The impact of Cardinal Newman

Ben

You really are a bigot Theo. This seems to be a recurring theme with you. Catholics tend to be "intensely relaxed" about the kind of rubbish you enjoy spouting, but it occasionally needs to be pointed out that it is indeed rubbish. Your bug-eyed description of a 2000 year old church as "a reactionary ideology" is highly amusing though.

Jon

yeh, what is it you have against Catholics?

Athanasius

"The nation used to be keenly Protestant, you see."

I presume you realise that before that it was Catholic?!!

I know it is not your style, Mr Hobson, to respond to points made in the combox, but I would dearly love to hear from you:

(1) why you regard Catholicism as "reactionary ideology";

(2) what liberal Protestantism is to you, and why, in your opinion it is the correct form of Christianity.

Perhaps you might even take the time to take the challenge on fisheaters.com, which includes a section ideal for you, *For those who hate the Catholic Church*:

"Ask yourself: why do I hate the Catholic Church? Who taught me what I think I know about the Catholic Church? Is what I was taught true? Have I looked at what the Catholic Church has to say about itself, using official resources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and papal encyclicals?" (etc.)

The whole challenge is worth taking, at http://www.fisheaters.com/challenge.html

You see, all we get from you these days is 'liberal good, Catholic bad', which is hardly the most intellectually stimulating. I do not think it befits *The Spectator* with its proud intellectual heritage.

Helena

You also never stop overworking the word 'liberal,' which you never define. Apparently you are content for your reasoning to appear both obscure and anachronistic.

Roderick Blyth

I think Theo makes an interesting historical point: Newman's conversion did indeed lead to his being reviled and vituperated by the protestant establishment, and even more by those of more evangelical persuasion.

Newman's most read work, The Apologia, was written in response to a vicious personal attack by the strongest armed evangelical of them all - Henry Kingsley, who, among other things, accused Newman of insincerity, hypocrisy and self0-promotion.

I also agree with Theo's statement that the nation for long defined itself culturally by reference to its protestantism. This identity was forged in the civil wars between 1639 and 1745, and later became identified with the triumph of English arms against the catholic monarchies of France and Spain, and, in a more evangelising spirit, with the mission of enlightening those 'lesser breeds without the law' that made up some of the constituent parts of the Second British Empire.

It was not Newman who made 'celebrating our liberal protestant (sic) heritage' seem like 'inappropriate bigotry', but the colossal political, social and international changes that destroyed Britain's conception of itself as a nation specially selected by God to bring light to everybody else - an attitude, it need hardly be said, which went with nationalistic arrogance and pronounced racism.

Mass communication, mass media, and mass everything else have made fatally compromised the parochial view that Britain had of itself.

Lamenting the disappearance of that view is like lamenting the reduction to political impotence of the landed gentry, and an anglican church that was subservient to the establishment's political interests.

But those, in truth, have utterly disappeared, largely thanks to the assaults of the liberals, the socialists, and the trade unions, two appalling and impoverishing world wars, and the reduction of the chosen people to a fractious and inward looking irrelevance between two greater continents.

Furthermore, the ancien regime is, as far as I can see, utterly unlamented by nearly every one in the United Kingdom who regards themselves as 'liberal' and 'progressive.'

Why! Even the Conservatives don't stand for it!

Blaming Newman for any of this is self-evidently ludicrous. Theo, and those like him should not look at Rome for someone to blame, but at themselves: the system that their forebears created is an insubstantial pageant faded which has left not a wrack behind.

On the other hand Newman lives!

Ben

The thoughtful comment by Roderick Blyth contains this: "..the nation for long defined itself culturally by reference to its protestantism. This identity was forged in the civil wars between 1639 and 1745, and later became identified with the triumph of English arms against the catholic monarchies of France and Spain.." which I would agree is true at one level. The other side of that however is the torture and execution of loyal patriotic catholics over a very long period, with the destruction and theft of their infrastructure. It wasn't a peaceful and intuitive drift towards a protestant country. English catholics are no less English than their protestant brethren. Then and now.

MikeF

'Bigotry' again. This word has been degraded out of all useful descriptive purpose through its use as a generalised term of abuse by 'left-liberals' for anyone who thinks differently than them on just about anything. It is an emotive label not a descriptive term.

terence patrick hewett

The British are a warrior people, not marshal like the Teuton, but in the absence of anything more interesting they fight amongst themselves. Hey Ho, don't worry boys it won't be long now.

hadrian

Newman ideed was a deluded papist but one who had an ambiguous relationship with the hierarchy of the institution he so championed. PiusX found him a bit of an enigma but they put up with him as he made great propaganda material for the inroads of R.C. church power into the Protestant Isle.
My revulsion flows from that older 'keen Protestantism' you mention which, thank God, still exists in pockets in the nation and clings on by the skin of its teeth ( and the sheer grace of God) inside the Established churches, though greatly undermined and denigrated by not-so-crypto-papalism, silly shallow evangelicalism and abominable Scripture hating 'Liberals'- all of whom have this latter mark in common, that divine Authority rests ultimately not in Scripture Revelation but elsewhere. Man is exalted, Grace is trivialised.
If people imagine the Tridentine codification and defence of Dark and Mediaeval superstitions represent ancient, Apostolic Christianity they are indeed purblind.
Our nation desperately needs a rediscovery of the doctrines of Grace that fuelled the glorious Reformation.
One thing about Newman- at least he was honest enough, in the end, to leave the church of England when he could no longer in conscience uphold his ordination vows. Worse in a way were those who 'stayed in' and made a mockery of solemn vows and sought to undermine the Reformed church from within.

