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/)
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Faillure of Anglicanism: Papists & Puritans
I guess I didn't clarify my choice enough yesterday. Paradoxically, the RCs criticized me for denying Anglicanism, and the Protestants didn't reprimand me for 'mindlessly' lapsing into Romanism.
I went to the Anglican Church in North America (the conservative one) yesterday with the intent to communicate, to give up Rome (at least for the day), and to have my cake and eat it to (get married & be a priest). But while I was there, I heard a sermon on Church Unity. He argued that structural unity with heretics is sinful (which is why their church broke with the ACC and TEC), and that the church has an obligation to follow the bible.
The argument the former Jesuit and almost Cardinal (died 2 days before the red hat arrived) Hans Urs Von Balthasar made was fairly simple. He had alot of proofs from both Scripture and Patristics, but I will just lay down the steps in the argument:
1. The Church existed as a visible reality.
2. The Church is allowed to teach, and it is a Christian's duty to obey rather than make private judgments.
3. The Church as a communion must exist until the end of time in the same form it initially had. (apostolic succession)
4. The flock/communion is fed by Peter as Christ commanded (Petrine Supremacy)
5. All who deny to commune with Peter's successor and refuse to accept the teaching of the church are lapsed.
The quote I used from Thomas yesterday was showing how Petrine Supremacy is a biblical doctrine, and how if the Church is a succession, that doctrine must find it's place in the structure of the communion.
The issue I have with Anglicanism is that it has historically proposed two models for church reform which I find uncatholic.
-Erastianism / State Interference, even yesterday we prayed for the supreme governess the Queen. Caesar/Rome/Pagan State Power is the Anti-Christ, and Caesaropapism is a heresy. Many can claim that the Vatican IS a State and thus falls under the same condemnation, but there is a difference. The Roman Church is related to the state incidentally, the English Church is related to the state fundamentally. This is one reason why the Puritans could not conform to the Church of England, which makes the Presbyterians preferrable to the Anglicans.
-Protestantism / Sola Scriptura. It's in the 39 articles, and in the end, the question is begged: what is the point of being an Anglican if you want to be a Protestant. There is a line in the articles which says that the first 7 councils of the church catholic are only to be trusted in as much as they agree with Scripture. Depending on your interpretation that could mean: bishops are unnecessary, infant baptism is an innovation, images in worship are forbidden, etc. It sets up private judgment as the second principle on which reform is to be made.
IF Anglicanism had said: the English Church will reform itself (as Richard Hooker claimed it did), then it should have done it by the authority of the church and through councils. Instead, parliament legislated doctrine (BCP), the English Civil War occurred, parliament re-legislated doctrine (WCF), and eventually monarchy was restored and we have the BCP again.
There is no place for the teaching of the church. The bishops are chosen by the State, and so the church is not allowed to teach, and every one of the churches teachings is subject to the judgment of the individual Christian and Scripture.
In such a case, it would be as Johann Adam Mohler wrote: "Without a doubt, if the Church were a historical and antiquarian society, if she had no self-concept, no knowledge of her origin, of her essence and her mission...She would be like someone who, by researching documents he himself has written, tries to discover whether he really exists!"
You have to start with Tradition. This is why - I think - Jaroslav Pelikan chose Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy allows no 'new' exegesis. It is TRULY an antiquarian society. If you find a 'new' reading of scripture (like sola fide) which none of the Fathers found, then you're reading it wrong. Anglicanism doesn't work because it is neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy, both have their own interior logic, whereas Anglicanism is a Reformed Protestant church that forgot that during the Oxford Movement (which was universally repudiated by it's teaching authorities / the English bishops), and then eventually decided to either enter the Roman Church, or exist on the fringes of the ecclesiastical realities.
To break communion to 'purify' the Church is to simply become MORE Protestant, not less. It is only proving that there is no principle of unity, no structure able to keep the Church "one" as the creed declares she must be. It is Donatism.
Likewise, even the Anglican Church in North America ordains women to the presbyterate, which is so obviously a heresy, that I need not bother to refute it. I love the Book of Common Prayer, I love many Anglican authors and churchmen, and alot of their mission and understanding. On most days I prefer their liturgy to the butchering of ours that occurs weekly in the Roman Communion in Canada. But if I just decided my preference was what made my religion, that it was built on nothing else, I couldn't look an atheist in the eye again. I couldn't claim to be a reasonable person, or truly be a Thomist/Christian Aristotelian.
