A preparatory article on Called to Communion on the Orthodox Church and how the Catholic Church views her:

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches speak in unison about so many things. That we differ on important matters like the nature of the episcopacy, particularly the successor of Peter, is worthy of reflection for Catholics, Orthodox and those Protestants who see our common message. But despite our differences, we are so close. We make the same call to communion with the Church Fathers. We venerate the Holy Mother of Our God on this note, I want to parenthetically state that devotion to the Blessed Virgin is more full and flowering in the East than the West in terms of during the liturgical services, but my point is that Protestants should feel less at home in an Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Parish than they would in a Roman Catholic service, if Marian devotion is troubling. We beseech our Lord and King to have mercy on the souls of those who have gone to their eternal Rest.

via Two Rights Declare a Wrong-on Appeals to Orthodoxy | Called to Communion.

I’m bringing a lunch-time discussion from work to the blog so that my buddies and I can continue our discussion and others can join in as well.

We’ve been talking about the canon of Scripture, and in the discussion are: a Catholic (me) and three Protestants (one churches of Christ turned Quaker turned Episcopal, one Presbyterian (PCA), and one non-denominational (with Pentecostal leanings)). I won’t give away who anyone is and everyone who comments can do so under their own pseudonym, but I think it’s helpful to see the variety of Christian traditions represented.

Jumping right into it. I responded to a tu quoque objection with links to Called to Communion:

Why are the Catholic reasons for the canon consistent and not ad hoc, as Tom Brown (and I) claim that the Protestant position is? Here are Tom’s responses:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-6190
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-6264

Friend 1 added on:

When these guys [Called to Communion guys] say the “Protestant” position, they are referring to Sola Scriptura specifically.  I think the point is that “scripture alone” is not enough to determine what scripture is.  So Catholics and Protestants are left with the need to define by what authority you use to determine the canon, and the interpretation.

The difference is that Catholics explicitly define what criteria they use to determine the canon.  (it was defined by the Magisterium of the Church).  Protestants use some other authority to determine the canon, generally Martin Luther.  They’re also “inconsistent”, because they claim sola scriptura, but to be consistent, a Protestant must believe sola scripture “plus” the testimony of <someone making some historical argument>.

Protestants who have used the “historicity” approach are generally trying to do one of two things:

1.  Look at history and look for evidence that supports a preconceived conclusion (the 66-book Luther Bible).
2.  Look at history to come up with “original” conclusions on scripture (e.g. the Jesus Seminar and their 5 gospels).  I don’t like their conclusion, but if we don’t believe God guided the Church in the selection of scripture, then their approach might as well be the right one.

as opposed to the Catholic argument that:

3.  God guided the Church (through the Magisterium) in the true determination of the canon.

Friend 2 (who originally made the tu quoque) responded:

I agree that something outside the Bible must give it it’s validity. I rely on the apostle’s letters as acknowledged by those immediately after them (church fathers). However, the Catholic response is then “why do you only accept part of the early church father’s testimonies and not all their teachings”.

And then Devin broadened it to not really be the teaching of the church fathers but rather the teachings of the church. I would argue that the church has been influenced by the early church fathers so that at least in some cases what the fathers believed is what the church taught (this is an assumption because I don’t know a lot of church history).

Some of the church fathers taught error (and therefore the church taught error), but a catholic would say, “never on issues of faith and morals”, to which I reply “why do you only accept part of the early church father’s testimonies and not all their teachings”.

I don’t think that the attached article answers this question because it’s main point it to prove that the Bible needs external “witness”, and I agree with that.

I plan to respond to Friend 2’s reiteration of his objection in the comments. It may take me a day or two, so in the meantime, anyone feel free to chime in.

To tip my hand a bit, I think the reason this tu quoque doesn’t work is that we each have to answer the question of how we can know the canon with certainty within our own respective systems: he as a Protestant must explain how he is not contradicting or being inconsistent with sola Scriptura while I as a Catholic must demonstrate how my reasons are consistent with my beliefs.

It looks like there is a discussion beginning over at Faith and Family Live regarding the differences between adoptive mothering and biological mothering.  From what I gather, some women are uncomfortable with my statement that adopting the twins let me think of myself as a social contributor/activist, as well as a mother.

