Different Views of the Catholic Church & The Development of Doctrine

As I've read Catholic ecclesiology I've noticed two distinct traditions of understanding Church Dogmatics. In a weird way they seem counter-intuitive, as the Traditional Catholics seem to advocate the development of Doctrine, and the Nouvelle Theologie seems to advocate a Reformation-style jump backwards.

The First View: (I'll call it the Development of Doctrine)

Cardinal Newman and Tolkien and others tend to see theological growth in the Church as the Development of Doctrine. That doctrines existed in "seed" form and eventually grew. So that Mary's Assumption was in seed form (in the gnostics?...not going to try to defend this one) and over time it became more obvious (don't know how) but that basically enough people talked about it and so it then becomes Catholic dogma. This is the view when people tell you that the Church is like a tree growing gradually over time and expanding to higher and higher heights. Others would argue that doctrinal innovation and modernism could spring out of this view, yet strangely, this seems to be the view of the Anti-Vatican II Catholics. They didn't want to go ad fontes because the early church was just an immature version of the current Church. (if that makes sense)

The Second View: (I'll call it the "flight to antiquity" view in honor of Calvin's attack that this is what Catholics do)
This seems to be the view of many of the "Nouvelle Theologie" people / ressourcement theology. A return back to Patristics and Scriptural exegesis. They focus on the fact that the faith was once delivered to the saints, and will continue in a constant return to the same old truths expressed in new ways. This seems to be a fairly "protestant" view (if you can call it that. Except that Patristics are almost on par with Scripture, as is generally the case in Catholicism. This view seems to be quite popular among Catholic-converts and in general with people who aren't keen on new Marian doctrines and extended emphasis on things that have been recently emphasized.

The Third View: (Super-Traditionalist)
I do acknowledge a possible third view however, that of the super-traditionalists (as I'll call them) who think every new definition was there from the beginning, just no one talked about it (kind of like when the Reformed tell you the Fathers all taught the 5 solas, but forgot to mention them except in their pseudo condemnations of them). Sometimes this becomes a mixing of groups one and two by saying that all the dogmas as we now understand them were there in the beginning. The oath against modernism that SSPX takes deliberately recants the idea that doctrine develops (how I don't yet fully understand), and they seem to fall into this last view.

My View: I tend to go with the first people like Newman. I generally hate people who think Left Behind was basically Revelation word for word just in a modern context, and others who think Jesus taught Adam Smith's wealth of nations, or that Extrinsic imputed righteousness was in the Bible even though it wasn't. But a part of my detestation for such a historical ignorance is people who try to say that the Immaculate Conception is a clear biblical doctrine. There are a few proof texts you could bend to try and make say that, and some patristic phrases that seem to possibly indicate something like the sinlessness of Mary, but by and large it's a construct of scholasticism. But my argument would be: so is everyone elses theology.

I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again. You can't know what the bible means for complex theological questions. I don't know if Paul was made to pass the test on Chalcedonian orthodoxy if he would get it correct. My argument would be that you either have faith in Pentecost and Christ's Church with all of it's developments, or you become a Quaker. Of course most people try to make some wacky mix of the two, but to me, those are the only two totally logical perspectives.

Personal Rant: Frustrations with Traditionalists...

I ended up posting on this Trad Catholic blog today and wanted to delete my comment but was unable to. You see, the author was mocking what has been called "Neo-Catholicism" (Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, Dave Armstrong, etc). Basically people who aren't of the 'proper' Catholic background (Italian, Spanish, French, Polish, Irish), or who actually use the bible to promote Catholic belief. Apparently being born of a non-Anglo nationality and growing up with nominal church attendance and Marian devotion makes your faith more real than someone who has gone through an excruciating intellectual journey, faced disownment by parents, and left everything they've known and trusted for the Catholic Church.

