Podcast Episode 1

Jan 18th, 2009 | By | Category: Podcast

Tim Troutman interviews Dr. Jonathan Deane on his conversion to the Catholic Church in this first episode of Called to Communion’s podcast.

 

15 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. Is there a way for me to open this in iTunes?

  2. David, I think that we are working on a way to make that happen. Our main guy to that end is not available for a while, but stick with us and we will see what we can do.

    In Christ,

    Andrew Preslar

  3. David,

    You should be able to find it in the Itunes store by searching for “Called to Communion”. (It’s in the store but it’s free of course).

  4. Just finished listening to your outstanding Podcast Episode 1 interview with Dr. Jonathan Deane. Dr. Deane’s love for Christ and for His Holy Church shines through leaving this listener, at least, with an eager anticipation for more in depth discussions with Dr. Deane. For instance, being a cradle Catholic, I’m unfamiliar with Louis Bouyer. I’d like to hear more. Finally, my wife, Sheri, and I would like to offer you our prayers for your inspired ministry. I foresee abundant blessings for you and all involved with this most excellent endeavor. I pray that your work at Called to Communion is fruitful in the extreme, touching hearts and changing lives: Let strain the nets!

    Well done!
    Ilow

  5. Ilow,

    Thanks for the kind words!

  6. As I research between Orthodoxy and Catholicism I wanted to know about a couple of papal issues:
    The historically repeated authoritative Catholic decrees that heliocentrism is untrue and geocentrism is.
    The Papal Bulls which called for the flames and tortures of the Inquisition, Crusade atrocities.
    Papal sanction and celebration of murder as in St. Bartholomew’s Eve massacres.
    Papal decrees on forbidding of lay reading of scripture.
    Papal decrees to confiscate personal property.
    The centuries of papal decrees that defend the Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals as truth upon pain of death, yet is now admitted to be false.

    My concern here is not the sinfulness of popes, of course, but infallibility and the fact that Rome seems to exercise such latitude in interpreting past decrees and documents. They seem to exegete Tradition like Protestants exegete scripture. Unam Sanctam declares a spiritual and temporal sword are both wielded by the church and that all temporal power is subject to “the sufferance of the priest”. Also it states that it is “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” In order to allow for Muslim, Protestant, and Jewish salvation (as in CCC) there needs to be some fancy exegesis of what seems to be the clear intentions of Unam Sanctam.
    Anyway, you get the gist of what I am saying. If just one occurance of an infallible pronouncement is seen to be denied, reversed, changed…..the papal claims come crashing down. I ask this with sincerity and humility as I investigate the ancient churches.
    Darrin

  7. Darrin,

    We need to start with the definition of papal infallibility. Without a proper understanding of the way the church defines the doctrine it would certainly look as if we are doing some fancy interpretation of our own tradition.

    Vatican I defines the doctrine this way, “the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church — is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church’s consent.”

    I know that some material on papal infallibility is in the works for Called to Communion. We will try to interact with your specific questions at that time. In brief, the Pope must use his full authority and speak ‘ex cathedra’ and must be speaking on ‘a doctrine of faith or morals.’ So, while heliocentrism is bad science, it is not a doctrine of faith and morals and therefore the Pope was not speaking infallibly.

  8. Podcast 1 didn’t work for me in iTunes. It says to check the url. Podcast 2 came through just fine. Anyone else not able to get the first one?

  9. A typo in my response above…I meant to say that geocentrism is bad science of course…

  10. Sean,
    But isn’t there decree’s under both ordinary and extraordinary magisterium that would negate such narrowed down requirements in some of the things I mentioned? Not sure. If the bishops are teaching in agreement, it should qualify shouldn’t it?

  11. Darrin,

    Would you explain in a bit more detail your last two questions? I don’t understand what you are asking. Thanks.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  12. Guys,
    Sorry, my lack of clarity. Is there not an infallibility that comes without specific papal or conciliar decree? I was under the impression that this was when the church teaches in unison and is called the Ordinary magisterium. Whereas, would ex-cathedra papal decrees, or decrees of ecumenical councils be decrees of the Extraordinary magisterium? What would keep the examples I gave above from being infallible in at least one of these functions of the magisterium?
    Was not heliocentrism a matter of faith due to it’s apparent dissagreement with the church’s view of scripture at the time? Was not the Donation declared to be true authoritatively? I need to study this more.
    Darrin

  13. Darrin,

    Thanks for your clarification. Yes, under certain specified conditions (see Lumen Gentium, 25), the ordinary magisterium is infallible. And the extraordinary magisterium is exercised in both the ways you mentioned: ex cathedra papal decrees, and ecumenical councils. None of the examples you listed above (save Unam Sanctum) meets all the conditions for infallibility in either the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. The Church has never taught geocentrism as a “position definitively to be held” by all the faithful, in part because the Church makes no dogma about any physical science as such. The mere appearance of conflict with Scripture is not sufficient to make geocentrism per se a “matter of faith.” And likewise no Church statement or belief about the “Donation” was taught as a “position definitively to be held” by all the faithful, nor was the authenticity/inauthenticity of the Donation a matter of faith or morals. So it likewise does not meet the conditions for falling under the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

    So what about Unam Sanctum? It has to be understood correctly, and it has nothing to do with “fancy exegesis,” but simply understanding the context in which such a statement is made. The Church has always recognized that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know about Christ, can nonetheless be saved through Christ. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has always been understood in a way that made space for “invincible ignorance” and the possibility for God to work outside the ordinary means of grace. Would Cornelius have gone to hell had he died before Peter arrived? If he had so died, he could have possessed baptism of [implicit] desire. The statement by Pope Boniface VIII must be understood against that theological background. No one can be saved apart from Christ. And so no one can be saved without being joined to Christ. Thus no one can be saved apart from baptism, at least by desire (either explicit desire, or implicit), for that is the means by which the grace of Christ (and thus union with Christ) is given. Baptism places one in [some] communion with the Church, which is His Mystical Body. And the episcopal successor of St. Peter is, by Christ’s own appointment, the visible head of the Church. For this reason, submission to the Pope is necessary, as union with the Church is necessary, as baptism is necessary.

    Those who, though they explicitly and consciously love Christ and have been baptized, yet by invincible ignorance do not know that Christ has appointed the episcopal successor of St. Peter to be the visible head of the Church and do reject the Pope’s authority, may nevertheless be saved, for they may retain sanctifying grace in that state. But schism [as a verb] is objectively a grave sin; if committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, it is a mortal sin, entailing the loss of sanctifying grace and the loss of salvation. (cf. CCC 1857, 1859) What is the definition of ‘schism’? It is: “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” (CCC 2089) So those who remain in schism in a condition of invincible ignorance have not thereby committed a mortal sin, and may nonetheless be saved. But those who, with full knowledge of the Pope’s rightful authority in the Church, and with deliberate consent, do refuse to submit to him, do commit mortal sin, and, if they remain in that state without repenting, forfeit eternal salvation.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

  14. I would appreciate all of the podcasts available in an mp3 format. Computer issue on my part.

    Thanks much.

    David Meyer

  15. David, they can all be downloaded at this link.

Leave Comment

Subscribe without commenting