Ignorance as a Defence of Your Faith

(I guess I'm slowly coming back to this blog of Reformed-Roman dialogue...slowly)

I was frustrated tonight when speaking with a fellow Catholic because of this prevailing series of thoughts I see in both Reformed and Roman Christians.

It's the idea that 'if they only knew what we taught, then they'd convert immediately'. I was recruited to convert a Reformed person who is dating a Catholic girl, but I'm refusing to go any further than I've already gone (just showed him the Catholic account of things). I get annoyed because they keep telling me that it's just misinformation. Really? I think that there is a significant number of people who understand 'both sides' and choose their own (including the Reformed side). Was Luther or Calvin or Beza ignorant of the Catholic claims? Clearly not. Were modern theologians like Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, or Jurgen Moltmann ignorant? No. And are Protestants at present, running the gamut from Michael Horton to Rowaan Williams ignorant of it? Obviously not.

I explained to the woman in mass tonight that actually Protestants are just following the development of doctrine from Augustine's conceptions of Original Sin and predestination, along with a development of Anselm's theory of Atonement, etc. And she laughed and did what all Catholics do... start screaming 'Eucharist!' and 'mere symbol'. By the time I tried to explain that Reformed Christians don't think it's "merely" a symbol and that Anglicans actually can claim it as a sacrifice, etc I just gave up (and Mass was starting).

I thought it was hillarious too as we were singing Vineyard worship songs and the priest faced us (not East), etc that Catholics think they are always more Traditional than everyone else.

Similarly, I get annoyed when Reformed Protestants just assume that Catholics don't understand Protestantism and are just ignorant. All the same things apply as I've written already.

The Point:

There are people whose consciences and in-depth study of scripture and Tradition lead them to Protestantism, as there are those whose same study leads them to Catholicism. Even if we hate each other's theologies (though I don't think I feel this way towards any theology except Anabaptism), can we at least admit that religious views are not just the result of ignorance, and that brilliant and loving Christians exist in both camps? I certainly am not saying, both are right, I'm just saying that both have arguments of at least some validity, and are not solely reducable to misinformation.

My personal example here is my friend Lance and I. We both were at a basic Evangelical Protestant understanding for a year of biblical studies together. As we studied theology he headed towards Lutheranism, and I towards Roman Catholicism. He's getting into Radical Orthodoxy and I'm getting into la nouvelle theologie / ressourcement, and we can actually agree on quite a bit. We obviously disagree on major issues, but I respect his theology and I hope he respects mine. Actually neither of us came up with our theology, as I've said, we left Evangelicalism :)

Reformation History

It's amazing as I read more and more sources on the Reformation how much Caesaro-Papism occured. It was really an Erastian Reformation. It wasn't theologians deliberating in Zurich or Geneva or Wittenburg, it was state-appointed theologians like Calvin and Zwingli who ruled with an iron fist (this might sound exaggerrated but I really don't think it is).

We had to read the other day about how Luther went back on the priesthood of all believers and the freedom of a Christian to a large extent as reformed-style Protestants arrived in Lutheran Wittenburg. The solution: disallow foreign students to enter the university without heavy fees.

We also read a document where Luther, Melancthon, and Carlstadt disagreed so viamently and referred to their speeches of 'angry bickering' that they had to sign this document saying they wouldn't discuss the differences anymore and try to forget it all.

Sola Scriptura sure was a can of worms. In a sense I think the Quakers and Anabaptists just took the principles of the Reformation to their logical end, and the Lutherans and more conservative reformers just fought to arbitrarily stop the reformation based on 'human traditions' that they had denounced (infant baptism, Trinitarian formulas w/ neo-platonic language, etc).

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."

Christian Commonality

As I do history of the spread of Christianity I realize more and more how essential 2 things are that all Christians hold in common. They were so important that Abp. Thomas Cranmer said England had officially reformed as a country when the people had learned these 2 things in English/Vernacular.

The Creed, and the Lord's Prayer

It's interesting to me that Abp Rowan Williams 400 years later has agreed that these are the centerpiece of the Christian faith. I'd like to make them more important in my life.

Pelikan, Waugh, & Williams - Thoughts on Vacation Reading

I'm almost done Volume 4 "Reformation of Church and Dogma" by Jaroslav Pelikan. I read a big chunk of it on my vacation this last week, and I've really enjoyed it. I didn't want to read anything about Zwingli or any more about Calvin (no offense), but I pushed on through that part and got to Trent which I thoroughly enjoyed. I feel like Pelikan is the most objective historian out there. He doesn't single-mindedly affirm any position really, and he puts in really interesting facts about them. I never knew how big an impact Zwingli and the Remonstrants (or was it Anti-Remonstrants?) / Arminians had on the Reformed Tradition. I also felt more and more that Luther was much more Catholic than any of the other Reformers. I don't know which one of Pelikan's Dogmatic histories to read next. I've done 3 and now am finishing 4, but I really don't care about the East/Orthodox (typical Catholic) and I don't know if his book on modern theology (Volume 5, 1700-present) includes any Catholic stuff, so I might get his 1st volume.