As Our Lord teaches:
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?" - Matthew 23:1-4, 33
The teaching authority, Moses' seat, which in Roman Catholicism is replaced by St. Peter's Chair, and it is to be obeyed, even if the people sitting in it are corrupt. Dante wrote that many Popes will be in Hell, and this verse seems to be a worthy proof-text for such a belief. But this is the fundamental difference: Protestantism like the Early Modern Revolutionaries and Calvin's Geneva Bible commentary, argue that you can legitimately resist an authority if it is tyrannical. The problem with this is, that only authorities can authoritatively define what tyranny constitutes, which means there is a necessary regress to anarchy.
God-fearing Englishmen and Commonwealth citizens on the other hand (like us Canadians), submit to "the powers that be" (Rm. 13:1). Catholics are called to the same thing. When Pope Paul VI spoke to the World Council of Churches, he declared "I am Peter". If the Church is a succession through all time, and an apostolical succession, one must submit to the Bishop of Rome. If the Church is not a succession, but can fundamentally change in structure and teaching, and only exists as a pure spiritual reality and sometimes visible, or partially incarnate (as the WCF says it is), then one must fully embrace Protestantism and Sola Scriptura, and become a dissenter of some kind (whether Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, or Quaker).
And while Mr. Bennett has made an argument against it, I still contend, that Sola Scriptura of necessity leads to Liberalism/Socinianism/Unitarianism. As Adolf von Harnack said "A dogma without infallibility has no meaning". Dogmatics are based on interpretations of Scripture. Without the Protestant Confessions claiming their own infallibility, what use is the Westminster Confession? Although the swift excommunication of the Federal Vision & New Pauline Perspectivists from the Presbyterian fold makes their case a little stronger in empirical reality if not in philosophical abstraction.
Thus between Papists, Puritans, and Prelates, it seems the last category is untenable. Now I'll have to find an argument against Presbyterianism, though I don't know of any off the top of my head aside from lumping them with Donatism (though that kind of inaccuracy is the kind of thing they sink to when they call the Roman Confession 'Pelagian', so I might need to go elsewhere).
I went to the Anglican Church in North America (the conservative one) yesterday with the intent to communicate, to give up Rome (at least for the day), and to have my cake and eat it to (get married & be a priest). But while I was there, I heard a sermon on Church Unity. He argued that structural unity with heretics is sinful (which is why their church broke with the ACC and TEC), and that the church has an obligation to follow the bible.
The argument the former Jesuit and almost Cardinal (died 2 days before the red hat arrived) Hans Urs Von Balthasar made was fairly simple. He had alot of proofs from both Scripture and Patristics, but I will just lay down the steps in the argument:
1. The Church existed as a visible reality.
2. The Church is allowed to teach, and it is a Christian's duty to obey rather than make private judgments.
3. The Church as a communion must exist until the end of time in the same form it initially had. (apostolic succession)
4. The flock/communion is fed by Peter as Christ commanded (Petrine Supremacy)
5. All who deny to commune with Peter's successor and refuse to accept the teaching of the church are lapsed.
The quote I used from Thomas yesterday was showing how Petrine Supremacy is a biblical doctrine, and how if the Church is a succession, that doctrine must find it's place in the structure of the communion.
The issue I have with Anglicanism is that it has historically proposed two models for church reform which I find uncatholic.
-Erastianism / State Interference, even yesterday we prayed for the supreme governess the Queen. Caesar/Rome/Pagan State Power is the Anti-Christ, and Caesaropapism is a heresy. Many can claim that the Vatican IS a State and thus falls under the same condemnation, but there is a difference. The Roman Church is related to the state incidentally, the English Church is related to the state fundamentally. This is one reason why the Puritans could not conform to the Church of England, which makes the Presbyterians preferrable to the Anglicans.
-Protestantism / Sola Scriptura. It's in the 39 articles, and in the end, the question is begged: what is the point of being an Anglican if you want to be a Protestant. There is a line in the articles which says that the first 7 councils of the church catholic are only to be trusted in as much as they agree with Scripture. Depending on your interpretation that could mean: bishops are unnecessary, infant baptism is an innovation, images in worship are forbidden, etc. It sets up private judgment as the second principle on which reform is to be made.
