This blog explores both historical and current events guided by the thought of the leading thinkers, past and present, of this school or movement of theology. Refer to the Classic Posts, Great and Contemporary Thinkers, various links of all kinds, in addition to the Archives themselves. David is the founder and manager of this website, but many friends contribute to it on a regular basis.
I haven't quite figured what the purpose of posting this is -- especially considering this site is concerned with ressourcement in the Catholic tradition. Perhaps it is to remind us that traditional Protestants, with traditional Protestant misunderstandings, still exist. Case in point, from the Hart article:
Rome tries to offer a version of Christian liberty, but in its teaching about merit, the Virgin Mary, purgatory, and the accomplishments of saints, it yields a version of freedom that is ultimately spiritual bondage. This is so because Rome's understanding of salvation still does not acknowledge the complete sufficiency of Christ for freedom from sin, guilt, death, and the devil. Thus, American Protestants should continue to oppose Roman Catholicism, not because of American conceptions of political freedom, but because of the Reformation's notion of spiritual liberty.
Ahh, and just when you think we've moved beyond such simplistic understandings. This is like a Catholic saying, "You Protestants believe you can just sin all you want 'cause you believe God saves us by faith alone." I kind of feel sorry for intelligent Protestants who must choose between denominations like the OPC, who think its the 19th century, and PCUSA, who are blithely sinking in mainline madness.
Olinger has these two perceptive paragraphs: With regard to the material principle of the Reformation, sola fide, Van Til argues that Roman Catholicism (both before and after Vatican II) does not acknowledge that man was totally ruined by the Fall. Rather, Rome sees man's problem starting with his finitude. Man tends naturally toward evil because he is a creature, not because he is a sinner. Supernatural grace, then, was necessary before the Fall; it was lost in the Fall, but man's essential nature (rationality and free will) remained intact. Human reason is not radically depraved, and thus people can cooperate with God's grace toward final justification.[1]
For Van Til, any discussion of Rome and sola fide must start here. Strimple agrees: "The difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation (both in its traditional form and now in its modern, Rahnerian form) and the Reformed doctrine of salvation is the difference between an ontological concept (man as created needing some "additional" gift) and an ethical one (man's position being his disobedience, needing forgiveness and sanctification)."
His impact on Reform thinking is significant. Dr. John Frame, a respected theologian himself, argues that Van Til's contributions to Christian thought are comparable in magnitude to those of Immanuel Kant in non-Christian philosophy. Van Til was also a very vocal critic of Karl Barth's thought as well others.
I would also add that I am deeply interested in ecumenical and interfaith dialog due to my own experiences. The question "Is the Reformation Over?" is very near and dear to my heart. Since the beginning of this blog I have always followed this question and provided links and books for further research, including following the progress of ECT, Dombes Group in France, etc.
After chewing on this I have a couple additional observations in regards to Olinger's article. First, I agree with Mark Noll that "ecclesiology represents the crucial difference between evangelicals and Catholics." The issue of authority is crucial. When a person comes to terms with the issue of authority (i.e. the Primacy of Peter) it changes everything. It effects how a person relates to Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc. Noll's assessment of both Catholics (formalism, Constantinianism, etc.) and evangelicals (practical Pelegianism, etc.) is right on target.
The author of the article, Olinger, then asks an important question - Is Noll's assessment of contemporary Catholicism correct? The problem rests here in Olinger's answer to that question. His experiences and instruction at Duquesne U. (in the 70s?) has really given him a distorted picture of contemporary Catholicism. He affords far too much credibility and authority in the thought of Rahner and Schillebeeckx. What a shame. He is obviously ignorant of the Concilium and Communio divide in post Vatican II Catholicism and the victory of the Communio camp as represented in the figures of Popes JPII and B16, not to mention in the figure of Cardinal Schonborn, the editor of the new Catehcism. Additionally Olinger understanding of Dei Verbum (in the section Sola Scriptura) is erroneous, not to mention his understanding of the Second Vatican Council in general is distorted. Trent and Vatican II are consistent with each other. One cannot accept only Vatican II and ignore the entire history of the Church up to that time. That's way of thinking is a little too much aggiornamento and not enough of ressourcement.
