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.
Showing posts with label Jaroslav Pelikan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jaroslav Pelikan. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
More Ecclesiology From Your Favourite Ignorant Papist
I openly admit I am no expert on ecclesiology, but as a layman, I read Pelikan, Cardinal Newman, and J.N.D. Kelly as well as Traditional Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox Christians. From such reading I've seen that the Church must be a visible hierarchical Episcopate with valid apostolic succession. No doctrine, no issue, can violate this. It seems that it is an inviolable tradition of the Church and only leaves the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church as the two possible options for those who would adhere to traditional ecclesiology (I exclude the European Lutheran Churches and the Anglican Communion from the list, who ordain women and thus destroy their succession).
I've chosen the Roman Catholic Church for many reasons, and the local Eastern Orthodox Churches have saved me the trouble of investigation by declining membership to those not fluent in a Slavic language (I don't remember that in the bible or the fathers).
If of course you accept Scripture Alone as authoritative, this is a different matter. But for anyone who accepts the binding authority of apostolic tradition on the conscience of a Christian, the idea that the Church can exist visibly outside the historic episcopate in a normative sense is wrong.
As a member of the Roman Church, I enjoyed this:
"not only did the church decide which books belonged in the catholic canon of Scripture; it was also the attestation of "the holy see of Rome" that provided credentials for the church fathers..." - Jaroslav Pelikan "The Christian Tradition" Vol. 3, pg. 48
"So fundamental was the unity of the catholic church to Christian faith and life that apart from its fellowship all faith was vain and all good works devoid of reward; only within "the unity of the catholic church and the concord of the Christian religion" could either faith or works have any value. Those who set themselves against this unity not only in questions of dogma but also in matters of church discipline and practice, were without excuse, even if they claimed to adhere to the authority of the Old and New Testament and to that of the trinitarian dogma of the church" - Jaroslav Pelikan "The Christian Tradition" Vol.3 Pg. 45 "The City of God"
I've chosen the Roman Catholic Church for many reasons, and the local Eastern Orthodox Churches have saved me the trouble of investigation by declining membership to those not fluent in a Slavic language (I don't remember that in the bible or the fathers).
If of course you accept Scripture Alone as authoritative, this is a different matter. But for anyone who accepts the binding authority of apostolic tradition on the conscience of a Christian, the idea that the Church can exist visibly outside the historic episcopate in a normative sense is wrong.
As a member of the Roman Church, I enjoyed this:
"not only did the church decide which books belonged in the catholic canon of Scripture; it was also the attestation of "the holy see of Rome" that provided credentials for the church fathers..." - Jaroslav Pelikan "The Christian Tradition" Vol. 3, pg. 48
"So fundamental was the unity of the catholic church to Christian faith and life that apart from its fellowship all faith was vain and all good works devoid of reward; only within "the unity of the catholic church and the concord of the Christian religion" could either faith or works have any value. Those who set themselves against this unity not only in questions of dogma but also in matters of church discipline and practice, were without excuse, even if they claimed to adhere to the authority of the Old and New Testament and to that of the trinitarian dogma of the church" - Jaroslav Pelikan "The Christian Tradition" Vol.3 Pg. 45 "The City of God"
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'.
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'.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The God Who Stoops
I was once taught by a wise man that in Greek, grace meant to stoop in compassion and be willing to help. I remember reading the words in St. Luke's gospel which describe Jesus. There were 2 adjectives that he found after all his investigation, which described Jesus. "Grace & Truth". The painful part is the truth, it's the part that no one wants to hear, it's the part about everyone being on the ground. Before you can realize the beauty of a God who stoops to our level in compassion, you have to recognize that you're the one in need of help.
I had a bunch of my close friends from Bible School at my house last week, it was amazing how much we loved each other and respected each other, and yet how I'm sure if you asked each one of us, we would have been ashamed of many of our choices since Bible school. We would have many regrets (at least I do) but in spite of all that and the possibility that we knew the truth about each other's secret faillures, we still had grace and love for each other. I'm reminded by my friend Jenn quoting Oscar Wilde I believe, who said 'the best view of the stars is while laying in the gutter', or something to that extent. That kind of grace from my friends makes me remember why the gospel is so important.