IF Anglicanism had said: the English Church will reform itself (as Richard Hooker claimed it did), then it should have done it by the authority of the church and through councils. Instead, parliament legislated doctrine (BCP), the English Civil War occurred, parliament re-legislated doctrine (WCF), and eventually monarchy was restored and we have the BCP again.
There is no place for the teaching of the church. The bishops are chosen by the State, and so the church is not allowed to teach, and every one of the churches teachings is subject to the judgment of the individual Christian and Scripture.
In such a case, it would be as Johann Adam Mohler wrote: "Without a doubt, if the Church were a historical and antiquarian society, if she had no self-concept, no knowledge of her origin, of her essence and her mission...She would be like someone who, by researching documents he himself has written, tries to discover whether he really exists!"
You have to start with Tradition. This is why - I think - Jaroslav Pelikan chose Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy allows no 'new' exegesis. It is TRULY an antiquarian society. If you find a 'new' reading of scripture (like sola fide) which none of the Fathers found, then you're reading it wrong. Anglicanism doesn't work because it is neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy, both have their own interior logic, whereas Anglicanism is a Reformed Protestant church that forgot that during the Oxford Movement (which was universally repudiated by it's teaching authorities / the English bishops), and then eventually decided to either enter the Roman Church, or exist on the fringes of the ecclesiastical realities.
To break communion to 'purify' the Church is to simply become MORE Protestant, not less. It is only proving that there is no principle of unity, no structure able to keep the Church "one" as the creed declares she must be. It is Donatism.
Likewise, even the Anglican Church in North America ordains women to the presbyterate, which is so obviously a heresy, that I need not bother to refute it. I love the Book of Common Prayer, I love many Anglican authors and churchmen, and alot of their mission and understanding. On most days I prefer their liturgy to the butchering of ours that occurs weekly in the Roman Communion in Canada. But if I just decided my preference was what made my religion, that it was built on nothing else, I couldn't look an atheist in the eye again. I couldn't claim to be a reasonable person, or truly be a Thomist/Christian Aristotelian.
As Our Lord teaches:
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them...You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?" - Matthew 23:1-4, 33
The teaching authority, Moses' seat, which in Roman Catholicism is replaced by St. Peter's Chair, and it is to be obeyed, even if the people sitting in it are corrupt. Dante wrote that many Popes will be in Hell, and this verse seems to be a worthy proof-text for such a belief. But this is the fundamental difference: Protestantism like the Early Modern Revolutionaries and Calvin's Geneva Bible commentary, argue that you can legitimately resist an authority if it is tyrannical. The problem with this is, that only authorities can authoritatively define what tyranny constitutes, which means there is a necessary regress to anarchy.
God-fearing Englishmen and Commonwealth citizens on the other hand (like us Canadians), submit to "the powers that be" (Rm. 13:1). Catholics are called to the same thing. When Pope Paul VI spoke to the World Council of Churches, he declared "I am Peter". If the Church is a succession through all time, and an apostolical succession, one must submit to the Bishop of Rome. If the Church is not a succession, but can fundamentally change in structure and teaching, and only exists as a pure spiritual reality and sometimes visible, or partially incarnate (as the WCF says it is), then one must fully embrace Protestantism and Sola Scriptura, and become a dissenter of some kind (whether Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, or Quaker).
And while Mr. Bennett has made an argument against it, I still contend, that Sola Scriptura of necessity leads to Liberalism/Socinianism/Unitarianism. As Adolf von Harnack said "A dogma without infallibility has no meaning". Dogmatics are based on interpretations of Scripture. Without the Protestant Confessions claiming their own infallibility, what use is the Westminster Confession? Although the swift excommunication of the Federal Vision & New Pauline Perspectivists from the Presbyterian fold makes their case a little stronger in empirical reality if not in philosophical abstraction.
Thus between Papists, Puritans, and Prelates, it seems the last category is untenable. Now I'll have to find an argument against Presbyterianism, though I don't know of any off the top of my head aside from lumping them with Donatism (though that kind of inaccuracy is the kind of thing they sink to when they call the Roman Confession 'Pelagian', so I might need to go elsewhere).
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Aquinas and Balthasar ftw...
"...a Church cannot be a "branch" of a historical unity which no longer exists" - Hans Urs Von Balthasar (The Office of Peter) p. 91
""our Lord says: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16).