Athanasius

hadrian,

I quite agree with what you say about "silly shallow evangelicalism and abominable Scripture hating 'Liberals'", the latter of whom presumably includes our very own Theo Hobson. It's a shame he doesn't feel able to defend this liberalism: perhaps because it is indefensible. Pity.

Still, you won't be surprised that I take issue with you including us Catholics in that list. I can't help but feeling you and I would have more in common than either of us would with the other two categories you mention!

I am a little confused, since you claim on the one hand that "Tridentine" Catholicism does not represent the Apostolic Church, and on the other hand seem to argue in favour of a 'sola Scriptura' Protestantism. Being an intelligent chap who has clearly thought deeply about your faith, I am certain you must know what a nonsensical and self-defeating belief-system 'sola Scriptura' is: defeated even by Scripture itself, which advises against such an approach!

That God has revealed Himself both through Scripture and the Church (in sacred Tradition) in equal measure is confirmed not only in Scripture but also by the early Church.

Coming back to John Henry Card. Newman, it was precisely his own attempts to defend the Church of England's apostolic nature that caused him to realise the falseness of that position. Perhaps you could do better at defending it?

To quote from his *Essay on the Development of Doctrine*:

"And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.... To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

I can't help but feel a few questions are begging. If the Holy Church of Rome has indeed fallen into error, at what point did it happen? And, more importantly, by what authority are you able to say that it happened? What does it say about Our Lord's Own promises to the apostles - were they false? Was Spirit He breathed upon them a temporary gift which nonetheless led them into error?

Take for example specific beliefs. I assume that like most Protestants you disregard the teaching of the Real Presence. Ok, if you reject the authority of Tradition then I can see why you would - it's not the easiest of beliefs to swallow (no pun intended). I can see that on the basis of 'sola Scriptura' you would seek to reinterpret the words of Our Lord to mean something less weird, more symbolic/metaphorical. But the question still needs to be asked - how do you know you're right? Put another way, what gives you the right to reject what was believed by the Church from its earliest times down to the Lutheran era? Were all those great saints, from St Peter to St Francis, all those believers across the world, just plain wrong? And if so, why did Our Lord allow them to get it so wrong?

I am not so naive as to assume that you have not thought about these questions before, and I write not in the vain hope of effecting your conversion - I'm genuinely interested to hear your response, and hope to learn from you.

In Christo,

hadrian

'The Christianity of history' and 'How do you know you're right?' These two phrases jump out at one in your excursus on Protestantism. Maybe your Bible and mine read very differently indeed but I nowhere see it hinting that the Bread of Life, the Word of God as supreme Authority is self defeating and requires not the Holy Ghost to illuminate the fallen mind to grasp its essential teachings but a human institution that didn't even exist in Apostolic times- viz, the Vatican Papal Voice. As for the Christianity of History, nobody looks for a perfect church, so many of the ancient fathers were genuinely regenerate people, amongst the elect of God. The highly and formally centralised papal autocracy as we know it today just did not exist till after the Reformation when all the flaws that had accreted were given formal defence in Trent and the Counter Reformation and the relentless intensification of its logic thereafter up to the present. This is not by any stretch of the imagination Sacred Tradition latent in Scripture but sheer arbitrary ecclesiastical high handed power exalting itself at the expense of Scripture. The papacy represents the apogee of humanism- Man vaunted to the heavens in both Church and State, Sacred and Secular. You demand how a Protestant can know the Scriptures are true? Well, the same question could be flung at the Romanist. Both of us locate it in a different source. Protestants are content to seek to be controlled by Apostolic Scripture and conform as closely as possible thereto. The Church of Rome conforms to herself. Liberal 'Protestants' similarly invest their churches with the same sort of authority...they justify all manner of deviations from Scripture by claimimg to be led by fresh 'spiritual light' whilst all true Protestants would demand Scripture proof. Word and Spirit never vie with one another but are in closest harmony.

Athanasius

hadrian,

I appreciate your response to my questions. I respect entirely what you believe, of course, but unfortunately much of what you say is just plain wrong. Not a matter of belief so much as pure fact - ++JHN set out with thoughts pretty much like your own, having been brought up in the Protestant propaganda that the Church of Rome was not the true continuation of the Apostolic Church - but his studies of the early Church proved the reverse.

Ok, first of all, you misconstrued (deliberately?) what I said about a self-defeating belief-system, i.e. sola Scriptura. Of course the Word of God is not self-defeating: but the Word of God is not to be found in the Bible alone. I suggest you read 1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16, and ask yourself carefully and honestly what they have to say about complete reliance on Scripture. One may also cite the anecdote of St Ignatius, Bp of Antioch (i-ii AD): " "When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved."

But in any case, how do you reconcile the fact that it was 400 years before there was even a New Testament canon - were the souls of Christians to that date in mortal peril?!! And do we all need to be Biblical experts now for salvation?

Note that my question was not, 'how do you know Scriptures are true'. Of course they are true and divinely inspired. I asked how you know that your interpretation is correct. After all, give the same passage of Scripture to ten Protestants, you will probably get ten different interpretations. That is why it is so important to have a point of reference, i.e. Sacred Tradition, which will guide interpretation.

Next, you say, "The highly and formally centralised papal autocracy as we know it today just did not exist till after the Reformation when all the flaws that had accreted were given formal defence in Trent and the Counter Reformation and the relentless intensification of its logic thereafter up to the present." This is just plain wrong I'm afraid, you need to revisit your history.

