Like many churches around Sydney, we are about to preach a series on the Reformation solas, because Roman Catholic World Youth Day is arriving next month. One of the things I was thinking about was how to ensure that the sermons on grace and faith reinforce and complement each other, rather than simply repeating each other. That is, it’s not always easy to say what the ‘grace alone’ slogan means to distinguish it from the ‘faith alone’ slogan. Another little issue is that I think the ‘alone’ part of each slogan has a somewhat different sense in each phrase.
Anyway, here’s my attempt to outline the sermon series. I would be very glad of your feedback—especially in sharpening the distinctions between the grace and faith sermons, and the sense of the ‘alone’ and the ‘not’.
Sermon 1: Sola scriptura: Scripture alone
- Define Scripture: it’s God’s word written—the Bible.
- The sense of ‘alone’ in this phrase: Scripture alone is our highest and final authority (instead of Scripture is our only source of knowledge or authority).
- What we say ‘no’ to here: we’re emphasizing Scripture, not tradition (like the Roman Catholic magisterium which claims authority on any number of things such as additional teachings on Mary, compulsory clerical celibacy, etc).
- Passages: Mark 7:1-13, 2 Timothy 3:10-4:5.
Sermon 2: Sola gratia: grace alone
- Define grace: it’s God’s unmerited favour, not a substance infused into us.
- The sense of ‘alone’ in this phrase: salvation comes to us entirely as God’s generous gift.
- What we say ‘no’ to here: we’re saying salvation is all of God’s grace and not of our merit, deserving or cooperation (again, compare this to the Roman Catholic catechism on grace etc.)
- Passages: Luke 15:11-24, Ephesians 2:1-10.
Sermon 3: Sola fide: by faith alone
- Define faith: it’s trust in God and his promises (not mere doctrinal assent, nor a positive religious feeling in the absence of evidence, pace Dawkins!)
- The sense of ‘alone’ in this phrase: God’s gracious justification is received by faith alone.
- What we say ‘no’ to here: we’re saying it’s received by faith, not by works of the law (nor good deeds) of any sort (again, compare and contrast this with the Roman Catholic catechism).
- Passages: John 6:25-40; Galatians 2:1-21.
Sermon 4: Solus Christus: Christ alone
- Define Christ: Jesus Christ, God’s Son in his person and work—as priest and sacrifice.
- The sense of ‘alone’ in this phrase: the righteousness of Jesus Christ is the sole basis of our justification, so on the grounds of his redeeming sacrifice, Jesus is the only and unique mediator between God and humans.
- What we say ‘no’ to here: we come to God only through Christ and his finished work on the cross, not by other mediators (such as Mary or the saints, nor can Mary be called a co-redemptrix) or continuing sacrifices (such as in the mass). More broadly, there are no other ways to God except through Jesus Christ (i.e. we cannot get to God by other religious leaders such as Muhammad, Buddha, etc., as post-Vatican 2 theology implies).
- Passages: Luke 11:27-32, Hebrews 10:1-23.
What suggestions do you have?
Sandy,
a question based upon ignorance.
Is there any significance to the order of the 4 solas?
We started this series at our church (whilst also pushing Ray Galea’s book) last weekend and started with Christ Alone. Is it helpful to start with one or another?
Sandy,
a second question based upon ignorance.
Why 4 and not 5, especially since “The Sola Panel is a group of Reformed-Evangelical friends who love the five ‘solas’ of the Reformation,and want to promote a Bible-driven passion for theology, holiness and gospel ministry.”
hey sandy. looks good.
interested to know why you think most churches are doing this series in 4 talks… and not 5? I think that the key one is “Soli Deo Gloria”
thoughts?
I’ve just preached a Sola series but did
1. Christ alone
2. Grace alone
3. Faith Alone
4. Scripture Alone
The faith talk was different because it looked at how grace is received by the Christian. The grace talk is the basis of salvation.
Other observations?
I was amazed (but shouldnt have been) at the number of people in the congregation who told me they were brought up Roman Catholic, were still Roman Catholic, were married to a Roman Catholic, etc etc. It was therefore a great series to equip people to speak to friends and family. I saw more people invited and coming for the whole series than I’ve seen for any other series I’ve done.
I think tone is really important. I took my lead from Peter Jensen’s Northern Region lectures where he began by warning of the twin dangers of sectarianism and indifferentism. The older members knew sectarianism very well and were releived we weren’t going back there. The younger members were much mroe indifferent.