But let one say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is one spouse of one Church; his answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself perfects all the sacraments of th Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the true priest, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar—nevertheless, because He was not going to be with all the faithful in bodily presence, He chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned to the faithful, as was said above. By the same reasoning, then, when He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, He had to commit it to one who would in His place have the care of the universal Church. Hence it is that He said to Peter before His ascension: “Feed My sheep” (John 21:17); and before His passion: “You being once converted confirm your brethren” (Luke 22:32); and to him alone did He promise: “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 16:19), in order to show that the power of the keys was to flow through him to others to preserve the unity of the Church.
But it cannot be said that, although He gave Peter this dignity, it does not flow on to others. For, clearly, Christ established the Church so that it was to endure to the end of the world; in the words of Isaiah (9:7): “He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon His kingdom to establish and strengthen it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and forever.” It is clear that He so established therein those who were then in the ministry that their power was to be passed on to others even to the end of time; especially so, since He Himself says: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Mat. 28:20).
By this, of course, we exclude the presumptuous error of some who attempt to withdraw themselves from the obedience and the rule of Peter by not recognizing in his successor, the Roman Pontiff, the pastor of the universal Church." - St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles 4, 76. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.htm#76
ok. I submit, and reject Anglicanism and other expedients as attempts for me to escape the divine command of being converted, the painful reality of sanctification, and my need to repent. It's not that I like Catholicism, it's that there is nowhere else. Henceforth, I will continue trying to find a way to like it.
I'm sorry for disappointing everyone who reads this at some point, either today, or in the last few weeks.
""our Lord says: “There shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16).
But let one say that the one head and one shepherd is Christ, who is one spouse of one Church; his answer does not suffice. For, clearly, Christ Himself perfects all the sacraments of th Church: it is He who baptizes; it is He who forgives sins; it is He, the true priest, who offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by whose power His body is daily consecrated on the altar—nevertheless, because He was not going to be with all the faithful in bodily presence, He chose ministers to dispense the things just mentioned to the faithful, as was said above. By the same reasoning, then, when He was going to withdraw His bodily presence from the Church, He had to commit it to one who would in His place have the care of the universal Church. Hence it is that He said to Peter before His ascension: “Feed My sheep” (John 21:17); and before His passion: “You being once converted confirm your brethren” (Luke 22:32); and to him alone did He promise: “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 16:19), in order to show that the power of the keys was to flow through him to others to preserve the unity of the Church.
But it cannot be said that, although He gave Peter this dignity, it does not flow on to others. For, clearly, Christ established the Church so that it was to endure to the end of the world; in the words of Isaiah (9:7): “He shall sit upon the throne of David and upon His kingdom to establish and strengthen it with judgment and with justice from henceforth and forever.” It is clear that He so established therein those who were then in the ministry that their power was to be passed on to others even to the end of time; especially so, since He Himself says: “Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Mat. 28:20).
By this, of course, we exclude the presumptuous error of some who attempt to withdraw themselves from the obedience and the rule of Peter by not recognizing in his successor, the Roman Pontiff, the pastor of the universal Church." - St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Contra Gentiles 4, 76. http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles4.htm#76
ok. I submit, and reject Anglicanism and other expedients as attempts for me to escape the divine command of being converted, the painful reality of sanctification, and my need to repent. It's not that I like Catholicism, it's that there is nowhere else. Henceforth, I will continue trying to find a way to like it.
I'm sorry for disappointing everyone who reads this at some point, either today, or in the last few weeks.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Textual Realism and Philosophical Realism
In my endless ruminations over the Reformation and amidst the constant disquiet of my heart and mind, I've been thinking about an important issue.
Catholicism affirms philosophical realism, where free agents who participate in Being are able to access the objective truth through their senses. It argues against any Cartesian or Berkeleyan attempt at undermining the reliability of the senses, or (at least after Thomas) a prioritizing of Platonic spirit over matter (see Transubstantiation).
One famous Lutheran rationalist Immanuel Kant, argued for subjectivism, that is, each person is only able to see from their own perspective. A person cannot be objective because they are a subject, and they can only know what they empirically see or can rationally prove. Catholicism reacts against this because it holds the priority of the objective metaphysical reality of Being, over and above the individual subjective and existential experience.
