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).

Barth and Von Balthasar

Today while I was supposed to be studying for my Latin exam, I came accross a limited preview on Google Books (always a disaster) of "The Theology of Karl Barth" by (Cardinal) Hans Urs Von Balthasar. It amazed me the way that they discussed the division between Protestantism and Catholicism and it seems like they proposed the only solution to our disagreements.

Now the Confessional Reformed folks that I know seemed to pronounce Barth's name as anathema or near enough, but as I read Balthasar's synthesis of him, he seemed to propose exactly what they dream of. No ecumenism without serious discussion about a unity of faith, and 'doctrinal maximalism' as one person termed it. But interestingly enough, Barth didn't see issues like the Papacy or Sola Fide as the key to understanding the Protestant - Catholic divide, he focused on the fundamental differences, and linked Liberal Protestantism with Roman Catholicism in their trust in human reason. In this he seems to cut away these two great enemies of the Reformed kirk. Barth summed up as THE doctrine of the Anti-Christ as analogia entis or 'the analogy of being', understood as us speaking of God through analogy using reason and revelation. Barth's counter to this was the 'analogy of faith' using only scripture and not reason (allegedly).

While I think Von Balthasar had a brilliant defense against lots of these claims (Barth gives us too much credit when he describes Catholic thought as essentially unified on the Analogy of Being), it's interesting that he has argued that Protestantism is centred on Jesus Christ and his revelation as the fundamental theology of their movement.

I found it interesting that this seems to be a claim post-Barth made alot by people like Peter Kreeft and Fr. Corapi, etc. Von Balthasar's treatment of Barth (in the part that I read at least) seemed to be brilliant and he accepted alot of his criticism, but sought to make his Catholic theology - like Barth's - nonfoundationalist philosophically and this I enjoyed greatly as in some ways I see this as the only way out of modernism and relativism (though it's kinda relativist but that's a long story).

Anyway, I also found it interesting how Balthasar used Yves Congar's contribution to Patristics and Church History to show how every church schism is a loss, and that in countering Protestantism, perhaps Trent and Post-Tridentine Catholicism focussed unhealthily on works and institutions. While Von Balthasar clearly believes in their divine origins and affirms all of Catholic dogma, he is brutally honest in our need to revisit these issues and try to come up with a 'fair and balanced' (gah Fox News) view of the whole truth, rather than just the emphasis of one side of the truth.

All this is what I'd been talking about since I started my whole ranting about 'emphasis in theology'. So yes, I'm indirectly claiming that all of (post)modern theology got it's ideas magically from my own thoughts decades after the events themselves.

No, I'm not really saying that.

But it seems to me that this book "The Theology of Karl Barth" (which I haven't got yet) as well as the work of Karl Rahner and Von Balthasar's "Love Alone is Credible" (which I'm getting for Christmas) will help me piece together a more contemporary picture of the situation, and allow for more fruitful dialogue from both sides of the Tiber.

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 :)

The Gospel of "Nice" - an Augustinian Critique

I know I said I'm done debating, but at the same time, I figured I could post on something that the Reformed and Catholic churches respectively agree on. In history I've learned that having a common enemy is the quickest way to unite two disparate entities or people groups. This will be an anti-Pelagian post so I figure it's pretty safe (though I've been wrong before).

I was in Newman Club (Catholic university student group) yesterday and we had an interesting discussion. The 10 commandments were discussed and the 1st commandment: You shall have no other gods before me, was debated on. A lapsed Presbyterian who is considering our Roman church said that he thought it was intolerant of God to command such a thing. Other 'Catholics' joined in saying that God wouldn't judge people who didn't know about Christ and that, "you can't expect people to change their religions, that's really hard". At this point all eyes shifted to me (the only convert in the room) and I said "I'd like to cite myself as a counter-example".

I then proceeded to ask them a series of questions which led to terrible revelations.
I showed them the biblical propositions that God is a Jealous God "My name is Jealous" and what covenant fidelity meant and how God commanded worship of Himself because he is the only thing worthy of worship and the only God, and otherwise he would be a liar. They didn't like this because it still sounded intolerant.

