The logic or illogic of contradiction

Faith & Science Conversation
,
151

I had no framework when I came to the passage in Greek, I just saw that Jesus said “is” and presumed He meant what He said – and grammatically making it a mere symbol in the modern sense is awkward at best.

Including when they said “symbol” or “representation”; those terms were realism terms back then: the first meaning something that conveys what it portrays, the second meaning presenting again what had been presented before.

BTW this is why I liked a painted mural I saw that took Da Vinci’s famous Last Supper painting and extended the table to infinity in both directions, populating it with believers from all times and places: the Eucharist is not celebrated multiple times as being enacted anew, the one Supper is brought to us from the same hands of the Savior – that is the implication of the use of “symbol” and “representation”.

Again, that misrepresents the Reformation; only the radicals can be said to have held that.

Just not a new one; it is an extension of the same one Sacrifice.

152

Only to sloppy thinkers.
Some days I like a chocolate protein shake for breakfast, other days I like a vanilla one. That is a difference, but it is not a contradiction.

I think that goes contrary to Hebrews 1:1-2.

Given the regular vagueness of your writing and the sloppiness of your thinking, “digesting” is impossible.

True (though whether Peter is/was “this rock” Jesus referred to is debatable).

153

Explicitly, yes. But even the principles of the less radical were hardly not a departure from the principles of the Church, even the Church of the first millenium.

I mean, Von Harnack himself aknowledged as much and he NEVER converted to catholicism so it’s not like he did that for apologetic purposes

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma3/dogma3.ii.iii.i.iii.iii.html

Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. III, translated from the third German edition by James Millar, edited by A. B. Bruce (London: Williams & Norgate, 1897), Chapter III, “Sources of Knowledge; or, Scripture, Tradition, and the Church,” §2, “Tradition,” pp. 207–233, especially p. 207. : “The authority of Holy Scripture frequently appears in the Fathers as something wholly abstract and despotic. It contained, in fact, a latent tendency to assert its independence of the conditions out of which it had arisen. But the revolution which was characterised by the isolation of the Bible, its deliverance from the authority of ecclesiastical tradition, and the annihilation of the latter, only took place in the sixteenth century, and even then it was, we know, not completely successful. In ecclesiastical antiquity, on the contrary, the bond was by no means severed which connected Scripture with the maternal organism of the Church.“

He describes the principle that is basically shared by all Protestant denominations (Scripture as the sole infallible rule of Faith, which also entails the fallibility of Ecumenical Councils and all the rest we know ) as a fundamental departure and break with everything that came before.

Evidently he considered it justified (otherwise he could not have remained a Protestant) but still he aknowledged the departure. And when you adopt a principle that fundamentally turns upside down the rule of faith of 15 centuries…I mean you can be more or less radical, sure, but the implication is still that the Church has been wrong for 15 centuries, although the more radical will state this conclusion with more force and in a more categorical way. But the underlying foundational principles are the same.

The true and proper sacramental offering of Christ’s one, perfect, and unrepeatable sacrifice on Calvary, made truly present upon the altar through the ministry of a validly ordained priest.

154

What about the 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification?

You continue to describe the Reformation by its worst elements. That is theologically sloppy.
Martin Chemnitz ably showed the above statement to be wrong as far as the Wittenburg Reformation.

Pope Francis disagreed, given that at the Joint Commemoration of the Reformation in Lund he acknowledged that Catholics and Lutherans had both received spiritual and theological gifts through the Reformation.

Luther would have called him an ass (donkey braying nonsense).

That would have to include the pope at the time and a number of Cardinals all of whom treated those who didn’t want to break with Rome no differently than this who did so with enthusiastic glee.

You basically condemn Luther for being no better than many popes – indeed you turn him into an idol as though people considered him infallible.

Yep – just like more than a few popes.

To be picky: it’s the fruit of the Spirit, singular.

The same is true of calling the pope “holy father”.

155

I cannot reply to everything now (I will, though) but Pope Francis. I think we said everything that needs to be said, Roymond. Pope Francis. Nothing needs to be added.:laughing:

I also thank God for having allowed Pope Francis to be elected because if he didn’t destroy the Church and imposed his heretical beliefs upon her, this really shows that she is divinely guarded and protected by the Holy Spirit.

If a Pope like Pope Francis hasn’t destroyed the bride of Christ, nothing ever will.

156

Not from these words

Heb 1
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, **2 **but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

Says nothing about the essence or make up of God.

And you clearly do not grasp the notion that God need not be limited in the way the creed claims. The creeds are for human understandng not God’s.

My words are so vague that it incites people. Y e e e s.

Is a downright Lie.

I was brought up a Methodist!

