Early Gallicanism - Arnulf of Reims

"a very monster of iniquity, reeking with the blood of his predecessor, mounts the throne of Peter. True, he [Pope Boniface VII] is expelled and condemned; but only to return again... What would you say of such a one, when you behold him sitting upon the throne glittering in purple and gold? Must he not be the 'Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God'? Verily such a one lacketh both wisdom and charity; he standeth in the temple as an image, as an idol, from which as from dead marble you would seek counsel.

But the Church of God is not subject to a wicked pope; nor even absolutely, and on all occasions, to a good one. Let us rather in our difficulties resort to our brethren of Belgium and Germany than to that city, where all things are venal, where judgment and justice are bartered for gold. Let us imitate the great church of Africa, which, in reply to the pretensions of the Roman pontiff, deemed it inconceivable that the Lord should have invested any one person with his own plenary prerogative and judicature, and yet have denied it to the great congregations of his priests assembled in council in different parts of the world... Why should he not be subject in judgment to those who, though lowest in place, are his superiors in virtue and in wisdom? Yea, not even he, the prince of the apostles, declined the rebuke of Paul, though his inferior in place, and, saith the great pope Gregory, 'if a bishop be in fault, I know not any one such who is not subject to the holy see; but if faultless, let every one understand that he is the equal of the Roman pontiff himself, and as well qualified as he to give judgment in any matter.'" - Abp. Arnulf of Reims A.D. 991

This speech was given in a Council which Pope John XV naturally declared null and void. Far be it from me to say this was an eschatological interpretation or that this and not Papal Supremacy was the majority opinion. However, it does seem to show how traditional and early Gallicanism had developed against Papal Supremacy.

Not Really Theology But...

I finished my last history paper of the semester. It was on English newspaper coverage of Anti-Clericalism in the Spanish Civil War, and about how reports of anti-clerical violence were used to smear Communism by Fascists, but also how Christian Socialists perceived the Spanish Roman Catholic Church's siding with the Nationalists as in a sense anti-clerical in that it attacked the laity who were in one sense a royal priesthood.

It's been a good 5 years writing essays on Catholics, and that was my last one. From now on I guess I'll write about Protestants, which is awkward because I really haven't dealt with them in a while... Or I could just continue writing about Catholics. Apparently there are Lutheran and Protestant historians of (Roman) Catholicism. Leopold von Ranke and J.N.D. Kelly I can think of from the top of my head.

We'll see...

Pilgrimage This Saturday & The American Revolution

There has been one blessing that has come out of the struggles, stress, addictions, and debates of this school year. It was the last thing I expected as well: The Newman Club. I joined the Newman Club at Brock because I assumed as I had attended Brock Christian (*read Evangelical) Fellowship once before I left, I should do the same with this. But I've really enjoyed meeting with real people who aren't theologians or polemicists. For me practicing my faith has generally meant facing Reformed Polemics and finding Catholic Polemics to attack it, as well as challeging every Modernist assumption taught in the classroom. But aside from just fighting people and being drained I like listening to the common faith of the people (except when it's painfully heretical).

This Saturday for the club we're going on a pilgrimage to the Shrine of the North American Martyrs where St. Jean de Brebeuf was martyred by the Indians by being baptized to death with burning hot water (those Damn Anabaptists were everywhere - joke), or something horrific like that.

I've already been there before, when I was 17 and I refused to believe Catholicism was Christian except maybe in some superficial appearances (see Rev. Jay's take on Catholicism and I believed that). I was dragged there by my girlfriends ex-Catholic dad who thought it would be an educational experience for me who he named "the Anti-Catholic" (I'd never actually had a Catholic friend or been in a Catholic Church).

Now in so many ways things have changed, and I hope it goes better than last time when I was almost shouting idolatry and the Jesuits were glaring at this strangely troubled young pilgrim.

I am supposed to pray a stations of the cross for my ex-girlfriend's Dad and her brother (one of whom is pseudo-Reformed hah he'd probably ask me not to). But I had to come up with an intention to go on this pilgrimage (as all medievals know).

I was thinking: I really want to overcome my 2 or 3 "big" sins / addictions , but I can never seem to make any headway there. I was then reminded with a story we learned in American History, the Battle at the Cowpens.

The Americans had continually suffered huge amounts of casualties in the war of Independence (*read* Rebellion), and this was largely due to the untrained and retreat-happy militia. If you've seen Mel Gibson's "The Patriot" this is basically the final battle scene which I realized after we studied it. SO the American General set up the militia in the front knowing that their lines would break, and secretly (?) hid the regulars on the opposite side of the hill so that when the dragoons / Tarleton's men came over the hill they'd get shot by Continental regulars.