Also helpful was Peter’s model of engaging with the Roman Catholic catechism – even if many Roman Catholics don’t know what the church teaches (how many of our members know the 39 articles etc?)
It was also helpful to keep seeing the reformation solas as a call for every church to be reformed by the gospel – far from throwing rocks at Roman Catholics because our house is soooo in order, it was good to have the gospel challenge what we do.
Thanks for the article Sandy. It’s always helpful to have someone define more clearly not only what they stand for, but also what they stand against.
I hope you don’t mind me asking a few questions for further clarification:
With respect to <b>Sola Scriptura</b>, given that you correctly suggest that the Bible is not the sole authority, which “additional” doctrine relating to Mary taught by the Catholic Church are you referring to, and how do these doctrines violate the principle of Sola Scriptura? That is, how are they explicitly contradicted in Scripture?
With respect to <b>Sola Christus</b>, in what respect do the intercessary prayers of the Saints undermine the work of Christ on the Cross?
It seems you may also have a few misapprehensions about Catholic doctrine, possibly through not reading the primary documents. Hopefully, my reading can be of assistance:
Firstly, not all priests are required to be celibate.
Secondly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) does not define grace as a substance infused into us (unless you are referring to the Holy Spirit as a substance, per paragraph 1999), but “favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life” (paragraph 1996).
Thirdly, the CCC teaches that justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ (paragraph 1992).
Fourthly, nowhere in the CCC is the doctrine of Mary as co-redemptrix taught.
Fifthly, nowhere in the CCC is salvation through means other than Christ taught.
I should point out sixthly, that the Catholic Church simply does not teach continuing sacrifices of the Mass. In fact, this understanding is explicitly rejected at paragraphs 1366 and 1367 of the CCC.
Hey Sandy, on the front of each of the four sessions on the Ideas that changed the world DVD there is a three minute testimony section where Roman Catholics who have become Christians share about their changed understanding of grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone and Bible alone.
You may have thought of this – but I suggest showing just this little grab each week to illustrate the changed thinking ahead of giving your talk.
Check out what I mean by going to this page and scrolling down a bit and you can see the Grace Alone one.
Cheers,
Dominic
Two other quick thoughts –
1. we referred people to resources like Ideas that changed the world & Nothing in my hand I bring – plan to have some of Ray Galeas book to give away
2. Inspired by Dominic’s videos we did a couple of interviews with ex-Roman Catholics who are part of the congregation. One had been to the last world youth day so that was a real scoop! We did the interview around the theme of the Sola we were doing.
Greg Bridge’s question is my question exactly, without any alteration.
I just add that sometime I’m supposed to post on <i>Soli Deo Gloria</i>, and would love to er, use your thoughts in a scholarly sort of sense, and not at all anything to do with plagiarism.
Gordon,
I an honoured to be plagiarised by you. I’m sure Sandy will be too.
Sandy, My thinking was that the aims of the series (for me restating protestant distinctives ahead of the World Roman Catholic Youth Day) influences the order choice of presentation.
In this series I am specifically aiming to critique wrong Roman Catholic understandings.
I made different choices to the choices I would have made if I had been presenting the ideas in a more abstract environment.
Also, As I wanted to profile of the contribution of a different reformer as part of each study – I originally put the order as:
Faith – Luther
Grace – Calvin
Bible – Tyndale
Christ – Cranmer
I originally went in this order because I was thinking about the sequence of ideas development in the Reformation period.
But then after giving the series a couple of times – I changed the first two around – because I wanted to speak more clearly of God’s initiative before I spoke of our response.
This was also because I felt that if someone only saw one talk out of the four I wanted them to see the presentation on Grace.
Greg, Also the reason I went for four not five was because of the aims of the Ideas series – to critique and correct wrong Roman Catholic understandings.
Although one could argue that Roman Catholic’s have wrongly understood ‘The Glory of God Alone’- I don’t think that point is as clear as the point that Roman Catholicism has wrongly understood Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Bible Alone and Christ Alone.
If I was doing a series on Reformed theology at a different time using these headings – then of course I would have taught on all five.
Thanks everyone for your comments. Sorry to take a little while to get to them, but I had other important tasks – such as preparing the first sermon of the series, and also writing an advertisement for an Assistant Minister to join our team here in 2009.
To Greg, my order was logical (to me) rather than historical, although on that basis you might also start with Christ alone. But ‘Scripture alone’ is the formal principle of the Reformation, i.e. settling the foundational matter of how we settle all the other arguments about how we are saved. Like Dominic I think grace logically proceeds faith.
