Are Catholic & Reformed Epistemologies Converging?

I'm reading Hans Urs Von Balthasar's "Love Alone is Credible" and Karl Rahner's treatment of the Trinity, as well as considering the theology of Karl Barth, as well as that of Confessional Reformed Protestantism. Add to that Jaroslav Pelikan's last volume of Church History (1700-Vatican II) and you'll see where I'm drawing this.

In "classic" / Reformational differences, one important divergence seems to be this:

Reformed thinkers argued for a view I think best reflected by Cornelius Van Til's presuppositionalism. ie. You must accept that God exists and that the Bible (66 books) are divinely inspired. Until you do, I will undermine your worldview over and over and over, ad infinitum, until we get to my worldview. So eventually, everyone will accept sola scriptura, and when they open the bible they'll see double predestination, accept Calvin, and be saved, and we'll all live happily ever after.

This debatably stems from William of Ockham's rejection of Scholastic Realism in favor of Nominalism and the denial of universals. Thus Revelation and Faith were placed in opposition to Reason and Metaphysics. (though some Reformed thinkers have actually used Alot of Aquinas and to their credit, have come up with some good philosophy)

Roman thinkers have oppositely argued that the divine image implies a use of reason and that by using 'faith seeking understanding' and philosophical theology, metaphysics, etc, everyone in the world will eventually give their life to Aristotle, and come up with the Summa if they just try hard enough. And we'll all live happily ever after. (Although the Augustinians and some others like Bernard of Clairvaux have always rejected this kind of thing, arguing much more like Pascal that 'the heart has it's reasons' which the mind can't know).

So:

The sticky situation remained unresolvable, until recently.

Karl Barth came up with a beautiful exposition of nonfoundationalist Protestantism (partially Lutheran, partially Reformed), that caught the eye of Hans Urs Von Balthasar who came up with a beautiful exposition of nonfoundationalist Protestantism. Both of them kind of gave in to Van Til's method - a bit, not completely, you must note well - and argued for the supremacy of Scripture and Christ to EVERYTHING. Yes, even to some of our beloved traditions. Henri de Lubac apparently did something similar. Dei Verbum - the dogmatic constitution on Scripture in Vatican II gave over the Catholic hypothesis of the 2 source theory (Scripture + Tradition) in favour of the East Orthodox (Scripture as Tradition) theory, thus moving us another inch closer to Protestantism.

Now, in the face of Emergent church craziness, and Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic threats, the Reformed folks have kicked into high gear by reviving the "Tradition" part of their Tradition. Jonathon Edwards, John Calvin, and Martin Luther's books have been selling like hotcakes (except unlike these - which I've never seen sold, they're actually selling). Reformed Theologians are appealing to their creeds rather than "the Bible only" and using things like Chalcedon to smite Mormons, Unitarians, and American Millenarian Evangelicals and finally noticing that they're using Tradition.

Thus it seems Reformed Theology has stepped closer to Rome.

Conclusion:

I'm highly uneducated, and have only been involved in theology for 2 years or so, but it seems to me, that all this nonfoundational epistemology could mean new ecumenical possibilities for these 2 Traditions.

In a slightly different context, I discussed this with a Reformed Philosopher at my university the other day, and just by changing the philosophical groundwork, we were able to come to an agreement on huge issues. In that friendly environment, he admitted that Reformed theology functions greatly out of Tradition and that Sola Scriptura in it's sharpest understanding holds them back from alot, and I admitted that Catholic theology functions on the principle of claiming infallible statements, but then re-interpretting/defining them to the point where they are unrecognizable anymore.

Thus saw I the great influence of philosophy in theology. It undergirds everything.

So perhaps, if we could ever reach this kind of honesty, away from the glorification of either the Reformation or the Great Catholic Tradition, and simply 'gather round the cross' as Spurgeon used to say, we could come a few steps closer to reunion, even if nothing greater than that gets resolved.

