“So it is simply not adequate for Galea to acknowledge in passing (on page 45) that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass repeats Christ’s sacrifice on the cross but yet base his criticism on the assumption that it does.”
I don’t agree with this observation. Ray’s discussion is reasonable, in light of the language used in CCC, Article 2, especially, 1367 (1545) ‘The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice …’
I think Roland’s comments are quite true. Another example of Galea’s mixed up logic is shown around page 39. Galea explains the philosophical idea of transubstantiation and metaphysics and even points out that the idea of it is not a problem for him, but then accuses the catholic church of idolatry even though the eucharist is explained by metaphysics to be the presence of Christ and not just a piece of bread. His strange logic goes along these lines: God hates idolatry; idolatry can be the worship of an inanimate object; catholics say the Eucharist is not an inanimate object; therefore catholics are guilty of idolatry.
As for your quote out of CCC you bring with you your own thoughts on one single sacrifice if you read the CCC in context: 1364 ‘...the sacrifice Christ offered once for all on the cross remains ever present...’
Shayne McCusker - 11 August 2008 05:11 PM
In summary, it’s obvious the book is a discussion starter - is not this thread, evidence?
Yeah but a discussion starter for the wrong reasons.
The claim of sola scriptura is not one that can be argued convincingly. So, therefore, you must take up the argument that the “whole body of believers have shared responsibility” in interpreting etc. That is the problem. Infant versus adult baptism is only one doctrine protestants cannot agree on, and surely, that is an important one. We all claim Holy Spirit guidance. How do you test it? So many scholars and so many theories.
John 16:12-13 I [Jesus] have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Hi again Angus,
Glad you mentioned that. I was to mention fruits but forgot. Catholicism certainly has shown the fruits over many centuries. Mother Teresa would certainly be one of the modern age.
Regards
Donna
The book may have been a discussion starter but only because it is so bad that people like me are driven to respond to it.
A true discussion starter would set out, in accordance with the subtitle, strengths and weaknesses of both catholic and protestant positions, and arguments for and against. Clearly the book does not do that, as it only talks about protestant beliefs in a negative way through its theme of discrediting catholic beliefs.
I would have thought an INFORMED discussion starter was a lot more useful. All I am learning is that defenders of the protestant position are brainwashed in their adherence to orthodoxy and are happy to argue from unsustainable positions.
The key example is the circularity in the “scripture alone” argument, or if we accept that the holy spirit guides people in their reading, the failure to explain the divisions within protestantism.
Whoa back there, John! Some of your words are a little harsh and unnecessarily so, I think. While I find the Protestant dogma of Sola Scriptura fairly untenable and have been thoroughly unconvinced by the arguments put forward on these forums, “brainwashing” really is too harsh a term to use. All of us are influenced by our worldview and background, so there’s no room for triumphalism from anyone. I’m sure we’re all guilty of some degree of cognitive dissonance from time to time.
While I agree that the discussion that results from a poorly researched book doesn’t vindicate the book itself, I think there are some redeeming elements in the book. We are able to learn to Ray was perhaps not as scrupulous as he thought he was in his research (admittedly, much of was is written sounds like someone who had been thoroughly Protestanised already) and that the faith that he rejects is really a parody of Catholicism than Catholicism itself. More importantly however, the book serves as an instructive guide to well-informed Catholics about the aspects of their faith that are either badly misunderstood or common stumbling blocks for Protestants.
In response to your query as to whether my comments are generalised for the sake of brevity (in your post # 104) I can only say “yes” in all respects and cannot see how they can be otherwise in a forum of this kind. That said my personal concern, given the relative length to other posts, has been that they might be rightly regarded as prolix. Notwithstanding this concern, perhaps if I elaborate my comments on Ray Galea’s discussion of the Mass it may serve to illustrate not only what I meant about the importance of hearing both what others are saying and what they are not saying (my post # 91) but may also answer your later objection (in your post #99).
