Tuesday, August 14, 2012

TurretinFan: assisting Reformed conversions to the RCC ???


Yes, I am talking about the same TurretinFan (hereafter TF) who once wrote that Thomas Aquinas held to sola scriptura (see following links: first; second). The same TF who edits and/or deletes comments made on his blog he does not like; and same TF whose anti-Catholic bias puts into question much of what he publishes on Catholicism—the following contains the most recent example...

While engaged in online research pertaining to "the rule of faith" (Irenaeus related research), the following thread came up:


From the above post, we read:

Moreover, Mr. Anders specifically asserted: “The Catholic Assertion: The Church is the Rule of Faith.”

Interestingly, Benedict XVI (Yes, I know he’s German like Kung, Rahner, and Luther, but hear me out) is reported as saying:

The word of Scripture is not “an inert deposit within the Church” but the “supreme rule of faith and power of life”. Benedict XVI wrote this in a message to participants in the annual Plenary Session of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, held from Monday, 16, to Friday, 20 April, at the Vatican’s Domus Sanctae Marthae.

L'Osservatore Romano, 21 April 2012

So, will our Roman communion friends concede what that German prelate who claims to be the successor of Peter and Paul concedes? Or do will they deny that Scripture is the supreme rule of faith?

I mean one might think that “the Catholic position” is better expressed by the pope who says: “The Church has always considered and continues to consider Sacred Scripture, together with sacred Tradition, “as the supreme rule of her faith” (DV 21) and as such she offers it to the faithful for their daily life.” (
19 June 1985, General Audience)

And yes, he’s quoting from Vatican II, but I hear that they are planning on making even SSPX finally assent to those teachings.

So, what will it be? Will our Roman communion friends be on the pope’s (I suppose that should be popes’, as the 1985 audience would be the Polish prelate, not the German one) side? Do they agree that he has conceded that the Scriptures are a rule of faith and has further alleged that “Tradition” is as well?

[Note: TF failed to give a link to the original source of the David Anders quote, so I shall do so - link to David Anders post; link to TF's original reply.]

TF seems to think he has created a real dilemma for David Anders; but reality says something quite different. In addition to David's response to TF (link), the full context of Benedict XVI's April 20th, 2012 message should clear the matter up (at least for the objective reader):

To the Venerable Brother

Cardinal William Levada

President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission

I am pleased to send you, Venerable Brother, to Cardinal Prosper Grech. O.S.A., to the Secretary and to all the Members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission my cordial greeting on the occasion of the annual Plenary Assembly which is being held to address the important topic “Inspiration and Truth of the Bible.”

As we know, such a topic is essential for a correct hermeneutic of the biblical message. Precisely inspiration, as action of God, makes it possible to express the Word of God in human words. Consequently, the topic of inspiration is decisive for the appropriate approach to the Sacred Scriptures. In fact, an interpretation of the sacred texts that neglects or forgets their inspiration does not take into account their most important and precious characteristic, that is, their provenance from God. Moreover, in my Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini, I recalled that “The Synod Fathers also stressed the link between the theme of inspiration and that of the truth of the Scriptures. A deeper study of the process of inspiration will doubtless lead to a greater understanding of the truth contained in the sacred books.” (n. 19).

Because of the charism of inspiration, the books of Sacred Scripture have a direct and concrete force of appeal. However, the Word of God is not confined to what is written. If, in fact, the act of Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, the revealed Word has continued to be proclaimed and interpreted by the living Tradition of the Church. For this reason the Word of God fixed in the sacred texts is not an inert deposit inside the Church but becomes the supreme rule of her faith and power of life. The Tradition that draws its origin from the Apostles progresses with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and grows with the reflection and study of believers, with personal experience of the spiritual life and the preaching of Bishops (cf. Dei Verbum, 8, 21).

In studying the topic “Inspiration and Truth of the Bible,” the Pontifical Biblical Commission is called to offer its specific and qualified contribution to this necessary further reflection. In fact, it is essential and fundamental for the life and mission of the Church that the sacred texts are interpreted in keeping with their nature: Inspiration and Truth are constitutive characteristics of this nature. That is why your endeavor will be of real usefulness for the life and mission of the Church.