I totally understand their discomfort.  It seems to me that we ought to feel just the same about our adopted and bio children, and I wish I had the same natural emotions.  I don’t, however, feel naturally the same way toward Adele as I do Edmund.  Nevertheless, I choose to behave the same way toward them both, giving love with patience and gentle mercy.  But, it’s easier to feel affection for Edmund.  Now, perhaps, every mother, biological or adoptive, would say that it’s easier to love a newborn than a two-year old.  Maybe this is totally normal, even disregarding the fact that I’ve only been Adele’s mother for 4 months.

Adoption is difficult.  It’s hard to become a family of mixed skin colors and ages and DNA.  I often ask Mother Mary to pray for me for the grace of a mother’s heart toward each of my children and not just those who I am naturally inclined to accept.  I want to feel a fierce protective love for each of my children.  And, I trust that, in time, it will grow.

Becoming a family is not easy, but it is so very worth it.  Devin and I receive the most incredible joy when we see glimpses of the sweet Adele who so often hides behind her angry face.  And, as for the twins, well, they are the cutest and sweetest boys and best boys; they are gaining expansive vocabularies and learning new skills and we are eager to see the men they will become.

Do any of our readers have mixed adoptive/biological families?  I wonder how long it takes other mothers to feel like their adopted children are really theirs.  And, I wonder if other mothers would say that they eventually came to feel the same natural affection for all their children.

I look forward to the day when we feel like we are really a family, when we feel like we know each other and are safe together and would rather be together than anywhere else.  I have moments of that feeling more and more, and it is fantastic.

Katie has a new article published on Faith and Family Live today. Since it might be a while before she has time to get on the computer, I took it upon myself to tip you off to it.

I had plans, good ones. The world was a mess, I was 25 years old, and I was going to help fix it.

I had seen much of the world, through travels in Honduras, India, and Bosnia, and wanted to pour myself out to ease the pain that I saw on so many faces. It seemed to me that I needed a graduate degree for this work, so that I would have the credentials to organize large-scale efforts to bring Christ and His healing to a world so full of despair.

Please pray for Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk. Thank you.

It is with a heavy heart that I bring my latest update on Michael. We have learned that his cancer is too advanced and too aggressive to expect any sort of remission. Our oncologist estimates that with continued treatment Michael most likely has somewhere between six months and a year to live.

via Michael Spencer Update, 3/9/2010 | internetmonk.com.

Devin and I were in the mood for a good documentary this evening and just finished watching this gem.  It is, pardon the redundancy, very very beautiful.  We give it 5-stars.

And, now, we want to become lobbyists who work at the UN to push the UNFPA to actually provide funding for obstetric physicians for African, not for abortionists.

We, also, both want to become physicians and move to Ethiopia.

And, we want to adopt many more children.  It looks like Our Lord will have to give us the gift of bilocation.  And lots and lots of money.

Holy Mary, Mother of All Orphans and Widows, please pray for us.

Fathers for Good

My second article is up on Fathers for Good.

I share our experience with fertility problems, how we decided to begin the adoption process through the state’s foster care system, and the reservations that I had about adopting children with “problems.”

I think it will be helpful to husbands who are reluctant to consider adoption, since it explains how, by God’s grace, I overcame my fear of welcoming children into our home in this extra-ordinary way.

So check it out and share it with your friends on facebook!

Past articles:

Through the Eyes of a Convert

• I'm listening to "Come Downstairs And Say Hello" by Guster (http://bit.ly/9xtTrW) #pandora #
• The ‘Moral’ Bachelor – Nancy French – The Corner on National Review Online: http://bit.ly/cRCW9a via @addthis #
• Sunday Mass: meltdown at 2nd reading, consecration, Eucharistic prayers, all four children in quiet room at one time–Lenten penance! #

Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright

I just found another reason to add to my book, courtesy of Anglican Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright. (Rather than change the name to (the awkward-sounding) “51 Roads to Rome,” I will probably just replace one of the reasons with this one or add it to the reason that deals with the clearness of the Scriptures.)

An N.T. Wright supporter named Sid over at Called to Communion, responding to a post about the doctrine of justification, put forth the new perspective on St. Paul which N.T. Wright has been championing, a perspective that differs from both Catholicism (not a surprise) and also with classical Protestantism (e.g. Luther and Calvin–a big surprise).

An excerpt:

Everyone needs to get and read N. T. Wright’s latest book, Justification, where he refutes John Piper and the whole Calvinist position….[I]n Wright’s own words: “I didn’t write Romans 2! Paul did!” — where Paul teaches a righteous-making by good works…

For the record, Wright is an evangelical Anglican, eschews [the Catholic Ecumenical Council of] Trent, and considers himself the truer sola scriptura than his Calvinist opponents. He doesn’t use Scripture to prop up a dogma, but explicates what Scripture really says.