It worked perfectly and was a brilliant victory for the forces of Rebellion and Enlightenment philosophy.

Now upon recollecting C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters" and about 5000 sermons on Ephesians 6 from childhood I remember that the virtuous life is "spiritual warfare" (Catholics call it "spiritual combat" - I guess Christian have to cause needless divisions everywhere). I've been attacking my sin with militia that constantly fail, so possibly I should take a new route.

I've decided therefore to make my intention for the Pilgrimage on a very different front than what I normally have, and perhaps in so doing, God's will internally infuse grace into me in a new way based on my work (I phrased this in the most non-Reformed way as possible just to see if tempers flared). Or in the Calvinistic formula: perhaps God's felicitous favor has predestined my spiritual victory to come through his foreordained path where I will then see the horrors of Papist idolatry and renounce all for the True Religion and become instantly a robot of God's irresistible grace (I wish, talk about an ear-tickling doctrine).

The reality will probably be another long path of frustration, spiritual faillure, and small glimpses of grace through the shadows of life.

More Victorian Insights on Catholicism: Thomas Babington Macaulay (not just a funny name)

My main area of study so far in University has been Anglo-American History / British and American History. Our school teaches it chronologically so last year we had 600-1000 (suspiciously no class on 1000-1485 What happened?!) and 1485-1832, and this year I have one from 1832-Present. We're studying the Victorian Era, Lord Palmerstone, etc. This is why I did the post on Nightingale's theology. But here's a very strange piece of evaluative ecclesiastics. It was written by (Lord) Thomas Babington Macaulay, an Evangelical Anglican (as far as I know) who ended up not converting to Catholicism, but simply gained a great appreciation from it through history. Here's what he wrote:

"There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's."

I was talking to a Catholic Philosophy student (doctoral candidate) yesterday from Quebec and he said it wasn't surprising that I converted after studying history, and said that the Church needs historians more than it needs theologians which I thought interesting. Maybe I'll continue in Anglo-American Catholic history for graduate work...

2 Christopher Dawson Quotes I found online that are true

“Of all divisions between Christians, that between Catholics and Protestants is the deepest and the most pregnant in its historical consequences. It is so deep that we cannot see any solution to it in the present period and under existing historical circumstances. But at least it is possible for us to take the first step by attempting to overcome the enormous gap in mutual understanding which has hitherto rendered any intellectual contact or collaboration impossible.”

"on the realization that civilization is insufficient, the fate of civilization rests."

Glimpse of Luther - Humorous Church History

I'm reading Pelikan's 4th volume of Church History "Reformation of Church and Dogma" and I find Luther's contradictory nature really hillarious. I'm honestly, honestly, honestly, not trying to anger Protestants or Luther-admirers. I just seriously think it's hillarious how Luther was too "extreme" for the Lutherans.

For example, Christian Theology has always said that man in some way after the fall retained the Image of God, and has somehow allowed for a portion of free will (even Calvin did this I believe.). But Luther in his effort to completely destroy the idea of Free Will proposed in his commentary on Genesis that it was wrong to say we could even understand man before the fall (with Free Will) and:

"much less was it correct to say that the image [of God] was still present, for "it was lost through sin in Paradise."... In its place had come death and the fear of death..."These and similar evils are the image of the devil, who stamped them on us."" - Jaroslav Pelikan paraphrasing Martin Luther's Anthropolgy "The Christian Tradition" Vol. 4 p.142

But it gets better than Luther just saying Man is now in the Image of Satan.

Melancthon after Luther's death declared this view (in this case shared by Valla) to be "Manichean" (Ibid p.143) and argued his own view against those who "falsely contend" (Ibid p.144) Luther's view. So according to Lutheran Dogmatics systematized by Melancthon after Luther's death, Martin Luther himself would be condemned as a Manichee (which is exactly what the Roman Catholics were contending against him).

I also found an amazing treasure trove of quotes on Dave Armstrong's blog about the complete disagreement between the Reformers on the issue of the Eucharist. You should really check it out:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/08/quiz-on-early-protestant-disharmony.html

My favourite was a quote of Philip Schaff the famous Lutheran historian on Martin Luther's views on Ulrich Zwingli:

"He went so far as to call Zwingli a non-Christian (Unchrist), and ten times worse than a papist (March, 1528, in his Great Confession on the Lords Supper). . . . He saw in the heroic death of Zwingli and the defeat of the Zurichers at Cappel (1531) a righteous judgment of God, and found fault with the victorious Papists for not exterminating his heresy (Wider etliche Rottengeister, Letter to Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532, in De Wette's edition of L. Briefe, Vol. IV. pp. 352, 353)." - Philip Schaff

lol. so the same Luther who called the Roman Church the Whore of Babylon, believes that it is a better Church than the Zwinglian churches and that God used it to judge Zwingli, and that it should've been HARSHER on him. hah, now I know why the Lutherans always feel closer to us Papists than the Anabaptists (and even the Reformed sometimes)

There you have it, another humorous episode of Church History. Tune in next time for the account of the Catholic villagers who tried to make a dog, a saint!

