Lent

Click on link above for a schedule of readings of the church fathers for the lenten calendar.
I'm going to try and pull it off.

Schonborn on the Evolution Debate

For links to Cardinal Schonborn's Lectures on the evolution debate, and other Schonborn material.

Reformed Catholics?

I've been recently visiting this site linked above. It is a very interesting ongoing discussion site about the reformation, protestant, catholic, and anglican theology and ecclesiology. They seem to be very intellegent, however missing the truth of catholicism. You can join the discussions or just read and learn.

I.D. Response to Father Jonathan @ Fox News

Click link above for full article and response at William Dembski's blog.

Darwin himself wrote that if it could be shown that an organ could not evolve in a stepwise fashion with each step representing a fitness improvement for Natural Selection to act upon, that his theory would be in serious doubt. ID claims to have met that challenge using design detection. In that case, intelligent design is the scientific falsification of Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. If Darwin proposed a method of falsification that is metaphysical in nature then his theory itself is metaphysical. Scientific theories must have scientific methods of falsification. I don’t believe that the challenge Darwin made can only be answered by metaphysical claims.

Sola Scriptura Article-Highlight

I am still reading through this article, however here is a highlight I wanted to share.
Everyone needs to read this whole article sometime. It sums up the whole issue brilliantly.




Third, sola scriptura is self-defeating, because it rests on a presupposition that cannot be proved from Scripture (let alone from history)—namely, that the whole content of God’s revealed will for the ongoing instruction of His Church was committed “wholly to writing,” so that no unwritten residue of divinely inspired instruction survived from the oral teachings of Jesus and His apostles that remained binding on God’s people after the New Testament (NT) was written. This assumption, stated more or less audaciously, is ubiquitous among Protestants.[30] But where does Scripture say this? How could one claim to know this? The data of history and the Church Fathers weigh heavily against it. It does not even make good sense. First, if all bindingly authoritative oral instruction ceased with the death of the last apostle, and if the early churches did not have copies of all the NT books until well after that time, who spoke for the Lord Jesus and the apostles in the interim? Second, how is one to plausibly imagine the transition from the partially oral framework of authoritative instruction (OT + teachings of Jesus and apostles) to a wholly written framework (OT + NT) required by this hypothesis? Gregory Krehbiel offers a wry scenario: “One imagines all the churches dutifully obeying Paul’s oral instructions on the Eucharist [1 Cor 11:34] and anxiously awaiting the publication in the Antiochian Post of the last apostle’s obituary, at which point they are to rewrite their book of church order and eliminate everything based on oral instructions.”[31] The whole idea, of course, seem ridiculous, but scarcely more so than some of the assertions commonly made in this connection (see n. 30).
But then, in all seriousness, what is the partisan of sola scriptura to say about those who remembered the oral instructions of the apostles—concerning, say, the Eucharistic liturgy—who perhaps even wrote down and preserved these, even though they never made it into the NT canon? The writings of the early Church are filled with extrabiblical sayings of Jesus, practices of the Christian community, liturgical and Eucharistic formulas, and so forth, which presuppose the divine origin and authority of these things.[32] On the Catholic view, there is no problem here, since the writings of the NT are viewed as fragments of a larger normative tradition, not as a complete set of catechetical instructions for new believers, but as occasional writings with an “eye to the situation in the churches,” often intended to correct abuses.[33] But what is the Protestant Partisan to do with instructions and practices that claim to be apostolic but were never put in writing in the NT? Again, Krehbiel offers an imaginative scenario:
Imagine, if you will, John Calvin, Bible in hand, visiting the church of Corinth in the year 125. Calvin notices some practices in the church of which he has never read specific mention in Scripture, and he rebukes the church for “adding to God’s word.”
One of the presbyters approaches Calvin and says, “Have you not read in Paul’s first epistle to this church, in the passage about the Lord’s Supper, ‘And the rest I will set in order when I come’? (1 Cor 11:34) Dear brother, I was a young man when the apostle visited this church. These church practices you condemn came from the apostle’s very lips. Are you greater than Paul? We also have in our possession Paul’s letter to the church of the Thessalonians. He commands them to continue in the traditions, whether delivered by word of mouth or by epistle. (2 Thes 2:15) Are we to obey you or the apostle?” (Krehbiel, 6).
By means of this simple historical fiction, Krehbiel illustrates the unbiblical and unhistorical nature of the assumptions required by sola scriptura. There is no reason to suppose that early Church practices are contrary to apostolic teaching or were intended to be only temporary, simply because we can find no explicit description of them in Scripture today. In fact, Krehbiel offers an interesting biblical refutation of this supposition from 2 Chronicles 29:25 and 35:4, where both Hezekiah and Josiah used extrabiblical teachings in their reforms, from prophets who had been dead for hundreds of years, in violation of the assumption that only those teachings preserved in canonical Scriptures are authoritative.[34] What is interesting about the first verse (29:25) is that the instructions of David, Gad and Nathan followed by Hezekiah are described as being the command of the Lord through His prophets, even though (1) they were long dead by the time of Hezekiah and (2) there is no record in canonical Scripture that serves as a basis for Hezekiah’s actions. The same is true of the writings of Solomon whose instructions Josiah is cited as following in the second verse (35:4). What is also remarkable is the altogether unexceptional manner in which these actions are described. As Krehbiel observes, “In no case did the believing community rebuke Hezekiah or Josiah for violating sola scriptura. On the contrary, they accepted the fact that divine instruction, through the mouths of God’s prophets, had been preserved for the church’s use for hundreds of years apart from Scripture.”[35]