But I don’t think the order is critical.
To Dave and Greg, fair question about why I did not include the 5th sola (or soli in that case) of ‘glory to God alone’. Perhaps John Piper would argue that should be number one! Anyway, I simply echo Dominic’s last reply – it’s not so obviously an issue, at least not one where it’s easy to focus the debate.
By the way, it’s not at all clear to me where the 4 or 5 solas were first brought together and outlined as a series of summary slogans for the Reformation.
In <i>The Briefing</i> #101, John Woodhouse wrote an excellent introductory article on “Slogans” being the four (in his case) ‘sola’ statements. His order: grace alone, coming by Christ alone, found through Scripture alone, received by faith alone.
(Although I think he got the Latin wrong for Scripture, which he called <i>sola christi</i>, which does not have the gender of the adjective matching the noun. I think it should be <i]>solus Christus</i> = ‘Christ alone’, or <i>solo Christo</i> = ‘by Christ alone’.)
Anyway, John wrote that this was
Unfortunately, he did not footnote this claim to show where Luther did this.
My brother in Christ, Terry Gallagher, whom I only know through cyber space, helpfully addressed this question of where these 4 or 5 sola statements were gathered together in a helpful thread here. If you scroll through the discussion, you’ll see Terry has not found anywhere in the 16th century where the slogans were all neatly gathered, but did occur individually especially in the Lutheran Formula of Concord…
Terry then reports that the ‘faith alone’ phrase itself is certainly found in Luther himself in “Babylonian Captivity” and “Concerning Christian Liberty”.
Great to have people do this sort of checking!
Michael and Dominic, thanks for your tips on preaching the series. I found them useful for my first sermon, especially Michael’s reminder of Archbishop’s approach – to avoid sectarianism and indifferentism.
David has pushed me to check the precision and accuracy of my ‘in brief’ claims about Roman Catholicism and fair enough too – although please note they were brief summary statements rather than a full nuanced outline. Good to challenge me to ensure I take my own medicine and have read the primary sources!
I’m not sure I can address all these questions today, but here’s a start…
David wrote
Firstly I would say that the additional RC claims about Mary might be either explicitly <i>or implicitly</i> contradicted by Scripture. I would suggest that her perpetual virginity is brought into question by the most natural reading of references to his brothers (rather than just cousins). Implicitly, it also implies that Mary wrongly persisted in denying Joseph his conjugal rights as outlined by 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.
Mary’s perpetual sinlessness is often asserted by Roman Catholic teaching (although not sure if as an official dogma). But in Luke 1:47, she says her spirit rejoices in God her Saviour. But she would not need a saviour if she had no personal sins to be saved from! Further it goes against the evidence of Mark 3:21. This records that Mary and the rest of his family thought Jesus was, “out of his mind” early on in his ministry. So they came to take charge of him. This is certainly not the sign of someone who had recognised and properly honoured Jesus truly, for who he was. So we must not think of Mary as sinless.
Sorry for the flood of posts, but now is the free time I have available… To continue replying to David, you, wrote
Please note the Latin spelling error mentioned earlier, David.
Nowhere in the Bible are we ever encouraged to direct prayer to anyone but God: Father, Son, or Spirit. Yet the Hail Mary, persistently directs prayer requests to a mere human, Mary, asking her prayers on our behalf. This is because of what RC teaches is her mediatorial role – yes, subsidiary to Christ but uniquely placed compared to all others humans. See [url=“http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm%5DRCCC 1.2.3.6.9 paras 963-975”]. Note especially para 969, where Mary is called “mediatrix” and said to possess a “saving office” as mother of the church.
While I am on Mary, David, you rightly said
You omitted to mention other relevant facts.
(i) The CCC is not the only source of official RCC dogma, since there are also the Church Councils, papal bulls, and even some argue, the papal encyclicals.
(ii) The CCC does call Mary a mediatrix (see above). For example, see part 3, para 21 of Pope John Paul 2’s encyclical; <a href=“http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html”><i>Redemptoris Mater</i>[/url]…</blockquote>Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself “in the middle,” that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she “has the right” to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary “intercedes” for mankind.</blockquote>
(iii) There is a very strong movement in Roman Catholicism to have a Pope officially declare Mary to be Co-Redemptrix, with Pope John Paul 2 receiving a petition from millions, including a Cardinal and Mother Theresa, requesting he take this step. Likewise Pope Benedict XVI has been petitioned by several Cardinals.