But that will never happen, inevitably polemics will continue, new papal decrees on formerly heretical titles for the Virgin will be promulgated (*cough assumption*), and new books by R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton will be published against N.T. Wright and anything that moves against Traditional Sola Fide. And our children's children will be forced to continue these debates till Christ returns and tells us the East Orthodox were right and that all of us Western Heretics will be making license plates next to Origen, Erigena, and Marx for eternity, while our enthusiastic Greek neighbours begin to cross themselves backwards... (but that's just a guess).

All Saints Day - Aquinas

Hans Urs Von Balthasar said that the Saints were so important for us because they were examples of people who were holy, participants in the divine nature who reminded us that sanctification is not a myth, but a possibility and a reality through God's grace.

Today as we remember all the saints, I wanted to focus on how important the saints are in my life. The democracy of the dead as Chesterton called them/Tradition.



I have to write a paper for philosophy on Martin Buber's "I and Thou". It's basically existential monotheism/judaism. He says that any time we speak of God it is equivocal (he doesn't use the word) and we turn him into an It. Thus God can only be experienced. Thus it is a further renunciation of 'natural theology' and ultimately reason I think.

Modern Protestantism seems to almost agree with him on this for the most part because of Karl Barth's analogy of faith - the idea that we can only speak of God using analogies from his self-revelation / the Bible. Because of course we are all so depraved that we can't even think straight. Thus while they retain analogical description of God it is only in a pre-suppositionalist framework really.

On the contrary, St. Thomas proposed the Analogy of Being. The idea that as creatures, we can infer things about God the Creator, from his creation and from reason (as well as from the deposit of faith) and speak of God analogically. This is because our sanctifying grace lost in the fall is restored to us through the sacraments on account of Christ's superabundant merit and grace. This allows us to have meaningful dialogue about God and discuss his persons and works. This is particularly important for inter-faith dialogue, as presuppositionalism leaves us with nothing to talk about, as Buber's theory leaves us nothing to talk about.

This is where St. Thomas has helped me propose the analogy of being against Buber and where a saint on All Saints day has helped me. And far from being a dry philosopher, Aquinas could still speak of God using reason, and admit at the end of the day that compared to mystical union with God, it was all "straw".

I Didn't Steal This From Rob Bell & Becoming A Thomist Theologian

"Beware of the dogs" -Philippians 3:2

I always get provoked theologically to respond to Anti-Catholicism but - as Dave Armstrong has discussed long before me - it doesn't matter how much scripture and Church Fathers or just philosophy you stack up against them, in the end it's neverenough.

But it doesn't matter, because for once in my blogging life, I'm just going to ignore it, not take the bait, and not enter into the endless debate whereby no one will step into the open of real Christian debate.

A Jesuit theologian was explaining the methods of St. Thomas in an email the other day and how fundamental his method is for Catholic theology. It's a method whereby we speak of God in analogies and by interacting with the problems of the present culture, we come up with new analogies of the faith to explain what is divinely revealed to the people. He shows how this is distinct from Apologetics which seeks to prove specific elements of faith from reason, scripture, and tradition. I immediately realized that I'm not in any sense a theologian, but an apologist or polemicist. I'm tired of it, I want to help people understand how all life begins with the Trinity how humanity is restored and participates in the divine nature of the Trinity and how we eventually return to the beatific vision. (The folks over at Called To Communion already do a much better job of tearing up Genevan theology than I could ever dream of.)

I'm also hoping to get more into philosophy and specifically philosophical personalism ala JP II. Oh the hope of one day being a Thomist, a theologian of glory, a promoter of faith understood by reason, and a perpetual enemy of Ockham and his followers.

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us fools.

St. Thomas Aquinas - The Life of the Saint (1)

I started reading Jacques Maritain's book on St. Thomas Aquinas (it's FREE online!) http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/thomas1.htm and the book starts off with a quote I thought worthy of noting on this O-so-popular blog.