The "hillarious" thing is, for Traditionalists who insist on the necessity of conversion to Catholicism for salvation, don't even believe in it's possibility it seems. You can sit there and affirm every article of the Roman Catechism, go to daily TLM's etc and they'll still say "you know the bible verse for why Catholics believe this?!... PROTESTANT!!!@!#!@!# Our Lady of Fatima destroy this blond-haired Heathen!!!!"

So the poor convert ends up having given up everything only to be shut out of both churches, forever branded with the mark of Cain/Luther. Go ahead and keep your mexican mary ghosts, I'd rather drink tea with Tolkien, Waugh, Newman and Chesterton any day of the week...

I think I've found some people who could give the Orthodox a run for their money in the area of Racism and Nationalism... but maybe that's unfair, the Orthodox after all might have stepped up in these areas from last time we spoke...

Love: Why Traditionalism Makes Me Sick

I was just reading a blog post from a Traditionalist Catholic blog about the "horror" of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) celebrating a eucharistic liturgy in a church in Rome that was the head church of the Dominican order.

Now let me say, I get that Catholicism has declared Anglican ordinations "null and void" in 1896. But I'm also aware what Vatican II said about Anglicanism, and that Pope John Paul II preached in Westminster Abbey and called the Anglican Communion "our beloved sister church". I know canonically it is an ecclesial communion and not truly a church (dominum iesus). But again, the spirit of ecumenism isn't something that should evoke "horror". Maybe my objection is baseless and I should agree with them, but I just despise such outright hatred for fellow Christians (which Anglicans have been concilliarly defined as being, again Vatican II).

The other things I hate about Traditionalists are their neo-Donatist conceptions of sacramental validity. They seem to think that if you are receiving communion at a Mass in English or if someone plays the guitar at your church that somehow Christ can't be present. As if the tongue of the pagan Romans or gregorian chant were what Angels spoke. I get the love for aesthetic beauty, I don't get their strange ideas about Baptisms only being baptisms if the person holds your views on anything from the papal tiara to denying the holocaust. (I'm overreacting here I know).

Furthermore, Traditionalists seem to worship Tradition to the point of idolatry. If someone did something in the past it was therefore valid. The Tridentine Mass is a great example. It was a complete "innovation" of the 16th century, but after it sits around for 400 years, then it's holy. Traditionalists mock Dave Armstrong for using the Bible to defend Catholic beliefs as if teaching the Scriptures is too "protestant" a thing for a respectible Catholic to do.

Finally, completely absent is the love of Christ. Yes it sounds trivial, yes it's argued alot, but at the end of the day, love is supreme (1 Cor 13), it is the greatest.

So may the liberals stop trying to rape Tradition of any holiness, and may the Traditionalists stop destroying charity and ecumenism.

"If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. " - 1 Corinthians 13:1-3

I love this passage, and how St. Paul says that even if you understand all mysteries and knowledge and have all faith *cough sola fide cough* but have not love, you are nothing.

One of my few proud quotes is that 'to be a theologian without love is to be a theolo-gong'... and if you think that's stupid, well... my friend didn't when I told her, so there! (note my Nietzschean logic)

Rant on Karl Rahner, Modern Theology, and Vatican II

Every week I learn more and more about the utterly UN-monolithic nature of Catholic thought. I used to think that every Catholic was forced to believe the exact same thing and that each doctrine was clearly defined. While this is true in some areas, like the Eucharist (you can't budge an inch from Aquinas), there are many areas which are open to individual interpretation or at least acceptance of various different theological theories within the Church (ex. atonement models, creation v. evolution, etc). I've seen alot of very different kinds of Roman Catholics and different kinds of Churches, it's interesting to see how different the mass can be in different places now that there is more freedom post-Vatican II.

At the time of my conversion and ever since I've been reading what I call "The Polemicists" (Church Fathers, Reformation, and Counter-Reformation, and people like Chesterton or Neo-Catholic converts). But personally I feel like this kind of triumphalistic fundamentalism and scholasticism seems dry and removed from the modern world. The phrase "modern world" around most Catholics is like the phrase "works" or "merit" around most Protestants, it is horrifying, surrounded by heresy, and the opposite of everything that is good and holy.