In my lecture notes it says "nothing surpasses the gospel in relevance or urgency". Those words seem colloquial in Christianity, but more and more I think it is true. Jaroslav Pelikan once said "If Christ is raised, nothing else matters, if Christ is not raised, nothing else matters". I thought about that statement for probably longer than a healthy time, trying to figure out all that was being said. I think it means that if the gospel is true, and that Christ stands victorious over death and all else, then everything else is subordinate to the ultimate importance of that truth. And likewise, if the gospel is a lie, then life itself has no inherent meaning. The resurrection really is the proof of everything. It's such a beautiful picture, that God himself has walked through our path the first time in the person of Christ. He showed us our victory over death, and he walked every step of the journey. In the deepest part of my soul I want to be able to walk that path. I think my faith needs to be renewed in his grace, I need to believe in the God who stoops, the gracious God.
There's a prayer in the Rosary I prayed tonight, it's at the end of one version of the 'Hail, Holy Queen' and the line is "Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ." I don't know whether we are imputed Christ's righteousness, or whether we are infused with it, but in the everyday part of my life, this is my earnest prayer. That I might be made worthy of the promises of Christ. I think of those promises off the top of my head which seem so unreal, but so amazing, John 8:12 "I am the light of the world, whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but shall have the light of life". "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, though he die, will yet live". I love the verse that describes Abraham as a friend of God, I always talk about it with people and about at the end of Deuteronomy when it says that no one has ever known the Lord like Moses who spoke with God face to face. I want to be made worthy of the promises of Christ, and I think if I can - or rather if God can (for the Monergists in the crowd), then nothing else will matter... as Dr. Pelikan pointed out earlier.
I had a bunch of my close friends from Bible School at my house last week, it was amazing how much we loved each other and respected each other, and yet how I'm sure if you asked each one of us, we would have been ashamed of many of our choices since Bible school. We would have many regrets (at least I do) but in spite of all that and the possibility that we knew the truth about each other's secret faillures, we still had grace and love for each other. I'm reminded by my friend Jenn quoting Oscar Wilde I believe, who said 'the best view of the stars is while laying in the gutter', or something to that extent. That kind of grace from my friends makes me remember why the gospel is so important.
In my lecture notes it says "nothing surpasses the gospel in relevance or urgency". Those words seem colloquial in Christianity, but more and more I think it is true. Jaroslav Pelikan once said "If Christ is raised, nothing else matters, if Christ is not raised, nothing else matters". I thought about that statement for probably longer than a healthy time, trying to figure out all that was being said. I think it means that if the gospel is true, and that Christ stands victorious over death and all else, then everything else is subordinate to the ultimate importance of that truth. And likewise, if the gospel is a lie, then life itself has no inherent meaning. The resurrection really is the proof of everything. It's such a beautiful picture, that God himself has walked through our path the first time in the person of Christ. He showed us our victory over death, and he walked every step of the journey. In the deepest part of my soul I want to be able to walk that path. I think my faith needs to be renewed in his grace, I need to believe in the God who stoops, the gracious God.
There's a prayer in the Rosary I prayed tonight, it's at the end of one version of the 'Hail, Holy Queen' and the line is "Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ." I don't know whether we are imputed Christ's righteousness, or whether we are infused with it, but in the everyday part of my life, this is my earnest prayer. That I might be made worthy of the promises of Christ. I think of those promises off the top of my head which seem so unreal, but so amazing, John 8:12 "I am the light of the world, whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but shall have the light of life". "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, though he die, will yet live". I love the verse that describes Abraham as a friend of God, I always talk about it with people and about at the end of Deuteronomy when it says that no one has ever known the Lord like Moses who spoke with God face to face. I want to be made worthy of the promises of Christ, and I think if I can - or rather if God can (for the Monergists in the crowd), then nothing else will matter... as Dr. Pelikan pointed out earlier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)