However, there is one area they seem to despise objective reality. Scripture. As a Roman Catholic I remember arguing with someone over exegesis, and exasperated they simply said: no matter what this verse says, there is no way that you can or would ever interpret it differently than the Church teaches you must. The Protestant was arguing that Scripture had an objective meaning and that we as subjects could understand it. By contrast I had to argue that Scripture is by nature murky, unclear, and has a hidden meaning that only the Magesterium can truly discover and declare.
The perfect example is my oft-repeated complaint about concupiscence, and where St. Paul calls it "sin" and Trent says that even though the apostle says sin, it is not formally "sin". Or perhaps the admonision of St. Paul that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, where the Magesterium declares that a bishop should not be the husband of one wife.
So as I ponder this, I'm starting to wonder who the real Realists are? It seems like we are just so many Cartesian exegetes, while claiming to be the children of St. Thomas in all other areas.
Catholicism affirms philosophical realism, where free agents who participate in Being are able to access the objective truth through their senses. It argues against any Cartesian or Berkeleyan attempt at undermining the reliability of the senses, or (at least after Thomas) a prioritizing of Platonic spirit over matter (see Transubstantiation).
One famous Lutheran rationalist Immanuel Kant, argued for subjectivism, that is, each person is only able to see from their own perspective. A person cannot be objective because they are a subject, and they can only know what they empirically see or can rationally prove. Catholicism reacts against this because it holds the priority of the objective metaphysical reality of Being, over and above the individual subjective and existential experience.
However, there is one area they seem to despise objective reality. Scripture. As a Roman Catholic I remember arguing with someone over exegesis, and exasperated they simply said: no matter what this verse says, there is no way that you can or would ever interpret it differently than the Church teaches you must. The Protestant was arguing that Scripture had an objective meaning and that we as subjects could understand it. By contrast I had to argue that Scripture is by nature murky, unclear, and has a hidden meaning that only the Magesterium can truly discover and declare.
The perfect example is my oft-repeated complaint about concupiscence, and where St. Paul calls it "sin" and Trent says that even though the apostle says sin, it is not formally "sin". Or perhaps the admonision of St. Paul that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, where the Magesterium declares that a bishop should not be the husband of one wife.
So as I ponder this, I'm starting to wonder who the real Realists are? It seems like we are just so many Cartesian exegetes, while claiming to be the children of St. Thomas in all other areas.
The Convert's Defense
Here is an article written by R.R. Reno, one of the converts mentioned in the previous article, defending himself, it is also interesting:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/jason-byassee-and-female-ordin
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/jason-byassee-and-female-ordin
Converts: Philosophy, Liberalism, and Justification
I was reading an article on more people who converted from Protestantism to Catholicism: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_17_123/ai_n16776668/
The interesting thing that I'm starting to notice about all the conversions to Catholicism is that they're usually based on two things:
-philosophy
-liberalism
In general, people tell the tale of how on the road to persecute more of God's faithful, a blinding light shone and Lo! Aristotle stood before them saying 'why do you persecute me!'. And then they have a conversion to Thomism. Certainly that's where alot of people have gone to hide from postmodernism, and continue to 'give medieval answers to contemporary questions' (as one Church historian described Trent). This is at least a good reason to convert, philosophy is important, and Catholicism offers the best philosophical system I've seen in a long time. So I don't mind this option, as it's kind of why I converted (the philosophical argument about the canon and infalliblity of the church), although it has nothing to do with Christ and God whose ways are above our ways, and who calls us to be 'fools for Christ'.
The second of course is that their church had 'suddenly' grown liberal, and that because our Roman Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI are conservative, that means our Church must likewise be conservative. I think this is a bad reason, as you will find almost immediately, just as many liberals in Catholicism as in the Episcopal Church or the ELCA. The only difference between Catholic and Protestant liberals - and it's a big difference to be sure - is that the Catholic liberals are just biding their time, slowly undermining things, destroying Catechesis and the ministry of the Word with Historical criticism. In Protestantism they do the same thing, except they're open about it, and declare themselves (which really only makes them easier to avoid, but also means they are better organized).
A final observation is that I've never heard of a convert from Classical Protestantism say that they were overwhelmed by the Catholic doctrine of justification and synergistic soteriology (Scott Hahn doesn't count as he was a FV/NPP/Neonomian). Interestingly enough, in every account, justification is either stated as not mattering anymore, or the ludicrous claim is made that because of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, the Reformation is over. In NO way did the JDDJ solve any Reformation issue, but it did mark the Lutherans' willingness to sell their heritage and doctrine in order to fulfill some high-minded ecumenical pipe-dream.