But I and my brother in Christ Lance, who is one of my favourite people alive, have the best conversations on theology because he's studying Modern Theology (Barth, Bonhoeffer, Multmann, etc) and I am so refreshed to hear someone talking about God in language and concepts that are in any way accessible.

It's in these conversations that my thirst for more theology grows, I want to read Hans Urs Von Balthusar, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, and Romano Guardini. People who have found an orthodox way to bring Catholic tradition into the 20th century (even though it's the 21st, 100 years is close enough). I like what Karl Rahner said in an interview I read tonight:

"we must be receptive to modern philosophy without considering it absurd or something to be opposed and criticized. What is needed is a trusting colloquium between traditional scholastic philosophy and modern philosophy. This is necessary if, on the one hand, we are to be of our time… On the other hand, we do not want to lose the true riches of tradition"-Rahner

One thing I liked about Protestantism was that even if we disagreed on doctrines, we at least all new that one of the keys to evangelism was describing the timeless truths of the gospel in modern language that people understand and using modern concepts that people can connect to. Catholicism after Vatican II-like American Politics after Nixon- has become increasingly polarized. Some are fans of Vatican II ("liberals") and want a progression in the direction it was heading, others want to forget about Vatican II (and the Holocaust) ("Traditionalists"). I feel like this categorization is unfair, because no matter what the Traditionalists tell you, the vast majority of both parties accept the general premise that what the Church says at the end of the day is final, to change the French Revolutionary slogan, we all believe 'vox ecclesiam est vox dei' the voice of the Church is the voice of God, so the dissidents - if we can call them that - are much fewer than in a group like the Anglican Communion. But let it be noted: I have a very limited understanding of Vatican II - I've read much of it, and heard people talk about it, but I don't stand in a place to judge it well or with certainty.

But I guess I'm no Traditionalist, I don't think there's anything holy about latin or making people feel bad about themselves. I find Traditionalism like "Cage Calvinism" (see Jared's blog: http://deadtheologians.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-evangelicals-dont-understand-or.html). Traditionalists are the John MacArthur's of Rome, constantly venerating the oldest and more inapplicable theologies and practices, greatest marian devotions, and in the end you find yourself wearing a scapular around your leg bleeding in penance, thinking that your pain makes God love you more than others, and shooting Robert Langdon as he solves the DaVinci code. It's just a mess, that's why I try to stay in what I call "moderate" Catholicism, just a general acceptance of what Vatican II taught and a desire for a living faith for the common Catholic - a sort of Roman Methodism if you will. I believe the miracles, I believe the bible, I believe in the Magesterium. But I think Jaroslav Pelikan had a beautiful maxim on this subject:

"Tradition is the living faith of the dead. Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living"- Pelikan

Jared (like Luther in his response to Trent) was criticizing the inaccesibility of Catholic theology (in particular Justification) and Scholastic definitions (I think he was at least). While I defended the Church, at the same time I agree with him a bit, we need a basic understanding of an essential doctrine like justification. The beauty of sola fide is that it's simple, people get it, and no matter how confused Protestantism is on some areas (millenial theology, ecclesiology, etc) it at least understands it's own view of justification. The Pope (Benedict XVI) in a post the other day, explained Catholic justification simply as 'justification by love alone'. Whether you agree with that theology or not, you have to admit that it's simple. If every Catholic in the world could answer to the question "Brother what must I do to be saved" - "love the Lord your God" (the greatest commandment) at least we'd have an agreement and a simple understandable concept.