To begin with, the papacy originates with Our Lord appointing Peter upon his confession. And this is no mere human power: Peter's faith has been revealed by the Father; and Our Lord clearly and unambiguously states He will build His Church upon him; that Peter will have the power to loose and bind on earth; and that Christ will remain with the Church til the ends of time, indicating that this was no 'one-off'. Now I realise that you will desire to interpret this passage differently (so we're back to the Scripture principle), but you are faced with the fact that there is little or no doubt that Peter and the apostles DID interpret this the way Catholic Tradition receives it. The evidence is fairly clear in *Acts*, but there's plenty of writings from the early Church to confirm it which I suggest you reading (the combox not being the best place to lay out historical evidence). Papal authority is already attested in the epistles, where obedience to Peter and his successors is expressed as crucial. Indeed, although the doctrine of infallibility was not formalised until 1870, there are sufficient writings to indicate that it was already believed in the first centuries of the Church. Nothing changed at Trent in that regard, although a restatement of what was believed was certainly necessary in the light of European discontent.

But perhaps it's just easier for you to believe that God would not reveal Himself through human agents? What of His holy prophets, in Old Testament and New? Thus you can claim that the Church is vaunting human authority - whereas She does no such thing when you consider it without prejudice.

I was disappointed you didn't respond to my question about the Body and Blood of Christ. I'd have been interested in your response, since this seems to me - ill-informed as I may be - to be a classic case of just dropping something that is too difficult to believe, even though it is affirmed both by Scripture and Tradition. For although it is certainly possible to reinterpret what is written in the Bible about the Eucharist, it is almost certain that the authors of the Gospels and St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians DID believe that it was the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

hadrian

Athanasius,in response to your various remarks I should put the following:-

1)On Scripture Alone, it is utterly non-negotiable to anyone who believes and has experience of the profoundly fallen condition of human nature, not least one's own. Sin and spiritual rebellion skew us at every turn, the heart id desperately wicked above all things, who can know it? This includes our person! Thus we depend entirely on divine Revelation for rescue and that Revelation CENTREs on Christ with the O.T. prophets pointing forward, the N.T. Apostles the 'EYEWITNESSES' pointing back to what they had seen of and in Christ's earthly life. The Words of Scripture minister new birth, and any study of the early church will tell you that the canonical Scriptures were in place far earlier than any Council that recognised them formally. Scripture recognition and submission is the mark of the Church. Christ tells us man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.' MattChap4v4 Furthermore He tells us: 'I am that bread of life.' John Chap6v48
This takes us on to the question of the supposed Scriptural foundation for the papacy and papal office. In His dealings with Peter it would seem to me He is speaking to Peter specifically and in the singular; where is there a hint that this supposed office is transmissible to successors?
On the powers He delegates to Peter, He equally delegates to the other Apostles: compare MattChap16v19 with Matt Chap18v18 This is not a power of primacy being given to Peter alone but a shared one and ministerial at that, not absolute.Look up Ephesians Chap2v20 and RevelationChap21v14
To feed on Scripture is indeed the Chritian man's life-long necessity and delight; to sneer at this as being 'Bible experts' really beggars belief and fully exposes how subordinate Scripture is in the Roman system, I am afraid. Christ said it- EVERY word!

As for the putative 'sacred Tradition' that we are told exists outwith the Written Word it is its very nebulousness that renders it so untrustworthy, let alone an illict addition to the Apostolic Word. One has only to scan the pages of Roman thinkers and controversialists to discover they cannot properly agree on where EXACTLY Infallible Truth is to be established and has been recorded. There is much perplexity over what is termed the phenomenon of 'creeping infallibility'. This is simply amazing! God is communicating without the capacity to make clear His will. Here are echoes of the Liberal 'Protestant' love of vagueness to evade the clarity of God's judgemental Word!
3) That Peter's claimed pre-eminence in the Apostolic Church is unambiguously laid out in the pages of the New Testament would greatly surprise most Protestants who find the whole concept entirely alien in those pages, quite lacking! Indeed if any had that claim, surely it should go to either Paul or John whose recorded teaching is by far the most extensive! Peter nowhere addresses the Church as its Prince or Head! His letters breathe a spirit of personal humility. No one is to prostrate themselves before this man,eyewitness Apostle though he was!
4) On the subject of the Mass and its concommitant concept of 'transsubstantiation', Peter himself tells us that 'Christ ONCE suffered for sins' 1PeterChap3v18. And Christ plainly tells us the PURPOSE of this ordinance- it is- 'This do, in REMEMBRANCE of Me.' Keeping the Lord's supper is not a propitiatory act, it is one rather, designed to recall the ONE offering of sins for ever. Christ CANNOT be sacrificed again and again, if for no other consideration the fact that He is now in His State of Exaltation and in glorious Session in Heaven! Just look at Christ's own words as He institutes the ordinance for us: He says ' This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for the remission of sins. But I say unto you I will not drink of this FRUIT OF THE VINE until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.' MattChap26v 28-29. These words seem to me to indicate the SYMBOLICAL nature of the act and word of institution ( He had not yet sacrificed Himself!) and the fact what they drank was just wine and would be wine in the hereafter!! Christ is NOT eternally sacrificed!
Is the mass 'bloddless'? Then it is useless as, Hebrews Chap9v22 points out!
Likewise Christ now is hid from our sight; look at His discourse in John Chap16v 16-21 and the fact of his bodily assumption into Heaven itself from whence He will come bodily-Hebrews Chap10v10-18; Philipians Chap3v20 ' For our citizenship is in heaven from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.' Christ's humanity resides in His body and that body is in heavenly exalted session, not divided upon earth in continued humiliation of sacrifice. On the Mass I profoundly disagree with Rome and certainly find the N.T. utterly refutes the very idea of it.