I bought and finished reading "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh. I really enjoyed it. It had been so long since I read fiction that it was refreshing. The way he writes characters and how realistic everything seems is almost eerie. Granted it wasn't the most exciting book in the world, but I still heartily enjoyed it. There were alot of great Catholic moments that made it a bit of an indulgence into my fantasy world: English Catholicism from 1850-1950 (the only area of modern history I would consider doing history graduate work in).

Finally, I'm almost finished reading "A Ray of Darkness" by Rowan Williams (written before he was Archbishop of Canterbury). As I was reading them I remarked that it was the weirdest author I've ever read in that within the same paragraph I could highlight an idea I completely agreed with, and another idea I absolutely hated. Abp. Williams had that Anglican/Anglo-Catholic style I love where they teach the Catholic and Protestant doctrines and then show how both of them are in a way wrong and then propose some new idea or middle ground. His theology is so strange, because he cites almost exclusively Roman Catholic authors (Hans Urs Von Balthasar for example), and pre-reformation (Catholic?) mystics like St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of Avila. He seems to have no Protestant thinkers outside John Donne (a former Catholic) that influence his theology (obviously there are some, but he never cites them). His deeply personal and poetic style has taught me alot about homiletics (even just by reading), and I have much more respect for him. Some sermons in the collection were great and I've highlighted almost all of them, and others are just empty modernism and mockery towards any Christian claiming to have absolute truth. All in all I've enjoyed it though, and I think I'll continue to read him.

I'd recommend all these books.

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.

Things I appreciate about Calvinism

Just to prove from my last post that I am not overtly anti-Calvinist any more than I am anti-anything other than Catholicism, I thought I'd post some things I enjoy about Calvinism.



1. God-Centredness. It tries to begin and end with God which much of decision-theology fails to do. At times when I read a hymn or passage by someone of the Reformed persuasion I conjure in my mind John Calvin standing next to St. Ignatius Loyola in Heaven shouting "Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam!" and Loyola equally chanting "Soli Deo Gloria!". I am comforted that even though our two factions will most likely fight for the next 500-1000 years, at least we are all fighting in defense of the same God whom we love above all else.



2. Word and Sacrament. Calvinism's ideal is a focus on Word and Sacrament. Standing in St. Giles Cathedral (I hope that's the right name) in Edinburgh, Scotland, I remember taking communion and hearing a beautiful sermon. I think back to myself how such a perfect balance of these two essential of essentials came together in revery. To the shock of many, I am a Catholic who loves the Bible and wishes we could give even more time and study to it, and so I love seeing the passion Reformation Christians have for the inspired written Word of God.



3. Holiness. I still enjoy reading R.C. Sproul, Jonathon Edwards (especially "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" - beautiful sermon), and occasionally listening to Alistair Begg all discuss the Holiness of God, though when they discuss it they do so out of teaching the imputed active obedience and righteousness of Christ, and when I think of it, I imagine purgatory and the perfection of souls into the true and unequivocal holiness of Christ. The Puritans also had a firm grasp on right living and the law of Christ/Sanctification which I greatly admire.



4. Heroes: I will always look up to in some way, Hudson Taylor, Francis Schaeffer, Charles Spurgeon, George Whitefield and others.



5. Intellectualism. Many Protestants follow in Luther's Nominalism and thereby restate his opinion "the theologian must first dispose of Aristotle", however Reformed Theology has a minor tradition of Natural Law and Natural Theology (Common Grace, etc) and many current Reformed Theologians have even ascended to a form of Protestant Thomism, and don't shy away from Philosophy.

Who Obscured Scripture - Luther or the Medieval Church

Much like the assumption of Catholics that Protestants will scream when doused with Holy Water, there is another myth coming from the other side. I would argue that this myth has so pervaded Protestantism that their historians have spread it even unto the academic world. Today I encountered it.

It is the great Protestant myth that the Catholic Church is somehow 'scared' of the Bible. It is a natural assumption of most people, that the Protestant Reformation saved the bible from the ashes. This is a lie. Over 100 editions of the Bible were produced by the Catholic Church in the 50 years preceding the Reformation in the vernacular languages (spoken or common languages) of the people. Martin Luther produced one, which the Church forbid -as it did with Wycliffe's because it was an improper translation, Luther added 'alone' to Eph 2:8-9, and other such disfigurements of the word of God as preserved by the Catholic and Orthodox Church.

People complain about the 'Vulgate' - the Latin Bible being used, and that it's purpose was to 'hide' the bible from commoners in a foreign language. The name Vulgate is interesting because it comes from the same english root as Vulgar - meaning in the common speech of the people.

