Response to the Papacy arguments - If the early church understood Matt 16 as Peter or his faith without reference to successors, why then did the church claim to have successors to St Peter in the Papacy? Why does the early church writings have to clearly state doctrines that are later held in church history? Cannot the Holy Spirit guide the church over time to have a deeper appreciation of the biblical texts? Jesus did promise the Holy Spirit to guide the church into all truth. Cardinal John Henry Newman's understanding of church history on the development of doctrine may assist you in this regard.
Response to the Saints - Jordan rejects the papacy based upon no early church witness, but he also rejects praying to the saints when there is an early church witness. Jordan's criteria for rejecting the Catholic church is clearly not based upon any witness or lack of witness in the early church.
Praying to the saints is not worship, but dulia as honor. Correct worship of God is latria through sacrifice. Jordan claims prayer to the saints leads to idolatry, but Catholic teaching clearly distinguishes between prayer to the saints and the worship of God, thereby preventing idolatry. Jordans lack of support from scripture is irrelevant because the Catholic church does not follow the false theory of sola scriptora.
Sacrifice of the Mass - Hebrews does discuss the resurrected Christ acting as a priest in the order of Melchizedek who offers gifts and sacrifices in the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews does speak of the ongoing activity of Jesus offering himself as a sacrifice (Heb 9:23) to cleanse the sanctuary, which consistent with the mass. If there is no more sacrifice after the cross, how does Jesus continue to act as a priest forever as Hebrews says? What are yo to make of the gospel accounts of the institution of the Eucharist and the historical witness of Christ in the Eucharist? Why believe anything Luther taught about the Eucharist when he had no authority and came up wit many novel doctrines about all things Christian?
Infallible Magisterium - Jordan Rome is not the same by comparing Bellarmine and Karl Rahner. But Rahner has no athority in the church at all other than a theologian. Rome position does not change because Rahaner taught something different to Bellarmine or Trent.
Trent's claims account for the development of doctrine, which means Trent did take into account changes over time within the church on matters of doctrine. Rome can make statements to explain church doctrine in diverse ways to account for different aspects of doctrine and doctrinal development.
Justification - Faith alone theology is only an eisegesis of a select number of passages which has many problems. Justification is really i a covenant setting and any reference to a judgement must be understood within the covenant between the Father and humanity through Jesus as the mediator.
St Paul repeatedly speaks of being in Christ as transformational language.
The gospel is the new Exodus, new creation, new covenant, restoration of Israel and the ingathering of the nations to Zion, focussed on the church as the new Israel with the Eucharist at the centre. The gospel is not justification by faith alone -
Faith is not an instrument, but a habit and an act.
There never was any imputation of man's sins to Christ's account.
There is never any imputation of Christ's merit to the sinners account.
There never was any great exchange which involves any legal fiction.
Faith is always an act that infers a union with hope and love, contrary to Luther's doctrine.
Works of the law refer to covenant works, or any work of grace. If so, faith alone theology is false, for faith is a work of grace, excluded by faith alone theology. Rom 4 refers to both faith (Rom 4:3) and hope (Rom 4:18) and Davids (Ps 32) conversion as a resurrection to new life. This is hardly the language of faith alone and extrinsic righteousness.
No comments:
Post a Comment