So I proceeded to say "Catholicism doesn't teach everyone is 'innocent until proven guilty', the scripture says that in sin did your mother conceive you. You are born condemned and only by the grace of Jesus Christ is anyone absolved of that sin." *outrage* 'what about Ghandi!?' someone shouted, 'he did so many great things'.

I responded 'Ghandi rejected Jesus Christ as the Word of God and as such cannot be saved for his allegedly 'great works', Pelagianism is a heresy condemned by the Church which teaches human salvation is dependant on works. You cannot get to Heaven by being "nice"".

Rather than simply call me an intolerant bastard - other leaders in the group said that I had a 'interesting view of Catholicism that might be different from other people's faith experience'. Salvation through grace alone because of Christ is allegedly something I came up with while sitting at home one night I guess.

Other people reassured the confused pseudo-presbyterian that indeed those other people would somehow be saved, because we couldn't have 'nice' people going to Hell. As well as a few outright rejections of the exclusivity of Christianity, etc.

Needless to say I was a little angry about the "Gospel of Nice" that seems to be so prevalent throughout Church History, from Pelagius, to the late medieval Catholics, to the radical Anabaptists, to Kant, to Hegel, and Anglican moralism etc.

I spoke with the associate Chaplain (Catholic) who was raised Catholic, had a conversion to Christ in the Reformed church, and who then reverted to Catholicism, and we agreed it was really bad. So our plan now is to try to teach people the Biblical doctrine of salvation through God's unmerited grace accessible only through Jesus Christ.

I even hinted on possibly getting the Reformed Chaplain involved but he didn't seem to want to go that far. I just hate Pelagianism. And I also think there needs to be a distinction between the Law and the Gospel that isn't usually there in Catholicism. I don't know what that means, but I just hate Pelagianism.

I bought a book called "the Grace of Christ" written by a Jesuit Priest who goes through the doctrine from Augustine to Aquinas to Luther to Jansen to Present and I'm excited to learn how to be synergistic but at the same time not be Pelagian.

Done With Apologetics

As I read a blog tonight that was so painfully wrong, I wrote a gigantic Catholic response to certain claims, only to stop myself before hitting 'publish post'.

'Andrew', my internal monologue said, 'Have you not made similar posts previously with near endless citations from numerous scriptural passages, patristic quotations, and conciliar decisions that oppose this view?' Yes, I have. The thought continued 'and has it done any good to the cause of the Catholic faith, or only incited more hatred and poorer historical analysis?' Yes, indeed it has.

So then I decided (again), that I would refuse to enter apologetics. It doesn't seem to matter how much we dialogue I will never believe the claims of the Calvinist church or any Protestant church, and no Protestant or Calvinist I talk to will ever believe the claims of my church.

Thus shall I end this blog with a hope that God's grace shall lead them 'home to Rome', and in the reversed words of Charles Spurgeon, may their hearts be smarter than their heads. Soon I'll establish another blog to discuss theology and more personal matters of religious life, I'll leave apologetics to Dave Armstrong and the folks at Called to Communion.

If you have a pressing desire to follow my personal & theological journey without any of the anti-Catholicism, check out: http://recusantcorner.blogspot.com/

Boo Enlightenment: Montesquieu

There is a thing about studying history that makes the Enlightenment Philosophers basically the Church Fathers of Modernism. They're always quoted and hailed as geniuses, etc. I used to really like them, but the more I read of them, and the more I read of Aquinas, the more and more I hate them, the more and more I like St. Thomas.

"If the triangles made a god, they would give him three sides." - Montesquieu

"No kingdom has shed more blood than the kingdom of Christ." - Montesquieu

On the Contrary, Aquinas states that God's essence is an unknowable mystery, and that we can only really speak of him in Analogies because he is so infinite and mysterious.

In response to the second question I'd say that it really depends on your definition of "kingdom of Christ", if he means "the Church"/Catholic Church, he's wrong, as technically the Church has never executed a single person, STATE GOVERNMENTS did. Throughout all the Middle Ages and even to the early modern period, the State had heresy laws and the Church was usually hired as the 'advisor' to whom might be the heretic, or rule breaking person in question.