I could go on but must leave it there, in the Lord's goodness.

hadrian

Athanasius,
You will forgive me one further comment.I had actually missed the full impact of your phrase about the Mass that it is ' ALMOST certain' the Apostles did believe in the transubstantiationary view of the Supper. One is dumbfounded at that qualification from a Romanist! To me Scripture is unequivocal- Christ sacrificed Himself but once, after which it was FINISHED! Protestant Reformation rejection of the Mass rests not as you seem to imply on stumbling belief at what God can or cannot do ( after all, we fully endorse all the miracles as actual supernaturally wrought events!) but on the testimony of Scripture to the nature of Christ's death. Our objection is entirely theological, not sceptical!!

Athanasius

Dear hadrian,

Thank you for your reply. But I fear you are labouring under several misapprehensions. Firstly, you seem to think Catholics believe that Christ is sacrificed again at the Mass - but this is simply not so! It was - is - one sacrifice for all time: at the Holy Mass it is we who offer up our sacrifice at the altar, whence the priest returns with Our Lord's once-made sacrifice. The Church has always insisted on this, so be careful with that distinction please. Of course, one must not forget the context of the 'anamnesis' within Jewish ritual - the Jewish belief was not that their ritual, which Jesus supplanted, was simply a 'remembering' of its institution, but one of bringing it into the present - so at the Mass, Christ brings for us His great sacrifice into our lives. One gift, eternally real.

(You could have a look at *The Spirit of the Liturgy* by Ratzinger, the first couple of sections, or Robert Sungenis' *Not by Bread Alone*).

Of course, when He told us that He was the bread of life - He was pointing to the great reality of the Eucharist. "My flesh is real food, My blood is real drink". Now don't get me wrong, I fully understand how you interpret these words and I can appreciate where you're coming from - it's just that I question where you obtain the authority to make such a reinterpretation AGAINST the tradition of the Church.

Did not the first hearers of those words of Our Lord not want to accept them too? Alas, it is too easy to turn aside from uncomfortable Truth.

I said 'almost' certain since one is scarcely ever in a position to lay out assessments of what a historical figure did or did not believe. So unfortunately St John did not leave us with alternative records to indicate what he thought Our Lord meant at Capernaum. But when we judge it in the light of other writings, at least contemporary to the Gospels, then it becomes impossible to imagine other than that St John recognised what Catholics have continually believed since.

That you suppose the passages you cite refute the meaning of the Mass really does beggar belief! Might we not better go to St Paul to the Corinthians, 'He who eats this bread without recognising the Body eats his condemnation'? It requires a certain amount of logical gymnastics to get away from what St Paul says about the Mass!

But I ask again - how are you so certain that you know what this means and the Church from the first apostles down to the present does not? Do you not exalt your own mind - or perhaps that of the church from which you got your ideas? That is putting man, not God, on high, my dear fellow!

Turning to what you say about Scripture - the point is that every Catholic would agree!! It is indeed our necessity and delight to 'feed on' Scripture. Indeed Scripture is a wonderful gift of Revelation. But it is far from the ONLY gift of Revelation - to deny as much is to cut yourself from one of the wonderful ways that Grace can work through us.

What I said about Biblical expertise, I think you misunderstood, or perhaps I expressed it badly - what I mean is that if Scripture is the only means of Revelation available to us, and yet is in many places difficult to interpret for most individuals - well then how does it serve to proclaim the Word to all? Whereas Scripture's power comes when it is unfurled within the Church, who can be its guarantor to prevent the violence done by individual false interpretations.

Indeed, this is to continue what Our Lord began: for when on earth, He showed to people what the Scriptures they had not understood really meant. Much of the Old Testament requires an Oral tradition to accompany it - uniform understanding of the Torah would have been nigh impossible otherwise. Of course, Our Lord's teaching revealed still more about its content. However, that such an oral tradition was regarded as equal to the written word is confirmed as early as the second letter to the Thessalonians (for example), which exhorts: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, WHETHER BY WORD, OR our epistle". Tradition and Scripture are not in conflict, as you seem to want to make them: rather, they are complementary, providing the wholeness of God's miraculous Revelation.

At His Ascension, He provided the Holy Spirit, the Advocate, that this revealing of the Evangelium might be continued for all time. It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), for the Church is guided by the Spirit.

As for the primacy of Peter, enough of the early letters survive to indicate that the office of the Bishop of Rome had jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely the local episcopate. Indeed, we may note that Peter is always listed first in the lists of the apostles in the Bible (Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, Acts 1:13), seems to act as a spokesperson for the apostles (Mt 18:21, Mk 8:29, Lk 12:41, Jn 6:69, Acts 4:1-13, 2:37-41, Acts 5:15), and is found exhorting other bishops (1 Peter 5:1). I could go on, as you would say.

Of course it is significant that Our Lord should annoint Simon bar-Jonah as 'Rock', for this alludes to Jesus Himself (varia). So Simon Peter, to whom revelation has come from the Father, will be the alter Christus.

To recognise the primacy of Peter is hardly to deny the special place and work of the other apostles. Yet Peter it was who carried the keys of heaven.

Certainly Peter's primacy was recognised by other Church Fathers - including, interestingly, those in the Eastern Church. And fast-forwarding, I have read papal and episcopal letters from the 12th cent which indicates a 'Tridentine' structure was certainly in place in these obscure medieval ages, which rather gives the lie to your claims about Trent.