Oh what a friend we have in Pelikan

So I finally got my volumes 3 and 4 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" and have been flying through volume 3. In less than a day I'm on page 130 of 307 and I am enjoying it alot, but it scares me because it's so challenging, I'm realizing that my "education" in medieval and late medieval history that I received at university was almost nothing more than Modern Humanist Propoganda. I also learned that Roman Catholic attitudes that Protestantism is COMPLETELY innovative are also incorrect.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff
In complete honesty Pelikan I find is very fair, but does clearly read like an Orthodox Christian who was educated by Lutherans. My bold assertion there is based on a few facts. He likes to point out the Western acceptance of the filioque as kind of a universal 'accident' and talks about how the West (Anselm particularly) F-ed up Christology pertaining to the 2 wills of Christ. He also talks about the "seeds" of the Lutheran Law-Gospel distinction in the 10th century preaching of "consolation and warning" and the "two-fold fashion" and sacramental nature of preaching. So yes he seems very fair, but it's just interesting to note those hints of the traditions he's most familiar with. (I think he's awesome I'm not trying to call him biased).

There's Something about Augustine:
His story-like telling of the history of Western Dogma is very kindred of my favourite historians who at the price of possibly over-simplifying, commit the sin of "making History interesting" by telling it as a narrative (Gibbon's account of the Roman Empire was the same). But the narrative seems to be all about St. Augustine of Hippo. Augustine is always the source and summit (to borrow the phrase on the Eucharist from the Catholic Catechism) of theology. Everyone is always fighting about Augustine and the story which ends up as a tragedy with the Reformation seems to be all because of Augustine. Pelikan's Lutheranism also is evident in his constant affirmations that the catholic faith was always "prima scriptura" scripture as the highest authority followed by the fathers (mostly Augustine) and then reason.

So it seems VERY interesting to me to know more about Pelikan's conversion as he had spent so much time studying the West and how to become East Orthodox you ultimately have to say that this whole Augustinian school of thought that becomes the centre of every debate was just wrong from the start. Original Sin is untrue, Predestination is only a mystery, etc. I really need to buy his volume on the East.

What's it to Me?
The interesting thing is seeing his sort of commentary on authentic developments and inauthentic developments of tradition. For example he seems to be completely Orthodox in his assessment in this book. He notes wherever the supremacy of Peter or the Papacy is called into question but unlike a Lutheran, he always asserts that it was the bishops who held this equal authority with Peter having Primacy but not Supremacy (a very Orthodox assertion). He also always notes that the belief in Justification by faith alone was an innovation and not to be found in medieval teaching (a very non-Lutheran assertion). But he also talks about penance and the penitential system with great disdain (a very Orthodox and Lutheran assertion), and talks about the constant belief in the objective efficacy of the sacraments (an everyone but Reformed and Anabaptist assertion).

So maybe he's just recording history. I'm just too stuck in polemics. It's great to have a challenge though. During this whole conversion process things would've been much better if people told me to read more Church History and used more Church History to sway me. Oh well, nothing is set in stone, it's good to have this 'dead theologian' Pelikan to 'dialogue' with through his writings, perhaps if I ever gain Slavic citizenship the Orthodox might eventually consider me worthy of attending their eucharistic celebrations and I could see what he was 'on about'.

The Pelikan Brief

I decided to order 2 theology books today. I asked myself:

What Christian History is universally praised by everyone?

Jaroslav Pelikan's history of the Christian Tradition.

Already having J.N.D. Kelly's early Christian Doctrines which teaches about the Patristic era, I bought book 3, "The Growth of Medieval Theology" (600-1300)



and because I wanted to better understand the European (rather than just the English) Reformation and Counter-Reformation, I ordered book 4, "Reformation of Church and Dogma" (1300-1700) which I dearly hope deals fairly with Roman Catholicism.



I've heard good things about Pelikan, but only from the Orthodox and from Reformed people, which makes me suspicious.... I'd like to know how he treats Roman Catholicism, and how Roman Catholics like his work. In any case, these books will teach me alot I'm certain, and whether he likes Romanists or not, he still is the best Church Historian who ever lived, so I should probably listen to him before judging.