As it is if someone asks me "What must I do to be saved" I have to respond, "Well... first of all, have faith in Christ, then get baptized, then join the Church and repent of your sins and recieve absolution for grave sin in the sacrament of reconciliation (penance), and then recieve the body and blood of our Lord, and do works of charity which manifest the work of the Holy Spirit in your life, and then repeat these steps" - That's probably the orthodox Catholic theology of salvation it's the sacramental redemption according to St. Thomas Aquinas. But if you just get someone to love Jesus and join in the life of his body (the Church and Eucharist), maybe it will work just as well? I don't know.

This is the kind of theology I like, and I have great hope I will discover more of it as I read these quotes from Rahner:

"while I detest dogmatic positivism, I am a great lover of speculative theology." That is, a theology "that seeks a simple internal principle and through it sees the unity of all dogmatic thought."-Rahner

"What Christ gives us is quite explicit if his own words are interpreted according to their Aramaic meaning. The expression 'This is my Body' means this is myself."-Rahner

I love Rahner's view (that I read about on wikipedia - I'm not that smart, I just steal stuff from others) that we should understand God as revealing and giving himself to us through the Eucharist and through his grace -which is an extension of himself, so that we are slowly 'absorbed' (if the word is correct) into his very being. As we enter the body of Christ (Church) and receive the body of Christ (Eucharist) we are partaking and entering into the divine life which will be fully consumated in the beatific vision.

The final quote I saw (on a site with a list of his quotes - again I don't read alot of theology right now on my own, I just steal from others) that I liked was this:

"emptiness is only a disguise for an intimacy of God's, that God's silence, the eerie stillness, is filled by the Word without words, by Him who is above all names, by Him who is all in all. And his silence is telling us that He is here." - Karl Rahner

I love quotes like that so much, some people I think just think that people like me don't actually understand them, we just think they sound deep and pretend that they're very significant. But I honestly feel it's a beautiful thought, it explains God practically, sometimes he does seem far away, but maybe he is just like a friend who sits next to you in silence so long, sometimes you forget they are there.

Hilaire Belloc & Ecumenism

"Those of us who boast so stable an endowment make no claim thereby to personal peace; we are not saved thereby alone .... But we are of so glorious a company that we receive support, and have communion. The Mother of God is also our own. Our dead are with us. Even in these our earthly miseries we always hear the distant something of an eternal music, and smell a native air. There is a standard set for us whereto our whole selves respond, which is that of an inherited and endless life, quite full, in our own country. You may say, “all that is rhetoric.” You would be wrong, for it is rather vision, recognition, and testimony. But take it for rhetoric. Have you any such? Be it but rhetoric, whence does that stream flow? Or what reserve is that which can fill even such a man as myself with fire? Can your opinion (or doubt or gymnastics) do the same? I think not! One thing in this world is different from all others. It has a personality and a force. It is recognized and (when recognized) most violently hated or loved. It is the Catholic Church. Within that household the human spirit has roof and hearth. Outside it is the night."

I'm not trying to proselatize or start a fight, I just read this quote and thought it was very interesting, I've re-read it a few times now and am thinking about it and whether or not I agree with it... I post it only as food for thought.

Now he is being polemically Catholic, and I know that route is popular among the Traditionalists, but I don't favor that as much as Ecumenism. I want to switch gears at this point in the blog, I am glad that Catholics can be that proud of their establishments, indeed I believe them to be the truest establishments, but I have lived to long with God fearing Protestants to believe they have no inspiration or rhetoric of their own. So I want to show how this quote is a beautiful quote in part for all Christians. "Even in these our earthly miseries we always hear the distant something of an eternal music, and smell a native air". That line brings to my mind immediately one of my favourite portions of the bible, the hall of faith in Hebrews 11:

"By faith he [Abraham] stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents... For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.... They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland... they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them. " (NRSV)

Scripture is our joint Liturgy and source of rhetoric, we can all rally behind that.

As the Liturgy of the Eucharist sings: "in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor are yours Almighty Father, forever, and ever."

May Christians of all kinds find the sweet fragrance of our Lord in the miseries of life.