You ask where it is indicated that Peter's office is transmissible. Well that's not too difficult - recall the election of Matthias recorded in *Acts*! There are numerous references also to the laying on of hands, in various places. And it is a matter of historical fact that St Peter appointed Linus succeeded him as Bishop of Rome.

You might read Peter Ray's *Upon This Rock* for a decent and thoroughly readable introduction to the main texts. Holme's new edition and commentary on the Fathers is apparently rather good too.

As for the suggestion that Our Lord would promise something to Peter - but not to future generations - this again seems to be an attempt to place a restriction on what Our Lord might do. What would be the point in a gift for one generation, to expire at St Peter's martyrdom? Does this not contradict His own words, the promise to be with them until the end of time?

That Peter's letters breath the spirit of humility is hardly surprising is it? It is what we should hope for from a Pope, certainly the first!

There are indeed many who don't understand infallibility. Alas, t'was always thus that there might be confusion among many. Yet in point of fact, the teaching is perfectly clear and there is not serious doubt until we get to Vatican II (which is a whole different ball-game and requires a discussion entirely of its own).

Anyway, enough of such debate - peace be with you, hadrian.

hadrian

The refinements of the argument on the nature of the Mass and in particular the transubstantiationary aspect seems to me quite void. Either it is a reenactment of Christ's death - an actual sacrifice- or it is not. If not, it is no sacrifice at all, something anathema to Rome. Trent is blunt-
'Christ instituted the New Passover , Himself, to be immolated under visible signs. In this Divine Sacrifice which is performed in the Mass, the same Christis contained, and without blood is immolated, who on the Altar of the Cross offered Himself once with blood, the manner of the offering being alone different.'
You may wish to deny this is incompatible with clear Scripture teaching but any Protestant will tell you it is so. Christ is risen, ascended, and exalted. His sacrifice is complete and has made an end of sin for the elect of God. Paul in Corinthians and Hebrews does not contradict himself: To the Corinthians he is plainly warning them that partaking of the Supper is a solemn act of REMEMBRANCE to SHEW the Lord's death till He come( not reenact it!) and if done casually, without due spiritual self consecration and leaning on the Lord's sacrifice we commit high contumacy towards the Saviour. We must appreciate our need is the message here.
His complaint is careless, disorderly, unthinking partaking: he even instructs them at that mundane level-! 1Cor Chap11v33-34.
Of course we return 'spiritual sacrifices' of both praise and service in the world but that is a very different thing from what Christ underwent that we might be spared and delivered from the wrath of God.
You clearly yearn for an earthly guarantee of Truth and locate it in the Roman Church. The Protestant finds it in a God who communicates CLEARLY in the Scriptures which He expects us to search whether these things be so. Paul's epistle's and word, to which you refer are those of an EYEWITNESS Apostle providing clear Spirit inspired GUIDANCE, not some mumbled, indecipherable and so useless for purpose communication. Yes, there are 'things HARD to be understood'- man must struggle prayerfully to overcome his own sin befogged mind and get to grips with his Master's word, in earnest dependence upon the Spirit to illuminate those words. If we accuse Scripture of lacking perspicuity then the Roman church is a fortiori so lacking! Infallibility was a doctrine the Church prior to Vatican I was patently divided over, to say the least. Some even dubbed it a Protestant slur( eg, Keenan's Controversial Catechism)
On the matter of Scripture authority there is surely a glaring discrepancy between the pronouncements of LeoXIII and PiusX who assert Scripture is true in every last detail, to those bishops of the recent Bishops' Conference of England and Wales ( echoed by the Scottish hierarchy) whose official pronouncements on the subject explicity state there are errors in Holy Scripture. Here is a glaring clash!
The argument that Scripture without the Roman Church's guidance is, far from being a guide, actually downright dangerous rather begs the question: isn't the Church, shorn of submission to Holy Writ, itself prone to mislead? When I read in Scripture there is no no more sacrifice for sins, then am told by the Roman hierarchy there is, which is the ultimate Corrective? Scripture itself claims that supremacy over me, not a mere church. I listen to the original Apostles, not to men of a patently morally degenerate ( or self righteous), deformed power seeking order. The Popes and Councils have vied with each other for supremacy down the centuries. For instance, and tellingly, the Council of Constance which sat 1414-1418, declared that every lawfully convoked ecumenical council derives its authority immediately from Christ, and every one, Pope included is subject to it in matters of faith, in healing of schism and reformation of the church.' This does not harmonise with later views of the Pope's right to independent supremacy if he so chooses.
Universal jurisdiction of Peter as Pope is, I say again, quite foreign to any honest readiing of the pages of the New Testament. Paul himself at one point even claims he comes not a whit behind the other Apostles. Christ rebukes the desire for pre-eminency. We are not to 'lord it over the flock' as do the gentiles, says Christ AND Peter himself! To say otherwise is a blatant case of reading back into Scripture what is not there.
Look at as you will, it cannot be denied the Roman Church as it is today, with its lavish ceremonial, vestments, unmarried priests/presbyters, tightly controlled hierarchy, etc is all distinctly different from the extraordinarily simple spritual life exhibited in the pages of the New Testament. Rome must admit this herself and so has to make it a virtue- which is why she put up with Cardinal Newman and his doctrine of the development of the church and her revelation. The Roman church can demand my allegiance on pain of damnation if refused all it likes but I and many other Protestants will not give it. We have Jesus Christ in the Scriptures and our much more Biblical church order of ministerial guidance by Presbyters and Deacons and that that satisfies our souls.

hadrian

Incidentally, I have to say that you may have no idea how one profoundly shudders at the Roman line that Peter and his supposed successors are 'alter Christus', 'other Christs'. To my ears that is nothing short of blasphemy.
Many of the most extravagent titles accorded to the Popes are never accorded to Peter. Gregory the Great even excoriated any who had the mere idea of being universal priest.
Your denigration of the Torah as requiring spoken tradition rather runs exactly counter to Christ's own condemnation of the religious rulers of the day who had made void the Word of God through their own traditions!! For men the problem of the Torah is not its lack of clarity but that it is all too clear in defining and condemning sin!
Finally, 'the uncomfortable truth' is not that the Supper is a carnal affair but that Christ's words on the subject are to be understood above all as spiritual, and spiritually discermed. Just look up His discourse recorded in John Chap6v51-63.