Anyway. I just think it's funny that no biblical exegetes and Classical Protestants are converting to Catholicism, but certainly, alot of intellectuals shopping for moral philosophy and epistemological certainty arrive there. Similarly, Evangelicals who never understood Confessional Protestantism in the first place and likewise threw away their birth right like Esau, without knowledge of what they were doing end up here.
In the end, perhaps Cardinal Avery Dulles was right when he noted that Catholics don't primarily care about Justification, and prefer discussing the sacramentology and the liturgy, to the issue, let alone worry about it. This seems to be the real conversion these Protestants had, no longer carrying about that doctrine which their spiritual ancestors once called "the article on which the church stands or falls".
(Those are just my observations as a Roman Catholic, looking back on)
The interesting thing that I'm starting to notice about all the conversions to Catholicism is that they're usually based on two things:
-philosophy
-liberalism
In general, people tell the tale of how on the road to persecute more of God's faithful, a blinding light shone and Lo! Aristotle stood before them saying 'why do you persecute me!'. And then they have a conversion to Thomism. Certainly that's where alot of people have gone to hide from postmodernism, and continue to 'give medieval answers to contemporary questions' (as one Church historian described Trent). This is at least a good reason to convert, philosophy is important, and Catholicism offers the best philosophical system I've seen in a long time. So I don't mind this option, as it's kind of why I converted (the philosophical argument about the canon and infalliblity of the church), although it has nothing to do with Christ and God whose ways are above our ways, and who calls us to be 'fools for Christ'.
The second of course is that their church had 'suddenly' grown liberal, and that because our Roman Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI are conservative, that means our Church must likewise be conservative. I think this is a bad reason, as you will find almost immediately, just as many liberals in Catholicism as in the Episcopal Church or the ELCA. The only difference between Catholic and Protestant liberals - and it's a big difference to be sure - is that the Catholic liberals are just biding their time, slowly undermining things, destroying Catechesis and the ministry of the Word with Historical criticism. In Protestantism they do the same thing, except they're open about it, and declare themselves (which really only makes them easier to avoid, but also means they are better organized).
A final observation is that I've never heard of a convert from Classical Protestantism say that they were overwhelmed by the Catholic doctrine of justification and synergistic soteriology (Scott Hahn doesn't count as he was a FV/NPP/Neonomian). Interestingly enough, in every account, justification is either stated as not mattering anymore, or the ludicrous claim is made that because of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, the Reformation is over. In NO way did the JDDJ solve any Reformation issue, but it did mark the Lutherans' willingness to sell their heritage and doctrine in order to fulfill some high-minded ecumenical pipe-dream.
Anyway. I just think it's funny that no biblical exegetes and Classical Protestants are converting to Catholicism, but certainly, alot of intellectuals shopping for moral philosophy and epistemological certainty arrive there. Similarly, Evangelicals who never understood Confessional Protestantism in the first place and likewise threw away their birth right like Esau, without knowledge of what they were doing end up here.
In the end, perhaps Cardinal Avery Dulles was right when he noted that Catholics don't primarily care about Justification, and prefer discussing the sacramentology and the liturgy, to the issue, let alone worry about it. This seems to be the real conversion these Protestants had, no longer carrying about that doctrine which their spiritual ancestors once called "the article on which the church stands or falls".
(Those are just my observations as a Roman Catholic, looking back on)
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Catholics I Like
My Lutheran friend and I were talking the other day and I told him that I was tempted to leave the Roman fold, and he told me to keep reading Balthasar and I'd change my mind. We then talked about (Hans Urs Von) Balthasar and he described that man as 'the only Catholic anyone likes'. I laughed, and realized that there aren't alot of fun Catholics to read. I was thinking about all the authors I love reading: C.S. Lewis, Jaroslav Pelikan, John Henry Newman, Rowan Williams, von Balthasar, (RJN & Schillebeeckx when I get the chance), and now (thanks to a faithful commentator of the blog), Luigi Giussani. Not all of them are Catholics, but all of them have this one thing in common that I love: they are honest.
There are some great moments in Pelikan where he just lays out the plain problems in the confessions, the contradictions, the inconsistencies, and doesn't try to hide it. It is something that has to be dealt with.