"Friar Giacomo di Viterbo, Archbishop of Naples, often said to me that he believed, in accordance with the Faith and the Holy Spirit, that our Savior had sent, as doctor of truth to illuminate the world and the universal Church, first the apostle Paul, then Augustine, and finally in these latest days Friar Thomas, whom, he believed, no one would succeed till the end of the world." (Testimony of Bartolommeo di Capua at the hearing of the case for the canonization of Saint Thomas,
August 8, 1319.)

The opening part which I am half way through is just about his life, which in some ways (very few) I can relate to. I'm always fascinated with the lives of the saints. How they triumphed where I fall and how they went on for years at a time seemingly only on the desire to glorify God. I for one would probably have 'slept' (I hate using that phrase) with the temptress rather than attacked her with the firebrand as St. Thomas did. I read on the blog of the Rector of Westminster Cathedral (Catholic) in England say that he didn't like that he was fat because to his knowledge none of the saints were, except for St. Thomas. hah, at least in that way we both fell in the same way.

I've been thinking about a religious vocation again recently. I don't think I would do it unless I could fix (by grace) some sin issues I have (here come the donatism and pelagian charges) before I feel God would "let" me be a priest or a monk, and the Evangelical parents thing seems to be an insurmountable obstacle for going to a Catholic school. But I read something in this book that I also liked on the topic:

"Later his family, severely tried after their split with the Emperor, whom Innocent IV had deposed, would in vain call him to their aid, and the Pope offer him (with permission to keep the habit of his Order) the abbacy of Monte Cassino -- later the see of Naples. He would not yield. It was at the time a question of ignoring the will of his father and mother, of braving the wrath of his own people, who were not persons of slight vigor or easily placated. As he was to write later, 'When parents are not in such want that they have a great need of the services of their children, the children can enter into religious life without the consent of their parents and even against their expressed will, because, after having passed the age of puberty, any free man has the right to dispose of himself in the choice of a state of life, above all if it is a matter of the service of God; it is better to obey the Father of spirits, in order that we may live, than the parents of our flesh.""

Theological Idiot

I realize as I try to read through Aquinas on concupiscence, nature and grace, etc I am totally idiotic. All the Reformed people post mocking Protestant converts to Catholicism like me who read similar "fools" like Steve Ray and Dave Armstrong, etc.

My Aristotelian Moral Philosophy class in University has given me a bit of mileage in understanding Aquinas, but it as all so systematic and complex that I doubt I will ever fully have a systematic Catholic theology. My anti-systematic theology Mennonite ancestors might be proud of that. But I guess that's ok.

"We are fools for Christ's sake" (KJV) Saint Paul says in 1 Cor 4:10. I have an icon of St. Francis of Assisi that my friend Lance gave me, and an "action figure" or him my mom bought for me in Assisi when they went to Italy. I have it as a little shrine in my bathroom with a candle and matches which I have to hide when Protestant company comes to visit. I never really liked St. Francis as much as others I knew because he seemed so theologically lacking, but now as I realize I too am a fool, I feel more akin to the saint.

And as much as I think St. Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic tradition is extremely brilliant, I tend to like Pope Benedict's patristic and biblical Augustinian approach. I think it's because I know the bible the best out of all these sources which I seem to barely know at all. I also like reading people who are in touch with the realities of life. Aristotle, Plato and Aquinas are brilliant men, but I always feel like they lacked the normalcy and everyday reality of ministers and priests.

I love reading Chesterton because he's a man with no formal education but is a genius as well. He had such common sense and wit that I find his defenses of Catholicism, while maybe overly simplistic, to be very effective.

Casual thoughts on Substitutionary Atonement

I was listening to a Sufjan Stevens song today and he mentioned the Substitutionary Atonement, the great dogma of Western Christianity. But I realized today that the doctrine of Penal Substitution - the central key to my lifelong faith - is not compatible with Catholicism... I think this is pretty stupid, as John Calvin pretty much just does a better job than Anselm at explaining the Atonement. I always saw Penal Substitution merely as a further improvement or development of Aquinas, which was a development of Anselm which was a development of Augustine and Athanasius.