Olinger quoting Strimple is right though with the portion (in section entitled Sola Fide) quoted by Fred above. Until either Rome or the classical Protestantism changes its doctrine of man, the Reformation cannot be over. But I agree with Noll that many evangelicals, especially on the Armenian divide of the Protestant camp, are more or less in agreement with Catholics on their doctrine of man therefore the Reformation is over for them. I would say this especially true for those following the Wesleyan tradition b/c of their emphasis on sanctification (holiness). So the answer is no to the question is the Reformation over for the classical or traditional Protestants (Lutherans Missouri Synod, Reform - OPC, PCA, URCNA, reformed Baptists, etc.), but yes for the majority of contemporary evangelicals who follow the lead of the Second Great Awakening in the thought of John Wesley and others. Over time, slowly but surely, Protestants, especially within the American experience, have became more and more big C-Catholic in their thought either by falling away, forgetting or rejecting the original claims of the Reformers themselves. In otherwords there has been a change, not a development, in Protestant thought returning back to pre-Reformation days.
My concern is with Van Til's assertions regarding Catholicism, at least as Olinger passes them on.
In the paragraphs cited by Fred, I see a false leap, so to speak... Van Til "does not acknowledge that man was totally ruined by the Fall". Okay... this *might* be true, dependent upon what exactly total depravity means, but the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, its consequences, and theological anthropology in general most *definitely* does *not* hold that "man tends naturally toward evil b/c he is a creature, not b/c he is a sinner". The latter statement in no way follows from a denial of total depravity.
And what, precisely, does it mean to say that (the Catholic teaching holds that) "man's essential nature (rationality and free will) remained intact"? Does that mean that the faculties remain? Then it's a true statement. But they most certainly lost their original integrity and hence are weakened as a result of original sin.
With Kevin, me thinks that there are still some caricatures of Catholic thought present.
Yes, Van Til is a bit simplistic and sees things from the Protestant side of the aisle (Protestant Heaven?), but his root observation is rarely made.
For this kind of Protestant, sinlessness is equivalent to divinity: it's a kind of reification of sinlessness. From this point of view, if Mary is sinless, then she is on the level with Christ.
For a Catholic, nothing could be more absurd. As a creature, Mary required not only a special act of God to preserve her from original sin, but also and always supernatural grace. Being sinless, she habitually relied upon God and His gifts instead of turning away.
I don't have time to read the three links on that post, but I read through the comments.
Seriously, what is with the constant complaining of folks who think some posts don't have to do with 'ressourcement'? It's a really weird, artificial wedge. I haven't read much ressourcement beyond de Lubac yet, but I have read a lot of de Lubac now, and to think that to only equate ressourcement with the 'big names' in the movement seems to completely misunderstand it. Ressourcement itself is a 'return to the sources', and in returning to those sources, as I have found, all of reality itself is addressed in the most profound, mysterious, and beautiful ways. So in my estimation, any relevant topic that pertains to reality itself should be fair game. And, I also don't think that is a stretch.
An example: in de Lubac's wonderful Catholicism, he talks about sin being the fracturing of humanity from God and between each other. Now, while I would probably say that some 'reformation' was definitely needed in the church, I am convinced that we never needed to split apart at all and fracture the body. I am personally saddened and frustrated with protestants who speak so horribly about their Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters and likewise, I am really bummed when Catholics speak the same way about protestants. So, is the topic of the reformation relevant to ressourcement.blogspot.com? Indeed! The fracturing of the body was how Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man began, and the prayer for unity that Jesus prayed for us in John 17 is, in spirit, how it ends.
That being said, I disagree with the "totally depraved" stuff that the "truly Reformed" believe in. There are plenty of places in Scripture where that just doesn't make sense, and plus, it is bad theology. I understand that the "point" of the total depravation stuff is to make us utterly reliant upon God, but even a cursory look at the theology in the Church before this doctrine shows that we have always been about utter dependence u pon God while simultaneously realizing that there is at least a part of the human that "can do all things through Christ."
So in sum, I somewhat agree with your thoughts at the end about how the Wesleyan tradition aligns with Roman Catholicism. Indeed. However, for me, pronouncing the "reformation is over" isn't a particularly interesting question, maybe, because even if it truly was, we would always have to be continually open to the shaping and unifying power of the Spirit to unify us even if we were all of one Catholic body. I pray that the reformation in the schismatic sense would definitely end, but I also think that the Church is always experiencing God's work anew every day. Not that God 'changes' at all -- no -- but that the work of the Holy Spirit is always working in and through us in that encounter with Christ. I've heard some Roman Catholics even agree with the 'always reforming' thing that the Reformed tradition espouses, but it is in this sense. The problem is that the Reformed church is often so bitter still about some stuff with the Roman Catholic church has gotten over a long time ago, so they want their 'always reforming' stuff in the church to happen at the expense of and apart from their own Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.