With good wishes to each one of you for the fruitful development of your works, I would like, finally, to express my heartfelt appreciation for the activity carried out by the Biblical Commission , committed to promoting knowledge, study and reception of the Word of God in the world. With such sentiments I entrust each one of you to the maternal protection of the Virgin Mary, who with the whole Church we invoke as Sedes Sapientiae, and I impart from my heart to you, Venerable Brother, and to all the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission a special Apostolic Blessing. (Zenit link)


With polemics like TF's is there any 'wonder' as to why so many Reformed folk are converting to the RCC ???


Grace and peace,

David

8 comments:

Sean Patrick said...

You could post this on his blog but maybe it would get deleted? Maybe he does not know how the context completely upends his arugment?

Lvka said...

Here's how the Protestant mind works, Dave:


1. the Godhead is in three Persons

2. but the Bible says, in the original KJV English spoken by Christ and His Holy Apostles, that God is NOT a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9; 1 Peter 1:17) and that respecting persons is a sin (James 2:9)

So, --in conclusion--, Constantine corrupted the faith at Nicaea when he invented the Trinity to worship the "SUN of God" on Sundays! See? It's all logical and documented and no one can deny it !

QED

David Waltz said...

Hi Sean,

So good to see that you took the time to read my musings; yesterday, you posted:

==You could post this on his blog but maybe it would get deleted?==

Me: I could, but my last half-dozen or so posts at his blog have either been deleted or edited. As such, I don't think I will attempt to post it there.

==Maybe he does not know how the context completely upends his arugment?==

Me: I have found a number of TF's posts to be misleading due to the lack of context; and I do not anticipate that this deficiency will be ending anytime soon.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Lvka,

Interesting comments...

I have been struggling of late to try and understand the conservative Protestant paradigm from a historical view. So far, I have yet to find a coherent theory of development from those within that paradigm, who claim to be Trinitarians, that is consistent.

I cannot not help but feel that one of reasons why groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, and Mormons are getting so many conversions year after year is that they, unlike the conservative Protestants, do present a consistent view of history that is 'easy' for the average layman to grasp and understand.


Grace and peace,

David

Lvka said...

In the sense that they take the madness to its logical extreme ? Yes.

Rory said...

This original post is by someone who thinks Pope Benedict is affirming sola scriptura?

Tell me I misunderstand. In any event the Internet Calvinists misinterpret the Church Fathers the same way. What is surprising is if they would do it with a modern pope.

As a Catholic, while disagreeing, I retain respect for the intellectual integrity of many Calvinists that I have read. It is difficult to believe that Internet Presbyterianism would be appealing to Warfield, Machen, and the Hodges. Some of these Internet Calvinists are an embarrassment.

No wonder so many converts to Catholicism are coming from the Reformed ranks. If only Charles Hodge could have been exposed to TurretinFan, it might have driven him to Rome too!

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for your thoughts; you wrote:

==This original post is by someone who thinks Pope Benedict is affirming sola scriptura?

Tell me I misunderstand.==

Me: TF's post is muddled, so it is difficult to discern exactly what his actual view is. But, with that said, this is the same individual who believes that Thomas Aquinas held to sola scriptura !!!

==In any event the Internet Calvinists misinterpret the Church Fathers the same way. What is surprising is if they would do it with a modern pope.==

Me: Indeed. There is no question in my mind that a number of Reformed apologists read the Church Fathers anachronistically—this, coupled with highly selective quotations, has them finding sola scriptura, justification by faith alone through imputation alone, total depravity, etc, in the early Church Fathers—but recognized patristic scholars, who read those same Fathers in their original context, reject such interpretations.

==As a Catholic, while disagreeing, I retain respect for the intellectual integrity of many Calvinists that I have read. It is difficult to believe that Internet Presbyterianism would be appealing to Warfield, Machen, and the Hodges. Some of these Internet Calvinists are an embarrassment.==

Me: Agreed.

==No wonder so many converts to Catholicism are coming from the Reformed ranks. If only Charles Hodge could have been exposed to TurretinFan, it might have driven him to Rome too!==

Me: ROFL...


Grace and peace,

David

Fred Noltie said...

Hello David,

This is not the first time that TF has demonstrated a lack of appreciation for context when it comes to the Pope's works.

Unfortunately.

Fred