Wright’s book merits y’all’s attention also for the larger picture. Wright see two serious errors, one committed Protestants, the other by all contemporary Christians. [first emphasis is Sid's, second one is mine]

I find this comment very interesting. Why? Three reasons:

1. Bishop Wright defends his position by explaining that he is only interpreting what Paul actually says in Romans 2, that is, the “clear” meaning of the chapter.

2. Bishop Wright considers himself “the truer sola Scriptura” advocate than even his Calvinist opponents.

Someone tell Paul to come downstairs and tell us what the heck he meant anyway

3. Protestant interlocutor Sid believes that (presumably unlike both Catholics and other Protestants), Bishop Wright doesn’t use Scripture to support (previously accepted) teachings, but instead comes at the Bible with no prejudice and has therefore come up with the objective meaning on justification–the true meaning which has eluded both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches for the past 2,000 years and the magisterial Protestant churches for the past 500 years.

Here’s the problem that N.T. Wright poses to his Protestant cohorts: unlike the Jesus Seminar, who faithlessly seek to discredit and deny the most fundamental Christian truths, Bishop Wright is both faithful and brilliant (and thoroughly Protestant). He cannot be ignored or waved away as a crack-pot or apostate.

He has come up with a new interpretation of the Bible on justification, just as Martin Luther and John Calvin did 488 years ago. Neither of those two magisterial Reformers had the gift of infallibility, so Wright, following the founding principles of Protestantism, takes a shot at the Bible himself and comes up with a different understanding of this core Protestant doctrine than the Reformers did. Why couldn’t he be right and they be wrong?

Protestantism cannot but concede that Wright could very well be right and Luther and Calvin “not so right.”

Bishop Wright’s very existence and fundamental difference on the doctrine of justification also strike yet another blow against the Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity (clearness) of the Scriptures. Justification is an essential issue concerning our salvation, so the Bible must be clear on it, yet with this new perspective we have at least three major divergent beliefs on justification: The Catholic/Orthodox one, the old Protestant one, and this new one.

Off of Sid’s recommendation, I just ordered his book Justification, from amazon and look forward to reading it.

For a Catholic take on St. Paul and this new perspective, see Taylor Marshall’s site. In particular, check out this short article where Wright actually responded to Taylor and then he responded back.

I’m continuing to read Protestant apologist James White’s book Scripture Alone.

I am on chapter 3, where Mr. White is examining what he believes are the crucial passages of the Bible for understanding the nature of the Bible (i.e. that the Bible is inspired and the sole infallible rule of faith). In his interpretation of his favorite verses, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, he says:

Just as Paul warned Timothy of the activities of false teachers, so he sounded the same alarm to the Ephesian elders. In each scenario one would expect that, upon describing the great danger and peril facing the infant church, Paul would make reference to the source, the bulwark, that would protect her and give these leaders what they needed to press forward and accomplish the work of ministry.

If there was to be some external source of authority in the form of the papacy…or any other extra-scriptural organization or foundation, here is where the apostle would have to make mention of it…But Paul says nothing of the sort.

(italics his, bolding mine)

Mr. White seems to have forgotten St. Paul’s other words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:15:

If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

(NIV translation–note that “foundation” could also be “ground” or “bulwark” depending on the translation)

So the Bible claims that the Church is the bulwark of the truth but Mr. White claims that it is the Bible only and not the Church or any extra-Scriptural organization. Should we believe the Bible here or Mr. White’s interpretation of the Bible?

For clarity’s sake, I would like to also note that pitting the Scriptures against the Church or against the papacy, as Mr. White does, is wrong-headed. The Bible is God’s Word. The Church is Christ’s Bride and Mystical Body. The papacy is the office Christ entrusted with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. None of these are opposed to each other, for all are God-ordained entities.

The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and the Scriptures are an indispensable part of the deposit of Faith that Christ entrusted to her. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, infallibly inspired the human authors of the Scriptures and also infallibly guides the Church into all truth. The Spirit did so in guiding the Church in discerning which books he had inspired for example. The Church is built on the Apostles (contrary to Calvin’s modification of Ephesians 2:20 where he said that she was built on “the teachings of” the Apostles) with St. Peter as the Prince of them. It is erroneous to pit any one of these against another, for they form a seamless whole.