Just because I claim a personal belief does not make me denigrate anything. I also claim an acceptance that you seem to have ignored. You cannot accept and denigrate at the same time, that would seem to be contradictory.

You have never understood my acceptance over assertion, or my criticism of judgmental dismissals and insistane on a single view or understanding.

Why do people see t think that a variety of views is bad? Or that God must be approached and understood in a specific manner?

I do not even denigrate Catholicism. However “negative criticism” is never welcome and always taken as denigration.

Never mind.

Richard

157

  • The William Davidson Talmud (Koren - Steinsaltz), Sanhedrin 105a

    • …the ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: “Master of the Universe, if David, who killed the Philistine and bequeathed the city of Gath to your sons, will come and complain that You gave a share in the World-to-Come to his enemies Doeg and Ahithophel, what will You do concerning him? Will you accept his complaint?” God said to the ministering angels: It is upon me to render David and his enemies friends [re’im] with each other, and even David will agree."

  • Who were Doeg and Ahithophel?
    Doeg and Ahithophel were two notable figures in the Old Testament who turned against King David and are known for their roles in betrayal and tragedy.

Doeg was an Edomite who served as King Saul’s chief herdsman.
• What he did: While detained at the tabernacle in Nob, Doeg witnessed High Priest Ahimelech unknowingly helping a fleeing David with food and Goliath’s sword. Doeg reported this to King Saul. When Saul’s own guards refused the king’s order to kill the priests of Nob, Doeg carried out the massacre himself, slaying 85 priests and the entire town of Nob.
• Legacy: David condemned Doeg’s malice in Psalm 52, and rabbinical tradition views him as a symbol of someone who used great knowledge for evil.

Ahithophel was King David’s highly trusted personal counselor from Gilo, whose wisdom was regarded as if it were the direct “oracle of God” (2 Samuel 16:23). He was also likely the grandfather of Bathsheba (whose father, Eliam, was one of David’s mighty men).
• What he did: When David’s son Absalom rebelled, Ahithophel betrayed David by defecting to Absalom and giving him strategic advice to destroy David (including telling Absalom to pursue David immediately and publicly sleep with David’s concubines).

1 Like
158
  • What’s the moral of the Talmud’s story?

The central moral of this Talmudic story is that God’s mercy and power to reconcile enemies may extend beyond the limits of human judgment—even when the enemies have committed terrible wrongs.

But there is something particularly striking about the passage in Sanhedrin 105a: God does not simply announce that Doeg and Ahithophel will receive a share in the World-to-Come regardless of David’s objections. Instead, God proposes to reconcile David with his enemies so that David himself will agree.

That distinction is important.

1. The problem is justice versus mercy

Doeg was responsible for the slaughter of the priests of Nob. Ahithophel betrayed David and conspired to destroy him.

These were not minor personal offenses. Both men had committed acts that made them deserving of condemnation.

The ministering angels therefore raise a moral problem: How can God reward David’s enemies without doing an injustice to David?

God’s answer is remarkable:

It is upon me to render David and his enemies friends with each other, and even David will agree.

God’s proposed solution is neither to ignore the offenses nor to disregard David’s grievance. It is to overcome the enmity itself.

2. Reconciliation is something greater than pardon

There is a distinction between three possible outcomes:

  • Pardon: God forgives Doeg and Ahithophel despite their wrongdoing.
  • Salvation: God grants them a share in the World-to-Come.
  • Reconciliation: God transforms the relationship between David and his former enemies so that they are no longer enemies.

The third is the most extraordinary.

God does not merely propose to forgive the offenders. He proposes to bring about a condition in which even the person who suffered from their wrongdoing accepts their inclusion.

In other words, divine reconciliation does not require that the victim’s grievance be treated as morally insignificant.

3. The story challenges the permanence of human enmity

David had every reason to condemn these men. Yet the story imagines a future in which their hostility is overcome.

This suggests that the moral possibilities of the World-to-Come need not be confined by the relationships that existed during earthly life.

What appears irreconcilable to human beings may not be irreconcilable to God.

4. An important qualification

The passage occurs within a larger rabbinic discussion about who does and does not receive a share in the World-to-Come.

In fact, Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:2 explicitly names Doeg and Ahithophel among those excluded.

The Talmudic story therefore should not be mistaken for a straightforward declaration that both men were ultimately saved. It is part of a debate about their fate, and the rabbis preserve differing judgments.

Nevertheless, the story presents an extraordinary theological possibility: God can accomplish reconciliation even where human beings see only grounds for permanent condemnation.

5. The deeper moral

I would express the moral this way:

The perfection of divine justice may consist not merely in punishing wrongdoing or forgiving wrongdoers, but in overcoming the enmity that wrongdoing has created.