And if we extend his statement to modern times, Mao killed more than every church did combined.

So there, Montesquieu, go inspire Americans to rebel against England based on faulty Natural law theory and then die after having your books banned.. oh wait, you already did that. ...Score one for Aquinas.

Taunting the dead is a favourite passtime of the history student.

Free Thinking & The Hound Of Heaven & Francis Thompson

I haven't really posted lately because I'm tired of starting fights with Reformed people, so I figured I'd just post some random/personal theological/philosophical thoughts I've had recently.

I was talking to my brother the other day about life and God (he's an unbaptized Baptist - surprisingly there's lots of them) but we were discussing the issue of knowing God through Nature and Life experience. He's a forest ranger-y guy in northwestern BC almost on the Alaskan border, and one of my heroes.

So aside from what I dogmatically know from Revelation about the possibility of losing one's salvation, I was thinking the other day for myself that if I were in another Church or without a Church that the idea of an irrevokable covenant is kind of nice. I know Israel was a whore, but God eventually gave up on them (ripped temple curtain, and Jesus). But I thought: imagine the beauty of a world where God never gave up on people, most especially when they gave up on him. These heretical but enjoyable ideas were probably seeded in my mind when I was reading Abp. Rowan Williams affirmation of "to understand all is to forgive all". I thought about that for a second (it carries the Greek philosophical idea that all sin is ignorance not willful violation of God's law), but what an interesting possibility. If one understood all the motives behind an act, and the situation and person, etc perfectly, wouldn't anything be forgivable? Isn't our lack of forgiveness just a human inability to comprehend or empathize with others?

I was also thinking about it because while I'm not staking my soul on it, I had a very bad week in terms of Christian living and I still felt like God had nothing but love for me, and hopeful plans ahead that -try as I might- could not be thwarted by my faillure. (I've already mentioned I know this is wrong, I could attribute these to God's forbearance as St. Thomas describes). But it reminded me of Francis Thompson's poem (a Roman Catholic) "the Hound of Heaven", where he pictures God chasing him through his entire life (Psalm 23's 'goodness' and 'mercy' are sometimes portrayed as the shepherd's sheepdogs) until finally he is chased into the arms of God.

I'll just put the beginning and end of the poem here:

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbéd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat—and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet—
“All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.”

....

"Now of that long pursuit
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
“And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught” (He said),
“And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited—
Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child’s mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!”
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
“Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.” - Francis Thompson (1859-1907) "The Hound of Heaven"



I like his line about all he's meritted in God's sight is but a dingy clot of clay, it sounds like St. Thomas More on merit. I am at least dogmatically allowed to believe predestination is unconditional and without forknowledge of merit. Anyway Thompson influenced Tolkien alot as I just found out. I also found Fr. Henri Nouwen and Peter Kreeft speaking the same way. I don't understand how this works with Trent, etc, but I think we're allowed to believe God's love is unconditional...yet somehow on the condition of Mortal Sin. I dunno, Francis Thompson's poetry isn't really a dogmatic institutino, nor Peter Kreeft, or Canadian priests, but still, it's a nice thought. I think there's a lot of gray areas in both life and Catholicism, and instead of investigating and labelling everything I'm just enjoying thinking of this brother in the faith and his life.

He went from being a seminarian to being a doctor in training, to becoming an opium addict in the streets of London, saved by a caring prostitute of all people. He wrote such great poetry, and was a classic recusant, called a "shy volcano" by Chesterton, and wrote world famous poetry. The Catholic Encyclopedia ends his entry with "Francis Thompson died, after receiving all the sacraments, in the excellent care of the Sisters of St. John and St. Elizabeth, aged forty-eight." It's such a sad story, so much wasted talent, but inexplicably I feel connected to it. Comforted that in the end, he still despite all his addictions and faillure, was repentant. I put him hesitantly in a category I made for an explanation of the people in Catholicism the other day, the 'penitent faillures', and I rest next to him in that group.

May we all find God, even in the darkest alleys of life, and more importantly on the last day, may our souls be found in Christ.