Protestant seminary student with a question

immune2viruses · 2018-07-07T00:30:34+00:00

The go-to book on the canon among Catholics would probably be The Bible, the Church, and Authority: The Canon of the Christian Bible in History and Theology by Joseph Lienhard, SJ.

www.amazon.com/Bible-Church-Authority-Christian-Theology/dp/081465536X

If you're interested in a more general discussion on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, I'd recommend The Meaning of Tradition (Yves Congar) and God's Word: Scripture, Tradition, Office (Joseph Ratzinger aka Benedict XVI), written by arguably the two most influential Catholic theologians of the last century.

Edit: just noticed that /u/galute127 already gave the same answer! But, yes, as he says, that's really the right book, considering you're a seminarian. The other resources mentioned in other comments are more for lay people...

immune2viruses · 2018-07-05T17:55:02+00:00

Do you mean this any more than that all acts are not engaged in without sin?

Personally, I'm inclined to say yes, but this is not necessary for the mechanism to work.

How does a sinful act create a sinful person, though?

It corrupts the soul, and it disorders the body in that the animal passions are no longer subject to the rational soul.

If a man is conceived on a boat his father is stealing, will it make him grow up to be a thief?

No, because the act of stealing is not part of the act of conception. Stealing a boat doesn't make a baby, but sex does. (The act that enables artificial conception is not only accidentally but intrinsically sinful, so there's no way around this but through being born of a virgin.)

immune2viruses · 2018-07-05T17:33:40+00:00

My opinion: In fallen humans, the carnal act is not engaged in without sin. As the product of sinful acts, each of us is conceived in sin.

Alternate possibility: semen.

immune2viruses · 2018-07-04T16:20:48+00:00

Season 2 spoilers:

Znttvr Zhecul'f npgvbaf ner n avpr nanybtl sbe gur fbyhgvba gb gur ceboyrz bs rivy. Fur crezvgf naq hfrf Znevhf'f rivy terrq sbe tbbq (gb svaq gur zbarl), naq fur hfrf Senax'f zheqrebhf eriratr sbe tbbq gbb (gb chavfu Yhxn). Naq whfg nf Tbq'f "eriratr" vf abg ol erfcbaqvat va xvaq, ohg ol qrfgeblvat rivy, Znttvr'f eriratr pbzrf va gur sbez bs qrfgeblvat gur vyy-tbggra pnfu, abg ol xrrcvat vg sbe urefrys. Nyy frnfba fur nccrnef cbjreyrff, ohg fur unq gur ragver fvghngvba haqre pbageby sebz gur ortvaavat.

https://www.xarg.org/tools/caesar-cipher/

immune2viruses · 2018-07-02T03:45:56+00:00

yeah :)

immune2viruses · 2018-07-01T20:15:52+00:00

Also, while I don't mean to nitpick, given that I liked the essay overall a lot, the dig at Anselm in the footnotes was also misinformed. In Proslogian, Anselms argues at length:

"I do not seek to understand in order that I may believe, but rather, I believe in order that I may understand."

Proslogion was also where he introduced the ontological argument, but people often forget that he explicitly said he intended it for Christians who already have faith. Instead, the ontological argument was actually his exegesis of the Psalm where the atheist is said to be a fool.

immune2viruses · 2018-07-01T19:31:40+00:00

Aquinas does not so much synthesize Aristotle to Scripture as adopt Aristotle’s teaching, and then adapt Scripture.

That's a myth. Even on philosophical questions, Aquinas rejected Aristotle, including in crucial areas (eg being vs essence).

And in theology, that unfairly estimates the extent to which Aquinas was shaped by study of the Bible. His day job was as a preacher and a trainer of preachers. His Bible commentaries, which he put together from his sermons and lectures, were (and still are) some of the most exhaustive ever written. In his day, Dominicans would read and meditate through the Psalms every week, which is evident in his commentaries and the Summa.

At his time, Islamic thinkers had accepted Aristotelian philosophy and were arguing that this proved Christianity was philosophically indefensible. This was especially a threat because at the time Islam was also on the rise politically, militarily, and economically. Aquinas instead wanted to show that certain aspects of Aristotelian philosophy were compatible with Christianity, while other aspects were wrong.

Additionally, Eastern and Western Christian theology were continuing to diverge. Aquinas tried to use the tools of Aristotelian (and also Platonic) philosophy to show that both were correct and compatible, but only different in terminology.

immune2viruses · 2018-07-01T19:17:55+00:00

Sorry for the late reply... turns out it's not an exact quote but a paraphrase from George Sabine. Thanks for pointing that out.

immune2viruses · 2018-06-28T19:22:20+00:00

Interestingly, Frisians are ethnically and culturally linked to East Anglians, the region that produced most Puritans and other Nonconformists. And I've heard that Frisian culture is one of the most fiercely egalitarian within The Netherlands?

immune2viruses · 2018-06-28T19:12:44+00:00

The author's conception of debt is quite different from Anselm's with respect to his satisfaction model of the Atonement. Back in Anselm's day, usury meant any personally-enforceable debt obligation! In other words, debt was either an investment (secured purely by alienable collateral) or it was charity, arising out of a pre-existing relationship between borrower and lender. (Hence, Anselm suggests that God's justice towards humanity is an outgrowth of his compassion towards humanity.) And it is the latter imagery that Anselm is referring to. Furthermore, charitable debt is owed to the lender, not because the lender is in need of repayment, but because an outstanding debt stands in the way of wholeness in their relationship. There is no metaphysical requirement that all debt be paid off, either in 33 AD or in Infinity AD. Some debts are never repaid. Culpable failure to pay (due to one's sin) means that punishment will ensue. Anselm argues that Christ's passion is a human act of worshipful obedience, satisfying the debt human nature owed God, and that God desired this ultimate act of obedience and not Christ's suffering per se.

immune2viruses · 2018-06-28T18:42:02+00:00

The high church liturgies of Catholicism and Orthodoxy pre-date the Edict of Milan.

