio, you suddenly claim the Missio is only for theologians to explain and interpret. On the other hand, I appeal to the Word of God, I point to Scripture that is quite clear and doesn’t take a theologian to understand.

Alas, this is the greatest symptom of the catholic Chruch’s increasing heretical tendencies. Failure to rely on Scripture and instead rely on arbitrary papal interpretations that change from century to century is the root of this entire debate.

Mr. Brewer assumes that he knows things about me personally which he does not. He also fails to produce a scripture that reads, e.g.

Brewer 3:24 “After Pentecost, all people everywhere who die without first hearing the Gospel are damned for eternity.”

I am quite finished here.

It’s difficult to argue when you are at the end of your rope.

That you cannot grasp the idea of logical deductions is troublesome. Scripture is plain that Christ is the only way of salvation; Scripture is also plain that those who don’t accept Christ will die in their sins and spend eternity in hell separated from God. By inference, by implication, by deduction or whatever, we know that the lost, even those who haven’t heard the Gospel preached per say, are going to spend eternity in hell. There is no equivocation or caveat.

This seems harsh, even I acknowledge that, but as Paul states in Romans Chapter 1, everyone has a desire to know the one true God. If after observing the world around them they are curious and sincere, the Holy Spirit will lead them to a knowledge of Jesus Christ, similar to the experience of every Believer, from initial recognition of God as Creator, to conviction of sins and to the acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior.

I just came across a piece from the Christian Research Institute that eloquently and forcefully buttresses what I’ve been trying to make clear to Matt and others. I hope you’ll consider this and check the passages for yourself. You’ll find it very well reasoned and logical and a clear refutation of the catholic heresy.

“If Jesus is the only way to God, what happens to those who’ve never heard the gospel, but follow their own religions? Can they be saved?
“Isn’t it unfair for God to send people to hell even if they’ve never heard about Him or His Son, Jesus Christ?” Whether it’s asked with the utmost sincerity or used as a convenient excuse to reject God, we must realize that Christianity’s truthfulness depends not on how this question is answered, but upon the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:13-19).

While the Bible affirms that Christ is the only Savior (Acts 4:12), it also states that God is truly just (Gen. 18:25; Job 34:12; Acts 17:31) and he loves us with an everlasting love (Jer. 31:3; John 3:16; cf. 2 Pet. 3:9). He continues to demonstrate this by making Himself known through His handiwork in creation (Rom. 1:19-20), but he also inscribes his knowledge on the very tablets of our hearts, or conscience (Rom. 2:14-15). Because no one has been kept in the dark about God, we’re all accountable to Him (Luke 12:47-48).

In spite of this, man has answered God’s love with rebellion, repeatedly rejecting what God has revealed (Rom. 3:10-18). All of us deserve to be sentenced to hell. But despite our depravity, God has mercifully chosen to provide a way to save us.

Although God is sovereign and he can deal with individuals in extraordinary ways, He tells us in the Bible that there’s no other way to reach Him except through His one provision — the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:6). From this, we can only conclude that those who have never heard of Christ are indeed lost. They’re lost as a result of their own actions, and not because of God. People don’t end up in hell because of what they haven’t heard; they get there because of their failure to act responsibly on what God has already revealed to them — whether through creation in Romans 1, through their conscience in Romans 2, or through the light of Christ in Romans 3. Let us, therefore, labor all the more to bring God’s message to a world in desperate need of salvation (Rom. 1:16; 10:13-15). And remember that if those who’ve never heard the gospel are indeed going to go to heaven, why should we even be involved in foreign missions? Let’s just keep everyone in the dark. In fact if you really draw this argument out to its logical conclusion, Jesus Christ did not come to seek and save those who are lost, he would have come to seek and lose those who are saved. He would then not be the great saviour of the world, he would become its great destroyer.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

Discussions of this issue can be found in the following books: Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (B574/$17) and Is Jesus the Only Savior? (SB614/$17). These resources are available through CRI’s online bookstore by clicking on the title or by calling our Resource Center at (888)7000-CRI or by mailing a check or money order to PO Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688-7000.

Seems like there’s a lot of “inference, implication, deduction, or whatever” going on in here. If the Scripture is so plain on this issue, why is Mr. Brewer quoting and giving addresses to his own ecclesial authorities rather than simply producing the plain statement of doctrine from the Scripture?

His assertion that Romans 10:14 states this doctrine plainly is clearly and manifestly wrong. So where exactly is the plain statement of this doctrine, that one can interpret without being a theologian — this doctrine which states plainly that American Indians who lived in the year 400 are all universally damned to Hell — in Scripture?