Athanasius

Dear hadrian,

You seem to be so blinded by your prejudices that you miss basic facts. At any rate, your rhetoric (which on several occasions twists my words to mean something more suitable for your visceral response) is unfortunate. The claim you make about discrepancies between the Church's views on Scripture, which you have made before, are a case in point. I invite you merely to re-read the documents, with an open mind and heart, so that you will find for yourself the continuity not a “glaring clash”. And when you ask, “When I read in Scripture there is no no more sacrifice for sins, then am told by the Roman hierarchy there is, which is the ultimate Corrective?” we are forced to remind you that you are simply reading what the Roman hierarchy says wrongly. Actually I think you are reading both texts wrongly.

Of course I am well aware that Protestants would not see what Catholics see in Scripture - but you must realise that as the ones who defect from the moral authority of the Church, the burden of proof lies on Protestants. That is the point I was making.

You seem also to be unaware of the double sense of tradition, regarding the Torah - a classic Protestant mistake if I may say so. There was the sacred tradition, which was needed to uncover much of the detail of the text; and in the later period there arose, as you say, a false human-driven tradition, which was to be railed against.

While talking about tradition and the like, you make reference to 'Newmans' doctrine'. This is of course a complete misunderstanding, both of Newman's writings and the situation in the Church at the time. There were reasons for the Church initially to be suspicious of Newman, and that was not it. And as for citing that there were arguments regarding the pronouncement of infallibility (why not bring in the ultramontanists while you're at it) - well this has always been the case throughout history, that as the Spirit guides the Church some find it harder than others to swallow and debates ensue. Prayer and complete submission to the will of God succeeds.

I do not yearn for an earthly guarantee - Christ Himself is the guarantee, the bridegroom of the Church. That is all - a Divine authority that would last for all time, not that which would expire after just a few years and subsequently be available only to those who studied the Bible in certain Protestant schools.

Of all the titles afforded to the Popes - the one you cannot deny is 'Rock', given by Our Lord Himself, and which as we know indicated Our Lord Himself. That is the basis on which we can know he was the Vicar of Christ: and his recorded actions support this claim.

Indeed there is no contradiction between Corinthians and Romans - who claimed there was?! As I said before, it requires an extreme willpower not to see the true meaning to explain away St Paul's references to the Body and Blood!

And you are still left with the problem that at the time of the composition of the Gospels, the Real Presence was believed.

I'm glad you've read the documents of Trent. Now read them again, carefully, and listen to what they say about the sacrifice. If you will set yourself in opposition to the teachings of the Church, then you must also know what those teachings are! To claim that it doesn’t matter, yet at the same time base your objections on misconceptions, is simply to do yourself a grave injustice.

You point me to Jn 6:51-3?! "The bread that I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world... if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you (etc.)" We note that when His followers walk away, He does not re-explain His words: instead He recognises that this is a difficult teaching which most will not be able to accept. Like you, apparently: unable to simply trust like those blessed few disciples. But we can't ignore the placing of this passage directly after the miracle of the loaves, a signal of the reduplication that will occur for eternity (just as the wedding feast of Cana anticipates this great mystery). Note also that John excludes the ritual of the break of bread at the narrative of the Last Supper, indicating probably that for him the Capernaum narrative is sufficient; at the supper, he shows us how the Lord institutes the priesthood through the washing of feet.

Anyway, my purpose in prolonging this conversation is not to convince you of the truth of the transubstantiation. The Lord Himself will reveal that to you: I highly advise you read up on it. I merely raised it as an example of the way that you insert a new doctrine of infallibility of your own. For although you rail against the Church's earthly authority to understand Scripture, you actually appoint to yourself that very same power you would deny to St Peter and his successors. You suppose it is the text itself which is infallible (which indeed it is, no argument there), but what you really mean is YOUR way of reading it, which you suppose to be correct, while all those 'Romanists' as you call us for the last 2000 years, many great saints among them, have been completely wrong. Is there not a certain lack of humility in this claim?

Incidentally, just to go off on a tangent for a while - I am very interested in how you deal with the variances of the textual tradition of the Bible. Have you studied the early MSS much, and the origination of the canon? It does pose a problem of its own - which text to accept as authoritative! What is your response to the non-canonical literature? No problem of course if the text is a corroboratory of Tradition!

I think you're just missing the point about 'lording it over the flock', but I'll let you labour at that for yourself! And your antiquarianist approach, which you choose over and above a living tradition, has the danger of putting limits on Christ, as if He were a mere figure of history not a continually living presence in the Church He founded (not, note ye, a “mere church”).

My biggest anxiety for you is that you are simply cutting yourself off from a large part of God's grace. It is as if you are saying, the Lord may only talk to me through the Bible. Yet there is so much more! Yes we should know the Bible, yes we should revere the Revealed Word that it contains; but we should also not ignore that great wealth that comes to us through the Church, the New Jerusalem.