I read Isaiah 53 today and Romans 5. There can be nothing clearer than the fact that Christ died in our place, was punished for our sins. St. Anselm just based his theory on some Regal understanding of God's kingship and the need for honour. But this is obviously outdated. Ugh and I found this page that made me feel sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Reparation_to_Jesus_Christ ... "Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ" - I've not heard such a blasphemous title in my life. How on earth could any human pay Christ for anything. Penance is a legal fiction.

Yep... well maybe I should just stop reading my bible, as even when doctrines are clearly outlined I'm not allowed to believe them unless someone said something about it in the 3rd or 4th century affirming them.. . stupid church fathers.... gah. I hate my religion. (but of course sola scriptura makes no sense, and protestant ecclesiology is untraditional and bankrupt, and the Orthodox are racist shut ins). I'm also obligated to believe that Christ established the Church, but on days like today I really wish he established a better Church, because his is annoying me.

On a better note I talked with the Monsignor today and he said that Baptist baptisms are valid. So that's cool, because I wouldn't have wanted to affront God's honour by using the wrong water or words or intent.

So in the end the substitutionary atonement makes sense to me and was a pillar in my faith but at the same time I understand Catholic attacks on it:

1. Giving pardon does not square with taking satisfaction;
2. There is nothing that conforms with justice about punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free;
3. The temporary death of one is not a substitute for the eternal death of many;
4. Perfect substitutionary satisfaction would confer on its beneficiaries an unlimited permission to sin.

So I guess number 3 kinda proves it, but at the same time as i will say that I will stick with what the Church teaches and try to figure out Anselm's formulation, I just feel rather attached to Penal Substitution. It makes so much sense, and it makes me happier, just like sola fide and Lutheran anti-nomianism...

I prophesy that one day I will become an Anglican and indulge myself in all these wonderful biblical heresies and finally be at peace.

this is just me venting, don't bother taking anything too seriously written above.

Roman Fire Upon These Profs!!!@#$@%@#%!!!

WARNING: This is an inflamatory piece of Catholic Rhetoric that was written in anger to all the Protestant Rhetoric I've had to read at university. Do not expect objectivity. Probably only Philip Wilson will enjoy this post.

It seems in life that one of two things is happening to me:

1) in an andrew-centric cosmos all effort is being thrown against him and thus last year he was almost overwhelmed by Atheist Profs, and this year by Mennonite Profs

or

2) Andrew is paranoid

I'm choosing 1.

This year at Brock it would seem that the heresy train has arrived before the atheist train and thus all of my Profs are what I like to call 'ignorant Protestants' - PLEASE NOTE - this category excludes Traditional Reformed, Lutheran, and Anglican Protestants who actually understand history and Catholicism for the most part. At least these people hold the 'catholic' faith (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm), unlike the Anabaptists.

But it would seem that Munster has been so overrun with garbage that they had to send some to Brock. I have 3 highly 'Evangelical' Mennonites, spreading the good news of 'Papist Evils', and the beauty of the late Dr. Martin Luther, clinically depressed schismatic, responsible for the greatest divisions in Church history, thus making him a Protestant saint.

Today I sat through a world religions lecture where Menno-Prof 1 - who was Liberal Theology Prof last year - waxed theological about how Catholics don't believe in salvation by grace alone (a strange claim as they invented the phrase "grace alone conquers sin" St. Augustine), and that they believe that salvation is through ALL 7 sacraments and the Pope. How on earth any individual could recieve all seven sacraments, I have no idea - it would certainly be tricky to be ordained a Priest with a vow of celibacy and be married to someone... I also apparently missed the part in the Catechism's treatment of salvation where wthe Pope directly saves people, but check for yourselves: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm

We also had to sit through 3 U2 Songs to show us the 'beauty of protestant music'.

