Excerpts of The Delicious Destruction of Thomism by Paul Ricoeur

""repentance" belongs to the same thematic universe as trnsgression and merit, and it is no accident that it was precisely Judaism that laid emphasis on this concept. For "repentance" signifies that "return" to God, freely chosen, is always open to man; and the example of great and impious men who have "returned" to the Eternal attests that it is always possible for a man to "change his way." This emphasis on repentance is in conformity with the intepretation of "evil inclination" as occasion of sin and not as radical evil. The ethical universe of Pharisaism is already that of Pelagius: no great contrasts, as in Paul, Augustine, and Luther, between radical evil and radical deliverance, but a slow and progressive process of salvation, in which "pardon" is not lacking to "repentance," grace to the good will." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (131)

"justice, although it is extrinsic to a man as far as its origin is concerned, has become something that dwells within him, as far as its operation is concerned; the "future" justice is already imputed to the man who believes; and so the man who is "declared" just is "made" just, really and vitally. Thus there is no ground for opposing the forensic and eschatological sense of justice to its immanent and present sense: for Paul the first is the cause of the second, but the second is the full manifestation of the first; the paradox is that the acme of outwardness is the acme of inwardness, of that inwardness that Paul calls new creature, or liberty. Liberty, considered from the point of view of last things, is not the power of hesitating and choosing between contraries, nor is it effort, good will, responsibility. For St. Paul, as for Hegel, it is being at home with oneself, in the whole, in the recapitulation of Christ." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (148)

"Such is the symbol in the light of which the final experience of fault is perceived as something in the past that one has got beyond. It is because "justification" is the present which dominates the backward look on sin, that the supreme sin consists, in the last resort, in the vain attempt to justify oneself... Justification by faith, then, is what makes manifest the failure of justification by the law, and the failure of the justice of works is what reveals the unity of the entire domain of sin." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (148)

"evil is not nothing; it is not a simple lack, a simple absence of order; it is the power of darkness; it is posited; in this sense it is something to be "taken way": "I am the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," says the interior Master. Hence, every reduction of evil to a simple lack of being remains outside the symbolism of defilement, which is complete only when defilement has become guilt." - Paul Ricoeur "The Symbolism of Evil" (155)

A Photograph of Two Great Christian Adulterers

I was trying to explain to someone the other day that a person's sin is no reason to discount their theology.

These two men were both great Christian thinkers and witnesses, and yes, there is substantial evidence that both of them had mistresses / cheated on their wives.

If only I could find a picture of these two with Fr. Karl Rahner (though apparently he was technically a fornicator, and his mistress was an adulteress), then we'd have all 3 of them.

The great other exception is of course St. Augustine, who had multiple concubines, once for over a decade.

Of course, we are not good, because of our righteousness, but because of Christ. After all, concerning the so-called "free" will, St. Augustine wrote:

"Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man's nature! Let him be permitted to pray that he may be healed! Why need he [Pelagius] presume so much on the capacity of his nature? It is wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed. It is a true confession of its weakness, not a false defence of its capacity, that it stands in need of." - St. Augustine (On Nature and Grace, 62.)

And as the very traditional Catholic legend goes, the saints rejoice in Heaven over their sins, because they were opportunities for the abundance of God's grace to shine through.

The Usual Suspects: Original Sin, The Fall, and Concupiscence

So I guess I'm not ending my inquiry. Although of course we will be playing by Wesleyan (prison) rules I guess, Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience, are all fair play.

The main issue of contention that has remained since the Reformation between Protestants and Catholics and is chronologically the first battleground, is nature (and thus grace).

What is Nature? Was it perfect without grace? Was Adam merely natural, or did he also have sanctifying grace? What is original sin? etc.

I'm going to try to keep posts shorter so that you don't have to read as much, with the sacrifice being extra prooftexts.

Pelagius argued that Nature was perfect in itself, and that Adam was not given any gift of grace, because nature itself is a gracious gift. Protestantism agrees with Pelagius in arguing that Nature was perfect and was without grace, it was "good", and man likewise "very good" ('no one is good but God alone' as Jesus said).

The Cappadocians and Augustine argued on the contrary that man was not without grace, and that the 'breath of life' implied more than life, but actually the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and/or Sanctifying Grace. God blessed them in the garden before the Fall, and this seems to me, to indicate a divine gift (grace). This is "Original Righteousness" in Thomas. It thus follows that Original Sin is merely "not having Original Righteousness/Sanctifying Grace".

Fr. Hardon (man I feel gross typing that name) has an article on it here:
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/God/God_013.htm

Called to Communion also has good posts on it as well (here's just part 7 in the series: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/03/aquinas-and-trent-part-7/)

Concupiscence and Original Sin Revisited.