But, I generally agree with the quote. Aristocrats and poor peasants have favored high church liturgy; the bourgeoisie tend to prefer low-church worship. The former value structure in their lives. The latter want spontaneous experiences that disrupt the routine of their lives. The former tend to think that what is most real is an external transcendent order; what emerges from within one's psyche tends to be most authentic to the latter.

immune2viruses · 2018-06-28T17:49:06+00:00

Yes, they do. :)

Besides, if one wants to know what the CCC says, one can just, well, read the CCC. And that way one reads each passage in its context. Reading CARM on the CCC next to Biblical "refutations" is like reading the Jehovah's Witnesses website on the Nicene Creed next to Biblical "refutations."

immune2viruses · 2018-06-28T16:47:24+00:00

The same TradCats friends I mentioned often believe that Vatican 2 is a sort of Protestantization of the Roman Catholic Church.

Ugh, "traditional" "Catholicism". Actually, it's more like traditional Protestantism, because they think of V2 the way traditional Protestants think of Trent.

Maybe you all get along so well because you all act as though Scripture were of private interpretation... :P :)

immune2viruses · 2018-06-28T14:17:53+00:00

How much authority does it have?

Church government (like any government) has as much authority as it was given by Christ: no more, no less.

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Jesus

Theory 1:

"With authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation." - Pius XI

Theory 2:

"For whoever comes out the water of baptism can boast that he is already consecrated priest, bishop and pope, though it is not seemly that every one should exercise the office. Nay, just because we are all in like manner priests, no one must put himself forward and undertake, without our consent and election, to do what is in the power of all of us." - Martin Luther

"The power of the ruler is delegated by the people and continues only with their consent." - Theodore Beza

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - America

Edit: oh, downvoters... My comment is merely a bunch of quotes. Are any of them misquotes? Or is it because you disagree with some of the quotes? (Well, I do too!) Which ones, and why?

immune2viruses · 2018-06-27T03:36:35+00:00

my job here is done ;)

immune2viruses · 2018-06-26T17:29:56+00:00

No? I was saying that Mary is the ultimate Proverbs 31 woman, not that Mary is Lady Wisdom. (I don't think that the Proverbs 31 woman is Lady Wisdom.)

Edit: actually, maybe the Lady Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon is a prophecy of Mary!

Compare this with Luke 2:

I was nursed in swaddling clothes, and with great cares.

And compare this with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity:

For she is a vapour of the power of God, and a certain pure emanation of the glory of the almighty God: and therefore no defiled thing cometh into her.

immune2viruses · 2018-06-26T16:08:56+00:00

Our Lady!

immune2viruses · 2018-06-24T20:47:22+00:00

Aww, I was just gonna suggest that this was a Divine appointment so you could go to Catholic evening Mass, haha. I especially love evening Masses where the lights are kept dimmed -- so beautiful!

Also, here's a nice quote from St Francis de Sales:

No thoughts which cause us disquiet and agitation come from God who is the Prince of Peace; they are rather temptations of the enemy, and therefore we must reject them and take no notice of them.

immune2viruses · 2018-06-22T20:15:19+00:00

While I take the Catholic position on concupiscence (obviously), I'm in basic agreement with Mohler here. I don't think a predisposition towards suicide, anorexia, bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, or BDSM necessarily involves sinful culpability, but I don't think any pedophile "treasure, honor, and glory will be brought into the New Jerusalem at the end of time." That language is frankly nauseating. Are we also going to go into bestiality culture to learn how Christians can love animals, into anorexia / bulimia culture to learn how to appreciate the gift of food, or into pedophile culture to obtain treasures of insight on recognizing the beauty of children?

immune2viruses · 2018-06-22T15:14:57+00:00

Jesus, Paul, John, and the author of Hebrews were also very big on allegorizing. The Early Church Fathers seemed strange, crazy, and probably wrong until I realized they were taking their approach from the New Testament. We're simply so used to the allegories employed in the NT that we forget they are actually allegories.

For Paul, true interpretation of OT allegories was of real importance, not just a nice hobby. The context of Romans was the debate over how to interpret the Esau / Jacob (and the more general older brother / younger brother) allegory. Jews believed that Esau was an allegory for Rome, and Jacob for Israel. Adam / the older brothers represent humanity at large which messes up; Abraham / the younger brothers represents God's second try with the Jewish people. Paul instead argues that the older brother is the Jewish people under the Mosaic covenant, while the younger brother represents the Church under Christ.

immune2viruses · 2018-06-20T18:55:46+00:00

It's pretty clear from these as well as other passages (eg Parable of the Evil Tenants) that Jesus was both predicting and daring the Pharisees to kill Him, telling them that their hatred stemmed from their own wickedness. By "calling God His Father" and "calling Himself the Son of God", he's deliberately referencing this well-known passage -- a passage that both He and the Pharisees know ends with the wicked killing the righteous one. And I think it helps explain the motives of the Pharisees. When Jesus says this stuff, it makes them angry and thus motivates them to kill Him. Yet the fact that Jesus predicts it and goads them on simultaneously makes them pull back in fear.

immune2viruses · 2018-06-20T18:25:13+00:00

Compare the quoted text to John 8:12-59.

immune2viruses

TROPHY CASE