Rowan Williams has a way of just addressing the true pastoral reality of the faith being lived. He has that wonderfully Anglican quality of trying to unite two things, people, or ideas that traditionally have been at odds.
Newman - though the Calvinists hate him - has some wonderful moments where he openly confesses his ineptitude on a subject, discusses the problems with even his own theology, and always warns against accepting his views against those true authorities on the faith. He describes a humble, honest, and living faith that he has, not one that he learned in a textbook.
I was reading an article Fred posted by Giussani, and there was this wonderful reference summing up everything I am trying to say here:
"[describing a scene from a novel:] Abbé Gaston, the hero of the book, To Every Man a Penny, has to hear the Confession of a German soldier whom the French partisans have arrested and is to be executed; since he is a Catholic, and all trembling, the partisans allow him to make his confession, though they are Communists. Abbé Gaston says, “Confess yourself well, my boy, because you have to die. So, what have you done?” And, naturally, he says, “Women.” “Now you must repent, because you have to appear before the court of God.” And the other, with some embarrassment, says, “How can I repent? It was something I liked; if I had the chance, I’d do it again now. How can I repent?” So Abbé Gaston, all worried because he couldn’t send that individual to heaven, suddenly has a stroke of genius and says, “But are you sorry you’re not sorry?” and the other says, “Yes, I am sorry I am not sorry.” This is the last remnant of truth in that individual; this is the acknowledgment of the truth. On that infinitesimal point God builds the man’s defence. “Father, they don’t know what they are doing,” after three years of persecution at their hands."
and his description of Confession:
"This is what keeps you away from Confession–not desiring the good, not accepting to ask for the good; only this. It is not the fact that you foresee that without a miracle you will go wrong again, because a miracle can happen, and you have to ask for it if you really want the good, if you want the “something more,” if you want to be true. The miracle could happen in twenty years’ time, when your concubine dies."
These are the Catholics I like, the ones who are honest about the good, the bad, and the ugly, in the faith, and most of all dwell on the beautiful. The ones who always consciously center on Christ. These are the ones who make my faith about something beyond mere intellectual assent to a rational argument/apologetic.
There are some great moments in Pelikan where he just lays out the plain problems in the confessions, the contradictions, the inconsistencies, and doesn't try to hide it. It is something that has to be dealt with.
Rowan Williams has a way of just addressing the true pastoral reality of the faith being lived. He has that wonderfully Anglican quality of trying to unite two things, people, or ideas that traditionally have been at odds.
Newman - though the Calvinists hate him - has some wonderful moments where he openly confesses his ineptitude on a subject, discusses the problems with even his own theology, and always warns against accepting his views against those true authorities on the faith. He describes a humble, honest, and living faith that he has, not one that he learned in a textbook.
I was reading an article Fred posted by Giussani, and there was this wonderful reference summing up everything I am trying to say here:
"[describing a scene from a novel:] Abbé Gaston, the hero of the book, To Every Man a Penny, has to hear the Confession of a German soldier whom the French partisans have arrested and is to be executed; since he is a Catholic, and all trembling, the partisans allow him to make his confession, though they are Communists. Abbé Gaston says, “Confess yourself well, my boy, because you have to die. So, what have you done?” And, naturally, he says, “Women.” “Now you must repent, because you have to appear before the court of God.” And the other, with some embarrassment, says, “How can I repent? It was something I liked; if I had the chance, I’d do it again now. How can I repent?” So Abbé Gaston, all worried because he couldn’t send that individual to heaven, suddenly has a stroke of genius and says, “But are you sorry you’re not sorry?” and the other says, “Yes, I am sorry I am not sorry.” This is the last remnant of truth in that individual; this is the acknowledgment of the truth. On that infinitesimal point God builds the man’s defence. “Father, they don’t know what they are doing,” after three years of persecution at their hands."
and his description of Confession:
"This is what keeps you away from Confession–not desiring the good, not accepting to ask for the good; only this. It is not the fact that you foresee that without a miracle you will go wrong again, because a miracle can happen, and you have to ask for it if you really want the good, if you want the “something more,” if you want to be true. The miracle could happen in twenty years’ time, when your concubine dies."
These are the Catholics I like, the ones who are honest about the good, the bad, and the ugly, in the faith, and most of all dwell on the beautiful. The ones who always consciously center on Christ. These are the ones who make my faith about something beyond mere intellectual assent to a rational argument/apologetic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)