So the other day I was at my Chaplain's apartment and we were talking about la Nouvelle Theologie, and he asked if I knew about it, and I said "oh ya, when the modernists won out". For example Pope Leo XIII and others condemned many modern ideas as heresy (see Syllabus of Errors) that would later be -if not approved- at least painted in a much better light.

Now when you have an institution of highly trained philosophers like you do in Catholicism, you can get out of any claim of contradition, there's always some reason why technically it isn't a contradiction. 2 examples. Religious Freedom, which was condemned by Leo XIII or at least people thought it was condemned, because he wrote 'it is against reason for truth and error to have equal rights'. But Vatican II said, those in error had rights, so technically, Leo's statements are made meaningless, and the respect for other religions shown in the Vatican over the last 100 years have been a de facto contradiction of Leo's claims. I'm not with SSPX and those condemning religious freedom, I'm all for it, I'm just showing how dichotemies can emerge and how things can "change" within Catholicism without using the word 'change'.

Secondly, the Development of Doctrine used to be considered a hereetical modern idea because it said Dogma could 'change' over time. The Tridentine doctrine was that every Tradition was actually passed on by the apostles. So St. Paul was walking around Ephesus expounding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and giving Indulgences. Obviously, most Catholics today would not hold this view, and Cardinal Newman is probably responsible for this. I don't disagree that Dogma develops, again I'm just saying that it's place has 'changed' (or developed) in the Catholic view.

So the Modern/Contemporary Church can "re-interpret"/Develop/Change it's own previous teaching it seems, to the point that previous teaching is superfluous, but can they do that with Scripture? This has troubled me. I know we're "never supposed to put a dichotemy between Scripture and Tradition", but it is something we have to engage in, even as we engage in solving contradictions in the bible.

The Council of Trent said in Session 5, First Decree, Canon 5:
"...concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin."

So to simplify. Concupiscence, is not properly sin according to Trent, even though St. Paul (the apostle referenced) called it sin.

Luckily for Trent, St. Paul does not appear to have engaged in Aristotelian definitions in his epistles, so he didn't say "sin materially but not formally dwelleth in me", but only "sin dwelleth in me" (Rm 7:20).

"Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me." (Rm 7:20)

The problem for Catholic theology is that a distinction is made between Original and Actual sin, and further Mortal and Venial sins. For a sin to really "count" as a sin, someone has to willfully and knowingly commit it. Then Catholic teaching is that when someone has done this, they have clearly shown that they are rejecting God.

The problem is that Paul attributes the bad action to the sin which dwells in him, for the Reformers: (Formally) Original Sin, for Trent: Concupiscence (Materially Original Sin).

Pastorally, whenever I've asked Catholics about this issue, they have sided (unknowingly) with Luther and Calvin. Calvin said that man was nothing but a heap of Concupiscence, and he and Luther argued the biblical definition of sin was: anything that fell short of the Glory of God. Thus every human action was sin. Luther said the only mortal sin, damnable sin in the end, was unbelief. The problem I see personally in Tridentine doctrine is the fact that Christians who know the law, ALWAYS sin mortally, because they know it, and they do it. The Catechism says 'with full consent of the will', but one might argue phenomenologically, that obviously any act committed is done with the full consent of the will, how else could it occur if not from a completed decision of the will? (maybe they could half commit a sin?)

As well, I don't know any Catholics who would agree that every time they lied, masurbated, or dishonored their parents, they really thought "I hate God, and by this action I willfully reject him, because my faith and works are so closely tied!".

Rowan Williams paraphrases St. Augustine by saying "most sins are committed by people weeping and groaning" (De natura et gratia xxix 33 - though this is a fairly liberal paraphrase, I checked, it is not inaccurate).

Now I dont deny that Catholicism offers forgiveness through the sacrament of reconciliation/confession/penance, and I don't deny that the best in the Catholic tradition have basically disagreed with Church teaching on mortal sin - or to put it sophistically - have had a very open view as to what constitutes perfect contrition (basically any contrition = perfect). Some pre-Tridentine Catholics even taught justification by faith alone like the Spirituali and Cardinal Pole (although the Catholics get out of this by saying that they taught it by infusion, and had a view of the Chruch that they would've submitted, and indeed did submit, as Cardinal Reginald Pole did). BUT, if you read the Catechism, it still says that if you are in a state of mortal sin (and most would be amazed at how many things are dogmatically mortal sins) and you don't have a perfect love for God (which must be the result of an actual grace from God), then you are not allowed to hope you will be saved. Imperfect contrition does not equal forgiveness, repentance does not equal forgiveness, only perfect love for God (perfect contrition) and a desire for immediate sacramental confession = forgiveness. My friend who I have bible study with (a Catholic) always says "I hope we don't get hit by buses before saturday (the day we have Confession)", because technically speaking we would go to Hell.