(iv) John Paul 2 used this phrase to refer to Mary several times.
(v) A previous Pope, Benedict XV Pope Benedict XV in his Apostolic Letter, Inter Soldalica, issued on March 22, 1918: said,
This sort of language alongside the huge imbalance in the Rosary’s encouragement of prayer to Mary much more frequently than prayer to our Father – an emphasis which is completely absent in Scripture speaks volumes.
David wrote
It depends on which period you are referring to. It’s true that Anglican ministers who convert to Catholicism (for example) can be accepted as priests and remain married (with the promise of never re-marrying if widowed). This is a concession.
But the First and Second Lateran Councils forbade priestly marriage, and demanded that such priests who have supposedly married must dissolve such marriages and separate (Canon 21, and Canons 6 & 7 respectively). Likewise Canon 9 of the Council of Trent declared that marriage after ordination was invalid and anathematised those who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity and wanted to get married.
Likewise today, if one is single and wishes to train or has begun to serve as a Catholic priest, the RCC demands that you must remain single. It forbids marriage, in contradiction of 1 Cor 3:2, Titus 1:6, and 1 Cor 9:5 all of which indicate that a church leader may be married. (I checked and the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible both translate 1 Cor 9:5 as referring to a “Christian wife”.) Singleness as a decision is always a free choice and cannot be forced on people (see Matt 19:1-2, 1 Cor 7:7, 39 and especially 1 Tim 4:1-3).
David wrote
I think this shorthand might have been a little careless by me, but I believe the language of substance is not absent in Catholic thought, and certainly the difference between infused/imparted and imputed righteousness is a key issue in Reformation disputes over justification.
And David, did you read paragraph 1999 which uses the language of infusion?
So God’s own life is graciously gifted to us by infusion!
David wrote
Paras 1987-1995 confuse justification with sanctification and makes our cooperation with God’s grace a key to justification. This compromises the ‘alone’ in ‘Christ alone’!
But I think I have run out of time to comment further.
Regarding the origin of the solas, I heard a Covenant Seminary lecture last week that claimed that Zwingli actually came up with the slogans.
Thankyou Sandy for taking the time to respond to my comments.
<i>Firstly I would say that the additional RC claims about Mary might be either explicitly or implicitly contradicted by Scripture. I would suggest that her perpetual virginity is brought into question by the most natural reading of references to his brothers (rather than just cousins).</i>
Personally, I couldn’t care less whether people believe in the perpetual virginity of Jesus or not – and nor do I see why Protestants seem to be so hung up on the issue. That said, it is important to recognise that outside of our 21st century Western context, the term “brother” is much more ambiguous than one may initially appreciate and was often used in a first-century Middle-Eastern context to refer to cousins.
You may also be interested to hear that Early Church Father Jerome wrote in defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary – appealling to the principle of Sola Scriptura, no less!
<i>Mary’s perpetual sinlessness is often asserted by Roman Catholic teaching (although not sure if as an official dogma). But in Luke 1:47, she says her spirit rejoices in God her Saviour. But she would not need a saviour if she had no personal sins to be saved from!</i>
The proper understanding of the Immaculate Conception recognises that Mary is pre-emptively saved by the merits of Jesus. Rather than being saved by being cleansed of sin, she is saved by being prevented from sinning.
<i>Further it goes against the evidence of Mark 3:21. This records that Mary and the rest of his family thought Jesus was, “out of his mind” early on in his ministry. So they came to take charge of him. This is certainly not the sign of someone who had recognised and properly honoured Jesus truly, for who he was. So we must not think of Mary as sinless.</i>
I find this a very strange interpretation of yours. The Immaculate Conception doesn’t mean full and complete knowledge. In this instance, Mary’s ignorance and the subsequent concern she showed for her son cannot be equated to sin.
<i>Thus there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself “in the middle,” that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she “has the right” to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary “intercedes” for mankind.</i>
You seem to be perpetuating an error originated in the Augsburg Confession. When we talk about Christ’s unique mediating role, we are talking about Jesus as playing a mediatorial role in salvation. You may also wish to read paragraph 970 of the CCC, which affirms the “unique mediation of Christ”.
Of course, if Christ was the sole mediator with respect to prayer, then what should one make of Paul’s intercessory prayer’s for his churches, or the way a friend may pray for us? Perhaps they are usurping Christ as sole mediator!