Here is an amazing article showing that this Protestant Myth is just that - a myth - and not a fun myth like Lord of the Rings, or a true myth like Gen 1-3, but a fake bad myth.

here it is: (thank you Lord for Dave Armstrong)
"because of the human tendency to dichotomize differing viewpoints and to create "good guys" and "bad guys" in the most sweeping terms, it becomes almost "psychologically necessary" to come up with a villan, historically-speaking. If Protestants are for the Bible, then (in this mindset) someone has to be the "bad guy" and against the Bible. Therefore, in a movie of this sort, which deals with the myth and folklore of Protestant origins, the Catholic Church "must" be the "bad guy" and enemy of the Holy Scriptures (otherwise, much of the Protestant self-understanding and historical importance and rationale for the very movement itself is greatly hindered). Alongside this is the commonly-held Protestant caricature of claiming that the Catholic Church "feared" the Bible, and how it would expose the falsity of Catholic beliefs, which is why she allegedly forbade it to the common people, in the common tongue, and discouraged its study.

The only problem with such embellishment of one's own epic and noble tale of origins is that it can't hold a candle to the true history concerning the Catholic high reverence for Scripture. It is a simple, indisputable historical fact that the Catholic Church was the guardian, translator and preserver of the Bible for the nearly 1500 years between the time of Jesus Christ and Martin Luther. Anyone at all familiar with the Middle Ages knows about learned monks copying the Scriptures laboriously by hand.

Had the Catholic Church hated or feared the Bible as is so often absurdly claimed, it was an easy matter during this period to destroy all copies. Nor were the masses ignorant of the Bible in the Middle Ages before the Protestants came into the picture. If anything, Bible literacy in the fifty years before Luther's revolt (1467-1517) among lay non-scholars was arguably greater than in our own time.

Before the modern printing press was invented in the mid-15th century, Bibles were chained at libraries not in order to "keep them from the people," as the stereotype goes, but rather, to protect them from thieves, so the common people could have more access to them, as books were very expensive. This practice persisted long after 1517 in Protestant countries such as England, since older books would have continued to be very valuable. Every Protestant (even the most anti-Catholic sort) ought to be profoundly thankful to the Catholic Church, without which they would not possess their Bible.

Nor is it at all true that the Catholic Church was opposed to the printing and distribution of Bible translations in vernacular languages (it did oppose some Protestant translations which it felt were inaccurate). For instance (utterly contrary to the myths in this regard which are pathetically promulgated by the movie Luther), between 1466 and the onset of Protestantism in 1517 at least sixteen editions of the Bible appeared in German, with the full approval of the Catholic Church:

High German:
Strasburg: 1466, 1470, 1485
Basel, Switzerland: 1474
Augsburg: 1473 (2), 1477 (2), 1480, 1487, 1490, 1507 [also in 1518]
Nuremburg: 1483

Low German:
Cologne: 1480 (2)
Lubeck: 1494
Halberstadt: [1522]
Delf: [before 1522]
(From Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 vols., translated by A.M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891], vol. 1, 56-57, vol. 14, 388)" - Dave Armstrong in a Response to the movie "Luther" http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/05/catholic-response-to-movie-luther-2003.html

The Anabaptists: From the Radical Reformation to Radically Dogmatic

I was thinking about the History of the Anabaptists today. The Church I was raised in and the school I was taught in were both Mennonite/Anabaptist. When I read history about them it is hillarious for me to categorize them as 'The Radical Reformation' - Radical? ... a church that excommunicates someone for dancing seems a little old fashioned to me, but such is the historical shift. I think it's funny to read about the first Anabaptists and how they set up this polygamous theocracy in Munster, believing that once they had enough babies and reached 144 000 people, they would be raptured and the Kingdom of God would be at hand. I know people who have been kicked out of Anabaptist churches for getting pregnant, and I can barely imagine one where people were constantly copulating in hopes of bringing about God's will.

Menno Simons I guess was quite different from those at Munster, so maybe that ties in a bit. As I read his writing I find nothing that shocking; in fact about 70% of his writing is just direct quotes from Scripture and the other 30% is about how Catholics are wrong about everything... so maybe there is a bit of continuity between the Mennonites then and now lol. The only shocking thing I found was that he quotes the Apocrypha, right next to scripture and makes no distinction. I think that fact would scare a few of the grannies at the local MB church.

As cynical as I can be about the Mennonites, they do have a great history. I will always remember the stories my grandmother handed down to me about how the Ukranian Orthodox and the Mennonites used to actually befriend each other at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution and how they escaped to Canada with money sown in their clothes and had miracles occur where they narrowly escaped guards and jumped off trains and hid in fields, all to preserve their faith. Maybe that's why my grandma was so pissed when I looked at Catholicism, it's like a slap in the face to all of my heritage. It's wild how movements change though. Nowadays the Mennonites are strangely dogmatic in their anti-dogmatism. So they claim to have no creed, but if someone brings up Just War theory they call them heretics, or if someone mentions infant baptism, they are on the side of the Anti-Christ. Maybe when you are persecuted by everyone (like they were in the Reformation), you choose what things you'll die for, and in essence become dogmatic about those things. It's probably hard to die for the freedom to choose to believe whatever you want. It's a bit airy.

I did find it funny though that one Reformation program said that the Anabaptists promoted 3 things which were intolerable to 16th century culture:
1. Freedom to choose your own religion, 2. Not drinking alcohol, 3. Not beating your wife. lol good ol' Anabaptists