When a Protestant hears a phrase such as the sacrifice of the Mass it is not surprising that they think of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. If they are told that it is connected to Christ’s sacrifice then it can sound as if the Mass is seeking to repeat that sacrifice. Worse still it can sound as if Christ’s act on the cross was insufficient and needs to be augmented by human works. Ray Galea’s discussion of the Mass is along these lines and his criticism is that the Mass seeks to interpose an act of mankind as a supplement to the work of Christ. So whilst he mentions that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass repeats Christ’s sacrifice his criticism assumes it.
However, in this instance what a Protestant “hears” is not what the Catholic Church says. The Catholic position is that the Eucharist is a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the unique historical and bloody sacrifice of Christ on the cross in a sacramental, unbloody manner. This is the context in which the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are said to be the one single sacrifice (as per your reference to paragraph 1367 of the catechism). Now you may argue that this understanding is mistaken, that it is insufficiently biblically based or has any number of faults but I don’t think it is reasonable to argue, as Ray Galea does, that it represents the Church seeking to add a human work to the work of Christ.
I hope the above clarifies why I believe that, whatever the merits of Ray Galea’s book as personal spiritual journey; it fails to live up to the aspirations of its sub-title.
I largely agree with your comments (in your post #103) and think that the whole body of believers should be involved in interpreting the Scriptures. If I was to change anything in your description it would be to say that the whole body of believers encompasses not only those now present but also believers of ages past, whom we know through their writing. I would include believers past not because they had a purer faith or didn’t have any blind spots but simply because they do not flatter us by having the same blind spots and cultural misconceptions that we do and so don’t readily commit our mistakes.
My question, however, is how might a consensus interpretation arise from this body of believers and how might it be discerned? If it is not to be an authoritative Magisterium what institutional form might it take?
My question, however, is how might a consensus interpretation arise from this body of believers and how might it be discerned? If it is not to be an authoritative Magisterium what institutional form might it take?
Hi again Roland. I find John 15:1-17 helpful in seeing a way forward. God’s church is united through a living, Spirit filled faith that is bearing fruit, rather than a centralised church polity.
Individual branches of the metaphorical vine can recognise the vitality of other branches by the fruit it bears in bringing glory to Jesus, the vine stem. Our unity is in faithful obedience to the Father as we are led by the Spirit. I believe that there will always be different branches of God’s church, where we understand and express our faith in somewhat different ways. This is because God’s revelation of himself in scripture is not perfect (ie without some ambiguity), but it is still perfectly sufficient for genuine faith. The various church branches should look to each other not as opposing forces, but as brothers and sisters sharing God’s blessing. We should patiently learn from each other’s strengths, and humbly engage in mutual self correction as led by the Spirit who sustains us all. Any branch which isn’t bearing fruit is likely to have embraced radically false doctrine and is in danger of being lopped from the vine. So it is God the Father who prunes the vine.
In a practical sense for church unity now, I think any church that proclaims our faith as has been usefully summarised by our creeds (though perhaps omitting the filioque in the Nicene Creed for the sake of our Orthodox brethren) should be considered “in fellowship” (unless the expression of this faith is radically at odds to what is professed). Ultimately however it is God who judges those who have submitted to the Lordship of Jesus and are genuinely attached to the ‘living vine’.
I agree that we must respect the views of our predecessors in faith in Christ. However your question as to how might a consensus interpretation arise from this body of believers presupposes that it is possible to derive a consensus interpretation from them, and we only have to determine how to do it.
I myself doubt doubt that doctrinal unity can ever been drawn out of the writings of our Christian forefathers. Such unity was brought about in past times by harsh measures, on all sides of the debae. Today, it can only be done by picking and choosing from what is left to us. The early Christian fathers disagreed; and we all reject some of what they say; even Roman Catholics.
Re consensual interpretation. The 39 articles were signed off by Queen Elizabeth. Those articles assert a canon and make a number of theological statements although generally in the negative sense in terms of differentiating from the catholic church.
I am not sure where she sat in the apostolic succession. Maybe we can ask the current Queen for a call.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
