Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Just for the Record on Reformed Catholicism

As this Catholic blogger (Mark Shea, apparently) points out, "Reformed Catholicism," is not Catholic, but for the record, it's also not Reformed - it's simply out there. It seems highly sympathetic to the Federal Vision and the CREC, which are, as at least one writer pointed out, not Reformed at all.

Also, this means that maybe I should update my stepping stone illustration to:

TR -> FV -> RfC -> RmC

However, unlike the Catholic commenter above, I do not lump Kepha in as a "Reformed Catholic," I think he's become a traditionalist or s/v Catholic. Nevertheless, I welcome his comments on his own position, if he likes, since his opinions may have changed since we last communicated, and I may be mistaken.

-Turretinfan

UPDATE: (this is the closest to an attempted explanation that I've seen from the site in response)

4 comments:

Carrie said...

it's simply out there.

That seems like a good summary.

Anonymous said...

WoW TF

that was powerful!

This verse has been working its way to my heart from my head:

Gal 5:5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.


I guess the thought goes like this: well, when you have a "reputation" and "have" to be right, wrong is not an option.

It seems DW has missed it when letting "His Faith" enlighten him on "His Hope" as Paul obviously understood what point the Holy Ghost was making and moved upon his head and heart to have written here at Gal. 5:5.

thanks for the insights TF!

You going blind? :)

Turretinfan said...

Michael,

Thanks for your comments. Thanks also for the photo of Hosea and company. With your permission, I'll try to find an upcoming post in which to use it.

You'll see I already put Nebo to work in this post:

Curse not the rich.

-Turretinfan

Anonymous said...

you are welcome.

yes, use it. but if you make millions, some bird seed might be offered on my behalf, or rather Hosea's?
:)

by the way, where do believe all this is going to end up, back to the beginning of the circle, perhaps?