Philosophical and Practical Problems with Sola Scriptura

What should the Protestant do? If his denomination represents a valid ecclesiastical authority, he should submit. If it does not, he should not. But how does he know? The answer to the question “Which religious authorities are valid?” cannot be “Those whose doctrines are biblical,” because that is exactly what is under dispute. This would be as redundant as saying: “The only biblical leaders are those who are biblical.” While this is true, it is tautologous and unhelpful; since it offers no guidance in identifying what is “biblical.” The Lutherans say that their doctrines are biblical, as do the Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Baptists, Nazarines, Mennonites, Moravians, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh Day Adventists, and Disciples of Christ—and Catholics. “Lord, to whom should we go?”
In the final analysis, there would seem to be no more than a couple of alternatives: either we are left with nothing but personal opinion, illumined as it may or may not be by private interpretations of others—which means it comes down to this: every man for himself, interpreting Scripture as best he can and joining whatever group or denomination agrees most closely with his personal understandings; or God has established some kind of identifiable authority, with a promise of protection against error, to guide the Church—so that we may trust that the religious authority to whom we defer is delegated by Christ in the same manner as those to whom He said “He who hears you hears me” (Lk 10:16), permitting us to reply to this authority with Peter’s words: “You have the words of eternal life” (Jn 6:68).

Rosarium Virginis Mariae

Now, since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ”.(22) Never as in the Rosary do the life of Jesus and that of Mary appear so deeply joined. Mary lives only in Christ and for Christ!

-from the above encyclical by jp2

Mary

Check out link for full article.


Co-Redemptrix and Sola Fide: The Ecumenical Fortunes of Two Theological Controversies
by Philip Blosser


Three years after the ground-breaking initiative, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” or “ECT” (1994), another evangelical-Catholic joint statement, “The Gift of Salvation,” appeared in print for the first time last fall in Christianity Today (12/8/97). This happened within weeks of the hullabaloo sparked by Newsweek’s irresponsible feature speculating that the Pope was preparing to infallibly declare Mary co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces. The near coincidence of these two events got me thinking about the ecumenical concerns at issue in each of them. Both involve matters of intense sensitivity and concern to evangelical Protestants and Catholics, issues that evoke tenacious loyalties and have proven historically divisive—questions which ecumenically-minded members of both traditions are eager to see settled in interest of Christian unity. Both the question of justification and the question of Mary pose similar challenges and rewards to ecumenical progress and mutual understanding—and fates that could turn out to be as much alike as their concerns are different. “The Gift of Salvation” was seen as a necessary follow-up to ECT after it was determined (two years later in 1996) that further evangelical-Catholic rapprochement depended upon a firm agreement on the meaning of salvation, and especially justification. In many ways the statement is a remarkably ambitious undertaking, which aims to cut through to the basic essentials and resolve in a few short paragraphs the theological conflicts of several centuries. A key passage is one in which the authors define faith as “not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life.” This is immediately followed by the assertion: “We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide).” The document quite naturally garners Protestant support, not only by its notable affirmation (for Catholics) of “sola fide,” but by clearly and repeatedly affirming the basic Reformation principle that justification, like salvation itself, is from first to last a work of God’s grace—an affirmation, by the way, that should surprise no one who recalls the Council of Trent’s own statement that “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification” (session 6, ch. 8). Furthermore, the document recalls an observation made in the “Common Statement” that emerged from the joint Lutheran/Catholic dialogues on justification by faith (1978-83): “The Tridentine decree on justification, with its own way of insisting on the primacy of grace . . . is not necessarily incompatible with the Lutheran doctrine of sola fide, even though Trent excluded this phrase” (§ 56).

...