I further reiterate that the role of Mary of Co-Redemptrix is simply not Catholic doctrine. No matter what kind of “pressure” or “influence” we are talking about (perhaps we should hold the Anglican Communion accountable for the various influences that exist within?), it is simply not an official teaching of the Church and it is disingenuous to suggest that it is. Despite John Paul II holding this understanding in a private capacity, he very clearly chose not to declare this belief as infallible doctrine.
With respect to the celibacy of the clergy, I was thinking particularly of Eastern Rite churches and didn’t even consider the other concession you mention. I would suggest that which Catholic practice demands celibacy (a practice you, I and indeed many Catholics may find unacceptable), the language of paragraphs 1579 and 1580 of the CCC suggest that the question is still very much open in the Catholic Church.
<i>So God’s own life is graciously gifted to us by infusion!</i>
Yes, but we were talking about the definition of grace, not the means or channels of grace God may wish to use. My point is that the *definition* of grace used in Catholicism is substantively the same as that used in Protestantism.
<i>Paras 1987-1995 confuse justification with sanctification and makes our cooperation with God’s grace a key to justification. This compromises the ‘alone’ in ‘Christ alone’! </i>
I think this misconception exists because Protestants and Catholics are divided by a common language. Paragraph 2007 of the CCC is helpful here, which asserts that:
“With respect to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.”
Perhaps the following question may help. In what sense are repentance and proclaiming Christ as Lord works? In some sense, we can suggest that they are, but we would further suggest that they are Gods works. This is why Lutherans can talk about the need to be baptised to be saved i.e. through baptismal regeneration, but can still claim that they are saved by grace through faith.
<i>I further reiterate that the role of Mary of Co-Redemptrix is simply not Catholic doctrine.</i>
A quick google finds this from Vatican II –
<i>The Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62), said:
… in suffering with Him as He died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope, and burning love, to restore supernatural life to souls. As a result she is our Mother in the order of grace.
This motherhood of Mary in the economy of grace lasts without interruption, from the consent which she gave in faith at the annunciation, and which she unhesitatingly bore with under the cross, even to the perpetual consummation of all the elect. For after being assumed into heaven, she has not put aside this saving function, but by her manifold intercession, she continues to win the gifts of eternal salvation for us. By her motherly love, she takes care of the brothers of her Son who are still in pilgrimage and in dangers and difficulties, until they be led through to the happy fatherland. <b>For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix.</b> This however it to be so understood that it takes nothing away, or adds nothing to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer….” </i>
Mediatrix and co-redemptrix seem pretty similar concepts to me. Anyway, there is currently a movement underway to have Mary as “Co-redemptrix” recognised as official Catholic dogma. She is already called that on numerous Catholic fan-sites.
<i>Mediatrix and co-redemptrix seem pretty similar concepts to me. Anyway, there is currently a movement underway to have Mary as “Co-redemptrix” recognised as official Catholic dogma. She is already called that on numerous Catholic fan-sites.</i>
With all due respect Craig, I’ve explained precisely why these terms are quite distinct. The understanding of Mary as Co-Redemptrix is simply not official Catholic doctrine. The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary have been explicitly and declared as Catholic dogma by Papal declaration, yet the understanding of Mary as Co-Redemptrix has not. Pope John Paul II had some degree of affection for this doctrine in a private capacity, yet quite consciously refused to infallibility declare this doctrine.
The suggestion that there is some kind of perceived push to infallibly declare Mary as Co-Redemptrix on “Catholic fan-sites” (are there Anglican fan-sites too and do they have cheerleaders with pom-poms?) is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it is a doctrine that is officially taught by the Church. Isn’t the current issue at the moment that some Anglicans are defining Anglicanism in a way that is unacceptable to other Anglicans? What would your response be to those who claimed that this is what Anglicanism teaches? I would suggest that the fairest thing to do is to let the Catholic Creeds, Councils, Encyclicals and Declarations speak for themselves. Even in the abovementioned quote and in the CCC, the Catholic Church speaks about Christ as a unique Mediator and Redeemer. Surely it is charitable to take the Catholic Church at face value when it says what it believes?
David,
Thanks for talking this through. One of the things you suggested of me early on was that I had some misapprehensions about Catholic doctrine. I have tried to demonstrate from some primary sources why I have said what I’ve said, and also noted one or two points where I could have expressed things more clearly.
So I agree that Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Mary as Mediatrix are not identical, and that the former has not been made official RC dogma by papal bull, or even encyclical.