We almost got into a car accident the other day, and even though I'm planning on going to confession, I'm still in mortal sin (I didn't go to mass yesterday, among other things), and even though I've asked God for forgiveness and confessed to him, I wouldn't say I have perfect love for God. If I did have perfect love for God, why would I sin in the first place? Riddle me that.

Now the Reformers argued that when we physically died, Original Sin is gone because it is tied to our 'flesh', and of course Catholcs jump on that and say "AHA! gnostics! Manichees!, etc". Except that St. Paul seems to say exactly what they do, and I doubt we'd want to account him a gnostic or a manichee. But that isn't a sufficient rebuttle to that criticism, I know.

There are so many prayers we find in medieval history for a good death, and people genuinely terrified that after all their lives of repentance and attempts to follow Christ, at that last pivotal moment when they died, they could lose it all. I reminds me a bit of musical chairs. When the music stops, you have to rush and hope there's a chair. Not a very comforting image, not very Romans 8:1. And I know of course, good Aristotelians don't use such existential arguments. Just because something horrifies a person almost to the point of insanity with fear and guilt, doesn't mean you can't 'technically' call it love, or grace.

Don't worry Catholics, my head is still holding the gun to my heart. Aristotle has not been "put to death" as Luther admonished. But I'm assuming that eventually one of two things will happen: 1) I'll give in to my emotions and become an Existentialist, and thereby become Protestant, or 2) My heart will just die, and my reason will finally have control of my passions as Aristotle and Kant spoke so highly of.

But sometimes I picture all of the people of the world, the Protestants, and the Catholics and Orthodox who don't go to confession, or die without it. It is like a scene from "Watchmen":

On that last day, we will look up to Christ and shout "Save us!", and he'll whisper "no".

The Authority Question (Again)

The Question:

What is the apostolic office?

The Problem:
We look back using reason at the early church, we see books that will eventually become Scripture, the Church Fathers, councils and synods. The problem is disunity in the accounts here. How do we know Origen was a heretic, or that Tertullian was wrong on Baptism, or that Pelagius was wrong on anthropology/Original Sin.

Answers:
Protestants take into account the fathers, the councils, and the books, and argue that by the very nature of Scripture (God-Breathed, Revelation, etc) it is superior to all other sources. This is an after-the-fact decision in an attempt to make up for difficulties and differences between Christian writers. Ultimate authority must be given to Scripture and it is thus assumed that Scripture is clear in its meaning. People cite inclarity between Protestant traditions as disproof, but one forgets that apostolically succeeding bishops disagree as well (Old Catholics, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptics).

Catholics argue that Papal Supremacy is the apostolic office (or Petrine office as they might say). That St. Peter's authority was passed on to his successors and that they exercise his role as supreme among the apostles. This argument is ironically based off of scripture and the nature of the church (Spirit-led) and thus epistemologically it is equal to the after-the-fact system of sola scriptura, as the transfer of Petrine authority is not clearly taught (just like sola scriptura).

There are (paradoxically) three different Catholic answers:

1. Two-Source Method: Some argued that revelation is stored partly in Scripture, partly in oral traditions. In this view St. Paul could have taught the church at Ephesus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or Indulgences. This to me seems a little ridiculous, but technically this is not a disproof of this view, it is merely my own incredulity. There are problems here in that many Catholic doctrines like indulgences, or certain Marian doctrines are not taught in the fathers. There might be 'seeds' but there is no fully defined doctrines as such.

2. Magesterium/Development Method: This was Cardinal Newman's solution, namely that as the church thought about these issues, over time, they managed to come up with new implications of each doctrine. I.E. Immaculate Conception from Genesis 3:15. Problematic to this opinion is that the Church declares revelation to be a finished process, this seems to add to the deposit of faith, which we have been told to guard (Jude 3) and presumably not to add to. Pelikan notes that the medievals stated that to add any doctrine was temerity, and so all doctrines must be proved to have been part of the deposit of faith.

3. Vatican II Method: Dei Verbum & Pope Benedict XVI seem to see Tradition as the bounds within which we are to read the bible. The Bible is the materially sufficient deposit of faith, and Tradition helps us interpret it.

Problematic is that each of these 3 views is on equal epistemological footing as Sola Scriptura. They're all after the fact ways of sorting out the problems of historical theology