In short, a major problem with these Marian titles is that they scandalize most Protestants. Calling Mary “co-redemptrix” sounds as if Mary is being put on equal footing with Christ, usurping his exclusive title as Redeemer. Calling her “advocate” or “mediatrix” looks like a direct contradiction of the scripture that declares: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), or the one that says: “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (1 John 2:1). Never mind that no such confusion is intended by the Marian titles. Never mind that Jesus is never envisioned as a “co-redeemer” alongside Mary, since he alone is the Redeemer (and her Redeemer!), whereas she merely participates in his work to the extent that God allows his whole plan of redemption to hinge upon her willing cooperation. Never mind that none of these titles signifies more than a highly elevated sense of such cooperation as we, too, may exercise by participating in Christ’s redemptive work, by sharing in his ministry of healing, reconciliation, evangelism, and intercessory prayer, by leading others to Christ, by praying for them, serving as mediators of God’s grace in their lives as God’s “co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9). Despite all of this, the problem is that the Marian language remains confusing for the vast majority of Protestants. It simply sounds wrong to them, or at least confusing. And in light of the ecumenical progress made on various other fronts since the Second Vatican Council, the prospect of a dogmatic definition of the titles seems, as Fr. Neuhaus says, borrowing Cardinal Newman’s term, “inopportune.” By way of summary, the following may be noted. On the one hand, despite opposition, reputable Church leaders and groups of lay proponents have rallied in support of the proposed definition of Marian titles, often with considerable fervor. Even Catholic theologians who are opposed to it admit that a theological case can be made for the appropriateness of the titles. On the other hand, the proposal has provoked the opposition, not only of Protestants, but of Catholics, because of alleged ambiguities, possible confusions, and especially the “great ecumenical dismay” that the titles would engender because of their prima facie offensiveness to Protestants. With these observations in view, it will be instructive to revisit the question of justification, focusing particularly on the language of “faith alone” (sola fide) agreed upon in “The Gift of Salvation.”

SSPX and Rome

In exchange for the return to full communion of the Lefebvrist bishops -- which by no means could come immediately, but toward which goal tomorrow's summit is oriented -- and other, unspecified conditions, it's said the Holy See could be prepared to grant:
an acknowledgment that the Pian, or Tridentine, rite was not abrogated in the liturgical reforms following the Second Vatican Council;
an acknowledgment of the Old Mass' place and value in the life of the Latin church;
an acknowledgment that the SSPX never sought on its own accord to enter into schism;
an Apostolic Administration, subject to the Congregation for the Clergy, for the Society to maintain administration of its chapels, seminaries and other apostolatesBefore anything is sealed, however, several questions do remain.

What do you think of the SSPX? I hope they do come back into communion with the Pope and the church and on doing so bring a true practice of the old mass etc. I think things went kind of crazy in the church after Vatican II, especially in America and Europe. I think that the leaders really misinterpreted the council and this led to the liberal churches we are so familiar with.
I was reading some of the SSPX's beliefs yesterday and it seemed like a lot of the same beliefs I have. But I have just understood the issues in a more traditiona conservative matter, which it seems is really where the church is. the liberals in a sense are not catholic in the truest sense of the word. I think thats who the SSPX believe are the majority of the church.

Benedict on Baptism

Code: ZE06011705
Date: 2006-01-17
Pope's Homily on Day of Baptisms in Sistine Chapel
"We Need to Say 'No' to Culture of Death"
VATICAN CITY, JAN. 17, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is a translation of the homily Benedict XVI delivered without notes on Jan. 8, feast of the Baptism of the Lord, the day he baptized 10 infants in the Sistine Chapel. * * * Mass in the Sistine Chapel and Baptisms Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI Dear Parents and Godparents, Dear Brothers and Sisters, What happens in baptism? What do we hope for from baptism? You have given a response on the threshold of this chapel: We hope for eternal life for our children. This is the purpose of baptism. But how can it be obtained? How can baptism offer eternal life? What is eternal life? In simpler words, we might say: We hope for a good life, the true life, for these children of ours; and also for happiness in a future that is still unknown. We are unable to guarantee this gift for the entire span of the unknown future, so we turn to the Lord to obtain this gift from him. We can give two replies to the question, "How will this happen?" This is the first one: Through baptism each child is inserted into a gathering of friends who never abandon him in life or in death because these companions are God's family, which in itself bears the promise of eternity.

Justice

Judge Alito is so frightening to the Left. He truly believes that the purpose of a judge and of the Supreme Court is to apply the law in as agenda-free a manner as humanly possible. He knows that the role of the Supreme Court is not to promote socioeconomic equality but to preserve the rule of law.

These are the closing lines to an article by Dennis Prager about the lefts view of inequality and injustice. See link for full article.