I find it a little ironic that you are insisting on the ‘letter of the law’ here. However more importantly, a sermon series like the one I outlined at the start is not simply addressing official doctrine of the RC Church (or anyone else). It’s also addressing popular piety.
It is indisputable that amongst many Roman Catholics, there is an enormous Mariology which includes ideas and activities which are not official magisterial or papal dogma, but are widely encouraged and practised.
Very doctrinally educated and alert Roman Catholics may – in their devotion to Mary – know to guard (as they see it) against compromising the unique redeeming and mediatorial work of Christ. But multitudes of Roman Catholics do not appear to do so.
And it is naive in the extreme to say that Pope John Paul 2 spoke about Mary as Co-Redemptrix in his ‘private capacity’. He made these comments publicly in his role as Pope, although not <i>ex cathedra</i>. They are not private opinions. They are publicly expressed views from the most important Catholic leader then alive. As such they are highly influential in shaping Catholic people’s theology and piety.
David,
I mentioned that I thought CCC confuses justification and sanctification and you replied that paragraph 2007 makes it clear that “With respect to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man.”
I am unsure whether you realise there has been a long debate about whether merit is condign (strictly deserved) or merely congruent (not strictly deserved but appropriate to the cooperation). If I am remembering my church history, the Reformers rejected both sorts of merit.
The paragraphs 2008-2010 immediately following the one your quoted clearly indicate that man can cooperate with God’s enabling grace to have a secondary role in earning merit from good works, indeed to merit further graces for the attainment of eternal life…
I think I may leave things there. But you have given me more food for thought for the next sermon on grace in this series.
Thanks to all for your discussion on this topic. Thanks especially Sandy for being prepared to point us back to the primary sources that you used to establish your views—not only the Roman Catholic catechism, but the Bible itself.
Given that Sandy has indicated that he wishes to leave things there, I am going to stop receiving comments on the subject at this time. However, please contact me via the private comment mechanism (including Sandy, of course) if you wish to take matters further.
Thanks again for your comments.
[update from moderator: I am being overly protective of Sandy! Here’s his comment; please consider this thread open for trading once again—GC]
Thanks for your initiative in possibly closing off the comments. I don’t really mind if it keeps going, but I am unlikely to want to keep debating the finer points of the correct reading of the CCC.
So if David or others had other comments more broadly, particularly about the sermon series and other associated issues, then I don’t mind checking in on those matters.
There may be other interesting and helpful observations from which I can learn.
<i>I find it a little ironic that you are insisting on the ‘letter of the law’ here. However more importantly, a sermon series like the one I outlined at the start is not simply addressing official doctrine of the RC Church (or anyone else). It’s also addressing popular piety.</i>
<i>So if David or others had other comments more broadly, particularly about the sermon series and other associated issues, then I don’t mind checking in on those matters.</i>
I’m afraid I don’t see the irony. I simply think that if we want to talk about what the Catholic Church teaches, it is important to go to the primary sources, rather than base your information on the cradle-Catholic next door who hasn’t set foot in the Church in twenty years.
I think the idea of wanting to talk about “popular piety” in the Roman Catholic Church is rather strange. It turns the Roman Catholic Church into a much more monolithic entity than it really is. In short, it is creating a strawperson representation of Catholic practice. Consider the diversity of the Anglican Communion and the differing practices and beliefs in the areas of sacramentology, ecclesiology, bibliology, pneumatology and soteriology, among other theological areas. Without wanting to cast a moral judgment, how would you respond to a rival series entitled “Responding to the Heresy of Protestantism” in which the speaker claims that “Authentic Anglicanism (TM)” basically condoned homosexuality, the ordination of women and full clerical garb. The speaker regards himself to be an expert with respect to such matters, considering that he was a Protestant himself until almost the end of High School and had spoken to his next-door neighbour who goes to the odd Anglican church service once in a while. I suspect you would be a little frustrated – and rightly so.
I bring these issues up because the way you wish to look at Catholicism should surely dictate what is a fair and reasonable approach to take in the circumstances. If you do wish to talk about “popular piety”, then I would presume that you would make it abundantly clear that what you are criticising is not Catholic doctrine, but rather the misconceptions concerning Catholicism embraced by some Catholics. And not necessarily all Catholics either – for instance from the engagement I have had with my Catholic friends I would suggest that few, if any have any great attachment to the doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix – and many of my friends are Marists, no less! The solution, in the instance of popular piety that you find to be erroneous, would then not be to encourage Catholics to leave the Church, but to encourage better catechesis among the Catholic laity.