Still, such discussions, diverting though they may be for a while, shall do little for either of us. Ultimately I hope that both of us can open our minds and hearts to the Lord’s call and be guided by Him, wherever it is we shall hear His voice. I shall say no more, you may have the last word if you wish! God be with you, Hadrian.

Athanasius

Ahem, one more word from me -

I was amused by this discussion about Scripture and authority between Robert Sungenis (Catholic) and a Baptist called Cheryl:

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/dialogs/bible/discussion-prot.htm

It's quite entertaining if you have 15 minutes. I post it for your interest.

hadrian

Evidently one is hitting nes head off a brick wall so I shall conclude with just a few observations.
You challenge me to read Trent which I can assure you I have. Perhaps there is some hidden mysterious code in its formulations I and countless other Protestants have missed but if language means anything I think we have the gist of its teachings pretty accurately and by hinest comparison with what is taught on the pages of the New Testament conclude there is irreconcilable differences that mean we must reject the teachings therein as deviant. Far from the onus being on the Protestant reading of Scripture which is simply 'ad fontes' it lies with the Roman authorities to justify their divergences. Newman came up with a handy variation on the development of doctrine within an ongoing chrism which of course absolutises the Roman Church's authority and places it beyond correction. No church in Scripture is guaranteed such indefectability- some are patently warned they must repent or be spewed out; the apostles specifically point out that the enemies of Truth will arise from 'your own midst'. This means the touchstone of truth is not an Absolute church but the Written Word. Rome has a history of distrust of that very Word,even suppressing it and putting it notoriously on the Index of forbidden books!
By any common standard of judgement I'd say the pronouncements of LeoXIII, PiusX and BenedictXV on Scripture infallibility simply do not accord with modern official pronouncements that Scripture is in error. Or has Rome got into such a tangle it thinks the Word can be both true and yet erroneous simultaneously?! That such equivocation over Holy Scripture, according it but limited focus for its immunity from error, is utterly denounced by former popes facing Romanist critical scholars maintaining just that, take a very close look at BenedictXV's Encyclical from 1920 Spiritus Paraclitus, especially the sections from 19 onwards. Apparently there has been a shift in the Romanist position on this as the Gift of Scripture issued in 2005 demonstrates. Any fair minded person cannot fail to see a division of opinion here at the highest levels of Rome!!
Touching the interpretation of John Chap6, I am amazed at how Rome simply refuses to see the spiritual import of Christ's words and indeed turns the very thing on its head! Christ is plain- the 'hard saying' which the hearers could not grasp as they interpreted His words in heavy literalistic fashion as a carnal eating, actually says Christ finds its fulfilment spiritually- V 62-63 The Son of man will ascend up to where He was before His incarnation It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words He spoke to them were spirit and life, thus understood. Just as Nicodemus had to learn the spiritual nature of the rebirth necessary for heaven and not take it in a wooden, carnal sense!
Indeed Christ elsewhere describes Himself as 'vine, 'door' 'water' an, yes, 'Rock'. Must He be all these literally, just as Rome insists the bread and wine must be rather than simple symbols?
If the Roman church wishes to vaunt herself above every other church in Christendom and indeed has the temerity to unchurch, anathematise and even persecute other Christians she and her adherents must look to their own souls. Your description of how Rome arrives at a position- in this case infallability- simply underlines how impossible it is to control her. Glory all you like in your sophisticated 'advances', often diametrically opposed to Scripture Truth, from the Apostolic pattern- 'antiquarianism' I think you contemptuously call endeavouring to adhere to that Pattern- but in the end I fear it is not the Scripture submitting Protestant who will suffer loss but the church loving Romanist.
If the Church and Pope are vital to understand a mysterious Scripture through its Infallible guidance and indeed can add gratuituously to Scripture for guidance- if it is as you have suggested relatively simple to find all this vital infallible explication/revelation then perhaps you might outline all the infallible additional documents of the churches and popes? The Roman church is in the words of Vatican II 'incapable of being at fault in belief'( Decree on the ChurchII.2) Just what IS covered by this indefectability from the Truth? Is the Gift of Scripture booklet covered by it? Does it err in ascribing errors to Holy Writ?
You state categorically that the 'Real Presence' was held right from apostolic times and presumably therefore should have been unambiguously taught as Rome invests it with vital significance. Yet it was not even made an article of faith, as Duns Scotus observes, until Lateran in 1215 and had been argued over from the Ninth Century! Presumably prior to this men could in good conscience hold otherwise yet thereafter be damned if they were on the 'wrong side' from the Roman church's decision! For instance, Origen taught that if understood carnally and not spiritually and figuratively they in fact hurt and not nourish. On such a fundamental issue it is amazing Rome just glibly glides over these divergences of opinion.
The clearer air of simple Scriptural religion is a sheer relief. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.

hadrian

..and if some are minded to accuse us of 'arrogance' for finding absolute Truth in the Apostolic Scriptures, one could with even greater warrant turn the accusatory tables on a church that down the centuries has progressively removed itself from control of the Scriptures and into the bargain has been a hotbed of the most brazen debauchery and power mania. We are asked to credit that Christ guarantees and guards His Truth and Church by entrusting it to men of the most revolting and degenerate habits who out of venality, power madness and simple wickedness were not above calculating compromise of the Truth and also even persecuted God's own humble servants, often in the most horrible manner. According to Rome these monsters were nevertheless God's agents of protecting the Truth and Church and themselves beyond question because Infallible in conveying God's Rule! What utter folly! That is not how the New Testament views matters: there the touchstone is nothing else than submission to Apostolic Scripture with the demand that church officers exhibit the highest Christian manner of life.