7 comments:
I haven't quite figured what the purpose of posting this is -- especially considering this site is concerned with ressourcement in the Catholic tradition. Perhaps it is to remind us that traditional Protestants, with traditional Protestant misunderstandings, still exist. Case in point, from the Hart article:
Rome tries to offer a version of Christian liberty, but in its teaching about merit, the Virgin Mary, purgatory, and the accomplishments of saints, it yields a version of freedom that is ultimately spiritual bondage. This is so because Rome's understanding of salvation still does not acknowledge the complete sufficiency of Christ for freedom from sin, guilt, death, and the devil. Thus, American Protestants should continue to oppose Roman Catholicism, not because of American conceptions of political freedom, but because of the Reformation's notion of spiritual liberty.
Ahh, and just when you think we've moved beyond such simplistic understandings. This is like a Catholic saying, "You Protestants believe you can just sin all you want 'cause you believe God saves us by faith alone." I kind of feel sorry for intelligent Protestants who must choose between denominations like the OPC, who think its the 19th century, and PCUSA, who are blithely sinking in mainline madness.
Olinger has these two perceptive paragraphs:
With regard to the material principle of the Reformation, sola fide, Van Til argues that Roman Catholicism (both before and after Vatican II) does not acknowledge that man was totally ruined by the Fall. Rather, Rome sees man's problem starting with his finitude. Man tends naturally toward evil because he is a creature, not because he is a sinner. Supernatural grace, then, was necessary before the Fall; it was lost in the Fall, but man's essential nature (rationality and free will) remained intact. Human reason is not radically depraved, and thus people can cooperate with God's grace toward final justification.[1]
For Van Til, any discussion of Rome and sola fide must start here. Strimple agrees: "The difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation (both in its traditional form and now in its modern, Rahnerian form) and the Reformed doctrine of salvation is the difference between an ontological concept (man as created needing some "additional" gift) and an ethical one (man's position being his disobedience, needing forgiveness and sanctification)."
Thanks Fred for your response. It's right on mark. I apologize for a delay in my response. I was out of town on a couple of speaking events.
Van Til (in his application of systematic theology and apologetics) was a very interesting fellow.
Wikipedia - Cornelius Van Til
His impact on Reform thinking is significant. Dr. John Frame, a respected theologian himself, argues that Van Til's contributions to Christian thought are comparable in magnitude to those of Immanuel Kant in non-Christian philosophy. Van Til was also a very vocal critic of Karl Barth's thought as well others.
I would also add that I am deeply interested in ecumenical and interfaith dialog due to my own experiences. The question "Is the Reformation Over?" is very near and dear to my heart. Since the beginning of this blog I have always followed this question and provided links and books for further research, including following the progress of ECT, Dombes Group in France, etc.
After chewing on this I have a couple additional observations in regards to Olinger's article. First, I agree with Mark Noll that "ecclesiology represents the crucial difference between evangelicals and Catholics." The issue of authority is crucial. When a person comes to terms with the issue of authority (i.e. the Primacy of Peter) it changes everything. It effects how a person relates to Sacred Scripture, Tradition, etc. Noll's assessment of both Catholics (formalism, Constantinianism, etc.) and evangelicals (practical Pelegianism, etc.) is right on target.
The author of the article, Olinger, then asks an important question - Is Noll's assessment of contemporary Catholicism correct? The problem rests here in Olinger's answer to that question. His experiences and instruction at Duquesne U. (in the 70s?) has really given him a distorted picture of contemporary Catholicism. He affords far too much credibility and authority in the thought of Rahner and Schillebeeckx. What a shame. He is obviously ignorant of the Concilium and Communio divide in post Vatican II Catholicism and the victory of the Communio camp as represented in the figures of Popes JPII and B16, not to mention in the figure of Cardinal Schonborn, the editor of the new Catehcism. Additionally Olinger understanding of Dei Verbum (in the section Sola Scriptura) is erroneous, not to mention his understanding of the Second Vatican Council in general is distorted. Trent and Vatican II are consistent with each other. One cannot accept only Vatican II and ignore the entire history of the Church up to that time. That's way of thinking is a little too much aggiornamento and not enough of ressourcement.