I’m not sure how useful it is to argue with Protestant evangelicals. And believe me, I have years of experience doing so. It’s a lost cause. It’s like talking to a barn door. The best we can do is refute Protestant heresy wherever it is found — even in the Church, particularly in America — and expand the boundaries of the True Faith. And, pray for those who are lost.

What I am hoping (no doubt vainly) is that Mr. Brewer will begin to reach the conclusion that in interpreting Scripture some hermeneutic is necessary, even if it is ‘logical deduction alone’ as a supplement to Sola Scriptura. (That has its own problems, but it is a start). That and our prayers for conversion could provide a beginning that could bear fruit much later. But perhaps I should consider the possibility that this discussion is just a product of my own vanity.

Matt:
I may be covering a topic discussed in this epic length discussion but I want a relatively short answer. :)

A Liberal might argue/ask the following:
What does one do if the established institutions and leaders are false and/or radically separated from the transcendant? Follow them because they are appointed by God? So, shouldn’t one born in a radically liberal country listen to their leaders since revolting against them a revolt against God?

John,

The question seems a valid one for anyone to ask, not just liberals.

I don’t claim to have a theory that would apply in all imaginable times, places, institutions, and circumstances; and I think it is important to clearly distinguish between thought experiment worlds and our actual one. Also, certainly Caesar commands a lesser and more worldly sort of obedience than the Church.

There exist some Catholics — a very small number, and I am not one of them — who claim to have grasped our current circumstance comprehensively enough (and to be personally holy enough) to personally declare Vatican II as a council and John Paul II as Pope invalid. This is certainly possible in theory: a Pope could automatically excommunicate himself by certain actions, for example, or he might not be validly elected in the first place. A sedevacantist (literally “one who believes the chair is empty”) is a Catholic who believes that there is no Pope at the present time. Such situations are certainly not without precedent. But to make the step of personally asserting such a thing seems more than a little dangerous to me, and the sort of thing one could only do from a state of absolute certainty. In my experience such states are rare. “I’m positive” is too often followed by “oh shit” for this to be done lightly. Even the famous rebel-from-the-side-of-orthodoxy Archbishop Lefevbre was not a sedevacantist, and a sedevacantist is arguably not schismatic (at least not deliberately).

Rebellion has been quite fashionable in recent centuries. There have been nontrivial consequences as a result, and it is not something to be taken lightly. Even though I am dangerously radical in some intellectual ways I am in others a much more loyal American than most. Paradoxically this is because I specifically do NOT see a 2% tax on tea as a valid pretext for armed rebellion. But all of this is just one man’s perspective.

Sections 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 of my Conservatism FAQ, http://www.counterrevolution.net/consfaq.html#6.5 , are relevant to John’s question. The basic idea is that no country could be radically liberal through and through because liberalism is necessarily parasitic. If rational egalitarian hedonism were truly authoritative then all social institutions would instantly stop functioning. So loyalty to one’s social order necessarily requires rejection of radical liberalism even if that is the theory officially proclaimed.

John’s question raises the practical point of when to stop obeying what is promulgated as law. When, for example, should you intentionally disobey laws intended to eradicate “sexism” and “homophobia” (i.e., normal habits and attitudes regarding sexual matters needed for family life and a tolerable society)? Good question, and I haven’t seen much discussion. The basic issue is how the injunction to obey the laws of God rather than the laws of man should be understood in an age in which social policy attempts to recreate the human soul.

Matt, Romans 10:14 is manifestly clear, and I’m disturbed that you refuse to accept the deduction. I only ask you how the Catholic Church and evangelicals as well, arrive at the conclusion that abortion is murder? There is no verse in scripture that says plainly, ‘abortion is wrong.’ However, when we consider the evil of abortion in light of other passages on mankind being made in the image of God, that murder is forbidden and so forth, we can deduce that Abortion is evil.

Why are you so ready to accept this abortion position and not the postion of native Americans being in hell because of unbelief? As far as Scriptural deduction, there is no difference between the two processes that got us at the conclusions of each issue.

Jeff,

I agree that an evangelical who accepts _Sola Scriptura_ as the only authority has little or no justification for proclaiming that abortion is murder. This is not a problem for Catholics: the combination of Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching office of the Magisterium are quite unequivocal.