And there is a further implication worth considering.

The angels apparently assume that David’s objection would constitute an obstacle to the salvation of his enemies. God does not dismiss David’s objection. Rather, God assumes responsibility for changing the relationship so that the objection no longer stands.

That raises a fascinating theological question:

Is the ultimate triumph of divine justice the exclusion of the wicked, or their transformation into persons with whom even their victims can be reconciled?

The Talmud does not settle that question universally. But this particular story certainly opens the door to asking it.

159

That’s something that has bugged me about several churches I’ve attended: their view of justice ends with punishment. I’ve always asked, “Where is forgiveness?”

Wow.

1 Like
160

The 1999 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was certainly an important ecumenical achievement, and I have no difficulty acknowledging that, but I think you are seriously underestimating the depth of the divisions introduced by the Reformation if you believe that an agreement on justification comes anywhere close to resolving them.

In fact, the Declaration itself acknowledges this.

Paragraph 43 explicitly identifies unresolved questions concerning the relationship between Scripture and Church doctrine, ecclesiology, ecclesiastical authority, Church unity, ordained ministry, and the sacraments.

These are not peripheral theological disagreements. They concern the very foundations of Christianity: what the Church is, who possesses the authority to teach in Christ’s name, how apostolic authority is transmitted, and what constitutes the sacramental life of the Church.

Consider the implications.

Catholicism teaches that Christ established a visible, apostolic Church possessing a divinely instituted teaching authority, and that Sacred Scripture must be understood within the apostolic Tradition transmitted and authentically interpreted by that Church.

Much of confessional Protestantism, by contrast, regards Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith and all of Protestantism rejects the Catholic understanding of the Church’s binding doctrinal authority and the infallibility of ecumenical councils.

How do you reconcile two systems that fundamentally disagree about the very authority by which doctrinal disagreements are supposed to be resolved?

That is not a minor disagreement over biblical interpretation. It concerns the principles governing biblical interpretation itself.

Then consider the sacramental constitution of the Church.

Catholicism maintains that the sacramental priesthood is transmitted through apostolic succession and is intrinsically connected with the Eucharistic sacrifice.

The Lutheran confessional tradition retains an ordained ministry and affirms Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist (although by getting many things wrong about it), but rejects essential aspects of Catholic sacerdotal theology and does not regard uninterrupted sacramental episcopal succession as necessary for valid ministry.

These are competing understandings of what ordained ministry actually is, not simply different administrative arrangements.

And this difference remains so substantial that, in 2007 (eight years after the Joint Declaration)) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed that, according to Catholic doctrine, the ecclesial communities originating from the Reformation lack apostolic succession in the sacrament of Holy Orders and have consequently not preserved the sacramental priesthood and the Eucharistic mystery in their fullness. This assessment is also agreed upon by the apostolic Churches of the east, the Orthodox.

Let that sink in: eight years after the supposed breakthrough of 1999, the Catholic Church was still formally affirming that fundamental elements of the Church’s sacramental constitution had not been preserved in the communities originating from the Reformation.

And the problem extends considerably beyond Lutheranism.

Protestant Christianity encompasses numerous traditions with substantially different understandings of ecclesiastical authority, baptism, the Eucharist, ordained ministry, sacramental theology, and even the relationship between the visible Church and the universal body of believers.

We are therefore not dealing with a single disagreement that can be resolved by finding an acceptable theological formula: we are dealing with deeply entrenched differences concerning the very structure of Christian faith and ecclesial life.

And here is what makes reconciliation extraordinarily difficult: the Catholic Church cannot simply abandon doctrines she holds to have been entrusted to her by Christ and the Apostles without contradicting her own understanding of her identity and authority.

Likewise, Protestant communities cannot simply accept the Catholic understanding of apostolic Tradition, ecclesiastical authority, sacramental priesthood, and the Church’s constitution without fundamentally reconsidering some of the theological principles that historically distinguish them from Catholicism.

In other words, genuine reconciliation would require far more than mutual goodwill, improved relations, or agreement on selected doctrinal questions. It would require a profound convergence concerning the very principles upon which these ecclesial traditions are built.

Compare this with the division between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

The differences between East and West are still present , but both traditions preserve a fundamentally sacramental understanding of the Church, apostolic succession, the Eucharistic sacrifice, and a priesthood transmitted through ordination.

That substantial common inheritance provides a foundation for reconciliation (which is also why Patriarch Bartolomew said he expects full communion to be restored ) that is much less complete in the case of many communities originating from the Reformation.

This is the reason why I believe that repairing the divisions created by the sixteenth-century Reformation would require an extraordinary intervention of God.