The only fact that he got right was when he said 'If you ever go to a Non-Denominational Church, it is just a Protestant Church disguised as something completely Christian and that alone'. Amen...

So what's wrong with Mennonites? you might ask: (I was hoping you would)

the following are a list of heresies prevalent in the Mennonite Tradition

-Credobaptism/Zwinglian view of baptism (see nicene creed - forgiveness of sins, not symbolic)

-Sola Fide (James 2:24)

-Sola Scriptura (1 Tim 3:15)

-Mariadelendaology (Mary hatred, delenda - is to destroy in latin)- my own latin invention for

the opposite of the heresy of Mariolatry (Mary worship). Menno Simmons actually taught

(arguably, as there is only one source) that Jesus was born through Mary's side (How Buddha

was born), and not in the natural way, and that Jesus wasn't actually any part of Mary, this is a

strange heretical mix of Buddhism with a special medieval protestant twist of hatred to women

(see John Knox) in that they are inherently dirty and unclean, and that no saviour could pass

through their _____. (Gen 3:15, 1 Jn 3:8)

-Priesthood of all believers/Congregationalism/idiots leading the church - I think one of the greatest heresies, that there should be no Church authorities. This is the reason why you have 50 year old car salesmen as elders of a church deciding on matters of theology when in some cases they don't even have a high school diploma, let alone any formal training in theology. If the Israelites were Mennonites they would've killed Moses, picked a new leader, killed him, ad infinitum, and Christ would never have come - barring he didn't pick the Irish or Egyptians or some other group to be his people.

-Antisophism : another word I just made up Sophia being greek for wisdom, mennonites being against it. When I was taking philosophy, my grandmother advised me not to 'seek after the vain knowledge that SOME would call wisdom' - I realized that once I did learn philosophy, I understood that all the Mennonite premises were logically faulty and thus realized why they hate intellectuals, because they have none themselves (barring John Howard Yoder).

Now that I just burned all of my bridges with Mennonite friends and family, I will take a time to catch my breath, watch the show, and heat my hands on their fire.

Sorry to everyone who read this and was offended/Sorry to everyone, i'm not belittling you, just your logical premises for belief.

ROMA VICTORIA!!!!!!!!

St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Catholic Church, pray for us

Christ's Superabundant Cross

I'm currently reading through 1 Corinthians and the other day I read this verse:

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid;
that foundation is Jesus Christ." - 1 Corinthians 3:11

St. Thomas Aquinas describes Christ's sacrifice on the cross as superabundant, it's like the famous evangelical worship song lyrics 'All of you, is more than enough for all of me, for every thirst and every need, you satisfy me with your love, and all I have in you, is more than enough'.

This morning I was thinking about the motto of Notre Dame University, crux spes unica 'the cross is our only hope'. It was then that I learned this is from an ancient latin hymn called "Vexilla Regis" dating back to 6th century Rome written by the Bishop of Poiters. (now aside from a debate about St. Helen and the True Cross, I want to include a portion of a translation of it)

Vexilla Regis

"Abroad the regal banners fly,
now shines the Cross's mystery:
upon it Life did death endure,
and yet by death did life procure.

Who, wounded with a direful spear,
did purposely to wash us clear
from stain of sin, pour out a flood
of precious water mixed with blood.
...

Blest Tree, whose happy branches bore
the wealth that did the world restore;
the beam that did that Body weigh
which raised up Hell's expected prey.

Hail Holy Cross, our only hope!
Now, in the mournful Passion time;
grant to the just increase of grace,
and every sinner's crimes efface.

Blest Trinity, salvation's spring
may every soul Thy praises sing;
to those Thou grantest conquest by
the Holy Cross, rewards supply. Amen."

This hymn reminded me of another hymn I heard the other day, which I am not trying to commit to memory. It was written by Annie Johnston Flynt who was extremely sick and frail for most of her life, and wrote this wonderful hymn in spite of everything she endured:

He Giveth More Grace

He giveth more grace as our burdens grow greater,
He sendeth more strength as our labors increase;
To added afflictions He addeth His mercy,
To multiplied trials He multiplies peace.