Evangelicals proclaim that Scripture is the only authority, but in reality make interpretations, interpolations, extrapolations, etc all informed by their own opinions and insights, their leaders, their traditions, etc. So as a practical matter evangelicals cannot help but use the same basic authority model as the Catholic Church; it just happens to be the wrong actual instance of that basic authority model. The doctrine they purport to take from Romans 10:14 is a perfect example.

You’re missing the point. Sola Scriptura provides plenty of evidence that abortion is evil. Consider that Scripture in Exodus 20 says Murder is a sin; as Christians, believing life begins at conception as David alludes to in the Psalms, we know that abortion-the killing of unborn babies-is also therefore sin, because murder is sin. Sola Scriptura pointed me in that direction, not some vatican authority or ethics guru.

I noticed that you didn’t want to debate what CRI has beautifully crafted, choosing instead to bizarrely claim that my pasting of CRI’s explanation is evidence that cited Scriptures aren’t clear. The problem is that you can’t see the obvious. The Scripture passages I cite are not alegoric nor analogous nor anything else but straightforward.

Why is i that Catholics always resort to the complexity excuse whenever they have nothing else to argue? As an example, you speak of the Missio as clear and the Pope’s orthodoxy unchalleneged, and yet when I point out passages where he clearly violates his earlier statements of Christ being the only way, you suddenly find the MIssio as uninterpretable except by theologians?

Why do you resort to the same cowardly haven when I cite clear, unambiguous passages from God’s Word do you also feign complexity to forgo the reality that I right in my argument and you are wrong.

This is the sort of sidestepping that drives evangelicals crazy. While we have an objective standard—the Word of God—from which to make our assertions, you folks are always spinning and ‘reinterpreting’ and appealing to other sources for clarification. This is a weakness of the Papal system, rather than a strength. This built in escape hatch allows you to fashion contrived, ah-hoc explanations when Scripture reveals something you folks find uncomfortabel or that contradicts what your leadership tells you.

You want folks to believe that Catholicism’s triumverate of authority is your strength, but in actuality it is your weakness; it betrays the underlying unbelief in Scripture at the heart of Roman Catholicism. If Catholics believed the Word of God was infallible as Christ, Paul, Peter and others claimed, then there would be no need for papal arbiters.

The triun authoritative structure of the Catholic Church presupposes that God is a liar, and the men penned the Scripture under divine guidance were liars.

If you’d like to debate Sola Scriptura versus apostolic tradition, the magisterium and Scripture as comprising authority, then so be it. Tell me when.

It is not complex. You said it yourself: “There is no verse in scripture that says plainly, ‘abortion is wrong.’ “

Anyway, as William kindly attempted to tell me, this discussion is going nowhere: “like talking to a barn door” I believe he said.

Just one other point, and it will truly be my final one. I never claimed that _Missio Redemptoris_ was easy to understand (anyone with the fortitude to read this entire thread will not find such a claim made by me anywhere). Mr. Brewer made the claim that it was heretical, and I showed how he had misinterpreted it.

The fact that he imputes all manner of clearly false inferences and conclusions upon what other people say, when clearly they have not said the things that he claims, ought to give some pause to this notion that he is personally the final authority for everyone and for all time on the interpretation of Scripture.

Anyway, God bless you Jeff. I will say a rosary for you tomorrow and think of you in my intentions at Mass.

Matt, you are once again playing semantics. YOu might have never said the endeavor was an easy read or easy to understand, but you inconsistently applied differing verdicts to the Missio’s content and complexity.

Until I showed you the portion were the Pope demonstrates his contradiction of orthodoxy, you thought it was plainly evident that the Pope was orthodox. In other words you had no difficulty reading it and interpreting it; perhaps that’s because it’s pretty straigtforward.

Nevertheless, after I pasted the contradiction, you suddenly said the MIssio was too difficult for a layman to understand and it was meant for a theologian.

This smacks of a cop-out, of a weasel who’s been cornered and refuted entirely.

Matt, I never inferred or concluded via misguided imputations about anything from the Pope’s Missio or from Scripture. Whenever commenting on either source, I simply read straight from the text. The Pope’s words are straightforward and easy to understand, as is Scripture. You are simply appealing to ignorance, unable to disprove my case. This is tantamount to a proof that my argument is correct, and yours quite fallacious.

I don’t claim to be the final authority on these matters, but I do know that Scripture is and not a capricious vatican.

I’d like to continue debating Catholicism with you. I want to make you uncomfortable so that you will check Catholicism’s premises and hopefully turn from the Church’s apostasy.

—————————————
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2002_08_25_markshea_archive.html#80786421
—————————————