Unam Sanctam

Well I think the Pope is brilliant and Cardinal Newman was right in thinking so too. Anyone who disagrees in obviously a bigot. We have had it far too easy in the UK and no one remembers the glories of Torquemada and the Borgias. They helped Latin culture far exceed our own economically and culturally. The Holy Spirit of truth lives in Rome and will only illuminate Catholics in communion with the Pope. The protestants have produced Winston Churchill, New Zealand and Parliament, which is quite poor when compared with General Franco, Bolivia and the Mafia.
Athanasius, we believe we are going to heaven because of a mysterious ceremony - the truth is irrelevant - and in fact is subserviant to the Pope (who is brilliant)
Islam believes there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet. They are half right. There is three persons in one God and the Pope is the second person.

Unam Sanctam

I have read Trent. There are over 100 anathemas against other christians!! They are not bigoted and hateful though, but the truth. Feel the love.
It is a great document, Jesus is almost never mentioned but it reads very well (in theory), a bit like Das Capital.
Well, someone said you can tell a tree by its fruit, and Catholicism has produced some wonderful highlights like the inquisition and the syllabus of errors and the Jesuit assassins.

hadrian

One further observation: We are told the Torah needed 'shoring up' if one may so put it, with Sacred Tradition to explicate it and save it from umpteen different interpretations. Of course this 'tradition' is itself uncodified so hazy and therefore unfit for its very raison d'etre. The proof must surely lie in the wholesale opposition Christ encountered from the teachers of His day whose very fault we are told by Christ was making void the Word of God through their human traditions.
No Protestant is daft enough to maintain all tradition is wrong or suspect; some if based on and opening up or applying Scripture are very helpful. However ABSOLUTISED tradition that purports to run alongside Scripture and augment it is absolutely illegitimate.
And does the bull Unam Sanctum fall under the Infallibility umbrella? If so, how does its statement that outside the Roman Church there can be no salvation accord with the other Roman idea that there are certain Christians who are 'subconscious RCs' if one may so put it, they just don't fully realise the fact? Some Roman documents seem to state ceratin 'righteous heathen' may be saved yet PiusX seemed to state the very opposite! How do these reconcile-or is only one side 'infallible' on this issue? Can the Pope err even in a formal Encyclical, Bull, etc?!

Original Tony

"Believe in me and you will be saved" has turned into a man-made mess. A simple gospel has been divided and debated by a fallen species for so long they have forgotten what it's all about.

All the rituals and legalism in modern 'religion' ( I detest the word) have separated us from the simplicity of God's message...believe in Jesus, confess it with your mouth and you will be saved.

All this fuss over stupid rituals...all this debate...

No wonder we are in the Laodecian church...full of knowledge but totally stupid!

I will stick to the simple doctrine of Christ and no more!

hadrian

In some ways you are right, Origianl Tony. Fallen men do tend to complicate the Gospel's straighforward message. However we are dealing with the Almighty God here and His relationship to us, so we must expect it to be also of the highest complexity.
Actually the Gospel message is tremendously simple ans strsaightforward- it is that men are sinners, under sentence of death for determined rebellion and utterly unable to save themselves from the mess they've gotten themselves into -even by their own perceived good works and 'righteousness'. The answer is in throwing ourselves solely upon the divinely provided Mediator, Jesus Christ, Messiah. This is the Reformation message of Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Where that message is dismissed it has profound repercussions both for our eternal fate as well as our temporal political existence. Rejection of Christ and God and assertion of human autonomy can lead to one of two ultimate ideologies/outlooks- either complete nihilism, despair and loss of all meaning/purpose worth or inconsistent assertion of human worth but which leads to autonomous, humanistic vaunting of man and his powers..and totalitarianism. Recent TV programme on the French Revolution and Robespiere vividly illustrated this tendency to 'fire in the minds of men' as James Billington calls it in his book of that title.

The Laughing Cavalier

Mr Hobson is a poor man's Adrian Hilton

Joe Strummer

Newman was the classic "useful idiot", and used by Rome in a devious and pathetic attempt to make Roman Catholicism acceptable in Victorian England. Roman Catholics in Britain have always been viewed as traitors who'd put Rome before Britain. The Recusants, anyone ?

Since then Roman Catholicism will always be seen as a foreign entity and alien to the spiritual psyche of the British people. Maybe the mystical Celtic Church of long ago even recognised that.

hadrian

It is a bit pathetic to imagine that God would so arrange the Spirit sustained Universal Church of Christ that it had to be thirlled to a particular place- Rome- and dominated by that 'race', the Italians! Given the Church in Rome barely gets a mention in Scripture and when it does it is not the putative first Pope, Peter, but Paul who commands their attention is even more bizarre. However Rome loves the power and manifestly her clerics won't cede it at all. Hence the suspicion that her followers do tend to be held in- even in Italy where the Papacy/Vatican has far from having been held in general and unalloyed affection!!
As for Rome's devotees' response( or lack of it!) to criticism of her inconsistencies with and about Scripture I remain singularly umimpressed.

Roderick Blyth

Ding! Dong! Ding! Dong! But Hadrian loses this debate. He is quite clearly out of his depth when it comes to matching the scholarship offered by Athanasius, and the rude and arrogant way in which hw trumpets his self-informed convictions forfeits any remaining respect for him.

But what, Athanasius, can argument achieve in the absence of grace - 'Non in dialectica complacuit Deo salvum facere populum suuum. It is the open-minded onlooker who is most likely to be influenced, and scholarship and good manners are likely to matter more to him than ill-informed blustering.