When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
When our strength has failed ere the day is half done,
When we reach the end of our hoarded resources
Our Father’s full giving is only begun.

Fear not that thy need shall exceed His provision,
Our God ever yearns His resources to share;
Lean hard on the arm everlasting, availing;
The Father both thee and thy load will upbear.

His love has no limits, His grace has no measure,
His power no boundary known unto men;
For out of His infinite riches in Jesus
He giveth, and giveth, and giveth again."

May you find hope in the glorius Cross of Our Lord, who provided more than enough grace for everyone to be washed of their sins in. May Grace lift us up, help us stand, and lead us on the path to Heaven. Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ

Jansenism Pt. 2 and Emphasis in Theology

Emphasis is important in theology. A church can believe in a doctrine but not emphasize it over a period of time. An example is 'sola gratia' - grace alone. Dr. R.C. Sproul is a very honest Reformed theologian and he says in his book "Faith Alone" that the Catholic Church has always fought to maintain that salvation is by the grace of God alone (though obviously not by faith alone, hence the Reformation). Louis Bouyer writes that if the Church focussed more on Grace Alone during the time of the Reformation, it is probable that the issues would have been settled. This is quite a claim of course, and easily debatable, but the general principle is that emphasis matters.



Jansenism is intriguing to me because I like it's emphasis, in only a few ways does it contradict Church teaching (possibly teaching limited atonement, and irresistible grace), but it places great emphasis on Election and the sovereign grace of God and faith in the work of Christ. It never denies that works justify or the nature of the communion or anything else like that (from the little of what I've read), but it does emphasize what I think at least is the 'best' of Protestantism and Catholicism.



Jansen himself wrote that if his doctrines were offensive to the Church that they should of course be disposed of and that he wished to be faithful to the Church, and I believe that is the point. The point is that emphasis needs to be reformed at times or shifted depending on the situation. Baptists for example believe in an eternally Hell for all believers which they will be conscious during, but I've never heard a sermon on it, because it's just alluded to briefly or like an 'unwritten law' that it exists. Thus if their churches start to doubt Hell, they should emphasize it.



Thus while I am not a Jansenist because it has been declared heretical, I definately agree with the emphasis and that the good parts of it's theology should be emphasized more. I don't know why people think Election is such a horrific doctrine, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and alot of others are in agreement that it is a beautiful thing. Active reprobation...is another story.

Encouragement - Hymns & Aquinas

I feel blessed to have been raised in a loving and faithful Evangelical community and as I enter Catholicism, I find equally wonderful things which encourage me in the faith. So here are some notes of encouragement from both sides of Western Christendom.

He Giveth More Grace by: Annie Johnson Flynt
He giveth more grace as our burdens grow greater,
He sendeth more strength as our labors increase;
To added afflictions He addeth His mercy,
To multiplied trials He multiplies peace.
When we have exhausted our store of endurance,
When our strength has failed ere the day is half done,
When we reach the end of our hoarded resources
Our Father’s full giving is only begun.
His love has no limits, His grace has no measure,
His power no boundary known unto men;
For out of His infinite riches in Jesus
He giveth, and giveth, and giveth again.

I think I will always love hymns, they are so beautiful. Catholic Theologian Peter Kreeft writes that 'In heaven, Protestants will teach the Catholics how to sing". The next thing I include, are quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas, who is one of the serious candidates for my patron saint, I've narrowed it down to either him, St. Augustine (as he is loved by all, and a genius), or a few others.

"Grant me, O Lord my God, a mind to know you, a heart to seek you, wisdom to find you, conduct pleasing to you, faithful perseverance in waiting for you, and a hope of finally embracing you."

"If, then, you are looking for the way by which you should go, take Christ, because He Himself is the way."

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. "