Olinger quoting Strimple is right though with the portion (in section entitled Sola Fide) quoted by Fred above. Until either Rome or the classical Protestantism changes its doctrine of man, the Reformation cannot be over. But I agree with Noll that many evangelicals, especially on the Armenian divide of the Protestant camp, are more or less in agreement with Catholics on their doctrine of man therefore the Reformation is over for them. I would say this especially true for those following the Wesleyan tradition b/c of their emphasis on sanctification (holiness). So the answer is no to the question is the Reformation over for the classical or traditional Protestants (Lutherans Missouri Synod, Reform - OPC, PCA, URCNA, reformed Baptists, etc.), but yes for the majority of contemporary evangelicals who follow the lead of the Second Great Awakening in the thought of John Wesley and others. Over time, slowly but surely, Protestants, especially within the American experience, have became more and more big C-Catholic in their thought either by falling away, forgetting or rejecting the original claims of the Reformers themselves. In otherwords there has been a change, not a development, in Protestant thought returning back to pre-Reformation days.
My concern is with Van Til's assertions regarding Catholicism, at least as Olinger passes them on.
In the paragraphs cited by Fred, I see a false leap, so to speak... Van Til "does not acknowledge that man was totally ruined by the Fall". Okay... this *might* be true, dependent upon what exactly total depravity means, but the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, its consequences, and theological anthropology in general most *definitely* does *not* hold that "man tends naturally toward evil b/c he is a creature, not b/c he is a sinner". The latter statement in no way follows from a denial of total depravity.
And what, precisely, does it mean to say that (the Catholic teaching holds that) "man's essential nature (rationality and free will) remained intact"? Does that mean that the faculties remain? Then it's a true statement. But they most certainly lost their original integrity and hence are weakened as a result of original sin.
With Kevin, me thinks that there are still some caricatures of Catholic thought present.
Yes, Van Til is a bit simplistic and sees things from the Protestant side of the aisle (Protestant Heaven?), but his root observation is rarely made.
For this kind of Protestant, sinlessness is equivalent to divinity: it's a kind of reification of sinlessness. From this point of view, if Mary is sinless, then she is on the level with Christ.
For a Catholic, nothing could be more absurd. As a creature, Mary required not only a special act of God to preserve her from original sin, but also and always supernatural grace. Being sinless, she habitually relied upon God and His gifts instead of turning away.
David,
I don't have time to read the three links on that post, but I read through the comments.
Seriously, what is with the constant complaining of folks who think some posts don't have to do with 'ressourcement'? It's a really weird, artificial wedge. I haven't read much ressourcement beyond de Lubac yet, but I have read a lot of de Lubac now, and to think that to only equate ressourcement with the 'big names' in the movement seems to completely misunderstand it. Ressourcement itself is a 'return to the sources', and in returning to those sources, as I have found, all of reality itself is addressed in the most profound, mysterious, and beautiful ways. So in my estimation, any relevant topic that pertains to reality itself should be fair game. And, I also don't think that is a stretch.
An example: in de Lubac's wonderful Catholicism, he talks about sin being the fracturing of humanity from God and between each other. Now, while I would probably say that some 'reformation' was definitely needed in the church, I am convinced that we never needed to split apart at all and fracture the body. I am personally saddened and frustrated with protestants who speak so horribly about their Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters and likewise, I am really bummed when Catholics speak the same way about protestants. So, is the topic of the reformation relevant to ressourcement.blogspot.com? Indeed! The fracturing of the body was how Catholicism: Christ and the Common Destiny of Man began, and the prayer for unity that Jesus prayed for us in John 17 is, in spirit, how it ends.
That being said, I disagree with the "totally depraved" stuff that the "truly Reformed" believe in. There are plenty of places in Scripture where that just doesn't make sense, and plus, it is bad theology. I understand that the "point" of the total depravation stuff is to make us utterly reliant upon God, but even a cursory look at the theology in the Church before this doctrine shows that we have always been about utter dependence u pon God while simultaneously realizing that there is at least a part of the human that "can do all things through Christ."
So in sum, I somewhat agree with your thoughts at the end about how the Wesleyan tradition aligns with Roman Catholicism. Indeed. However, for me, pronouncing the "reformation is over" isn't a particularly interesting question, maybe, because even if it truly was, we would always have to be continually open to the shaping and unifying power of the Spirit to unify us even if we were all of one Catholic body. I pray that the reformation in the schismatic sense would definitely end, but I also think that the Church is always experiencing God's work anew every day. Not that God 'changes' at all -- no -- but that the work of the Holy Spirit is always working in and through us in that encounter with Christ. I've heard some Roman Catholics even agree with the 'always reforming' thing that the Reformed tradition espouses, but it is in this sense. The problem is that the Reformed church is often so bitter still about some stuff with the Roman Catholic church has gotten over a long time ago, so they want their 'always reforming' stuff in the church to happen at the expense of and apart from their own Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.
Peace of Christ,
Eric
Post a Comment