Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 05/22/2007 7:47:18 AM PDT by topcat54
In the wake of the conversion of Frank Beckwith other evangelicals are announcing that they are also "swimming the Tiber." The latest, of which I'm aware, is Robert Koons, a philosopher at the University of Texas. Judging by this 90+ page paper (PDF), Koons has on the Road to Rome for some time.
Nominally Lutheran (for the moment) he seems a little better informed about historic Protestantism than Beckwith, who seems to suffer at least some of the misapprehensions about Rome shared by a lot of evangelicals. Nevertheless, Koons seems to have been "making it up" as he goes along for a while. His account of sola Scriptura is interesting but not confessional. In this regard, I recommend a recent essay in Modern Reformation vol 16, No. 2 by Keith Mathison where he gives a good brief account of Sola Scriptura over against the Anabaptist/modern evangelical biblicism (solo Scriptura).
Koons' reading of the history of theology is problematic. Take one example. He assumes as a given that the late medieval church was unified ( A Lutheran's Case for Catholicism, 7) and that Luther's doctrine of justification destroyed that unity. That's a huge and unproven assumption. It assumes that visible, institutional, nominal unity is genuine unity.
In fact, there was (and remains) a great deal of theological diversity within the Roman communion. It's not obvious to me, that despite the valiant attempts by Abelard (indirectly) and by Lombard and later by the Sententiators (commentators on Lombard's Sentences) and by Thomas to demonstrate the sort of unity Koons and others assume to have existed, actually existed. The degree of diversity that existed is really quite remarkable. Under the same big tent existed folk who opposed the papacy in ways that anticipated Luther's rhetoric and those who pledged total devotion to it, there were proponents and opponents of what has become Marian dogma, proponents and opponents of transubstantiation, proponents and opponents of Augustine's doctrine of predestination, proponents and opponents of a sort of limited atonement. Much of this diversity was gradually silenced, at least officially, culminating at Trent.
Okay, one might say, that was all theological wrangling. Who cares? Fine. Anyone care to talk about Three Popes at once? Have you any idea of the number of anti-popes and the degree of doubt (if we're being honest here) about which pope should be considered "the pope" and which should be the "anti-pope" and how arbitrary that denomination can be?
Since the Reformation, the impression that Roman apologists have sought to give is that, while the church was morally corrupt, there was nothing that a little house cleaning couldn't fix. Indeed, most of the Council of Trent was taken up with that house cleaning and moral reform work.
The problem isn't just moral. It's theological. The neo-converts seem to want to ignore or revise Trent, but it can't be done. The language is too clear, too stark. Consider canon 4 of Session 6 (1547) which effectively and eternally condemns Augustine's anti-Pelagian and anti-semi-Pelagian writings (and Augustine himself) as well as Thomas Aquinas, Gottschalk, Bradwardine, Rimini, and all the Protestants:
If any one says, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
If one takes ecclesiastical language seriously, and we should, then any anti-preparationist is eternally condemned, but we're just getting warmed up. Here's canon 17 of session six:
If any one says, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
Oops. I think Thomas it takes in the neck here too.
Canon 10:
If any one says, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby he merited for us to be justified; or that is by the justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.
In case this isn't clear, here's canon 11 (stop me if you've heard this one before):
If any one says, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.
Okay. Here it is. We confessional Protestants who confess the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to be the sole ground of justification are, according to magisterial Roman doctrine, are eternally condemned. If we deny justification through infused grace and righteousness formed by cooperating with grace, we're eternally condemned.
Must I continue?
The great tragedy of Trent is that when the Roman communion finally spoke magisterially on justification, she condemned what we understand to be the gospel. Remember that about 25 years prior, the Holy See had already excommunicated Martin Luther.
You might be asking, "But I thought all this changed at Vatican II?" The short answer is, no it didn't. How do I know that? In two ways:
1) Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church (3.3.2; beginning with paragraph 1987 on justification). Look at the footnotes. To which Councils did the Congregation (i.e., committee) for Sacred Doctrine appeal? The Council of Trent. Rome affirms and teaches now what she has always taught, justification on the ground of intrinsic righteousness formed by infused grace and cooperation with grace. How are you doing today? Got perfect intrinsic righteousness?
2) Nothing about Vatican II overturned the doctrine promulgated at Trent. To think that the Roman communion changed her mind at Vatican II reveals a profound misunderstanding of how Rome works. Yes, occasionally popes will cop to making a boo boo (like watching in silence as Jews were being shipped off to death camps). That's not quite the same thing as overturning precedents. Does she, in substance contradict herself? Yes. Does she admit it? No.
The principle document in question here is Unitatis Redintegratio (The Decree on Ecumenism). Where in this decree did the Council re-admit Luther and Calvin back into the Roman Communion? See section III.ii where the Western "schisms" are addressed. It's very careful language. The rhetoric is not Trent's but where's the substance? Where are the anathemas lifted? For my part, where has Rome embraced justification sola gratia, sola fide?
There's still a river between confessional Protestants and Rome. Ecumenists can't have it both ways. They can't say, "Oh the differences are all gone, so come on home"? If the differences are gone, then am I not already home? If there are differences, then Vatican II didn't make them go away.
I understand the desire for resolution of the tension that drives these conversions, but that resolution is an illusion. You've traded one divided communion for another. For you folk about to take the plunge, you might do a little research first. The water might not be as warm as you think.
Great Reformed Ping List
I went to high school with a Scott Clark, but I don’t think this is he. This guy has Comma Chaos.
And Beckwith and Koons have come to the conclusion that R. Scott Clark's understanding of the Gospel is, tragically, flawed.
I'm sorry, I thought R. Scott Clark was making a serious argument.
Turns out he's just a lying, sniveling bastard.
He doesn’t understand our ecclesiology. (Not that I do, mind, but I get it better than he does.)
Comma chaos and a lot of other problems. This reminds me of the “Language Usage” work my third-grader just did, poorly. Perhaps R. Scott needs a review of the third grade.
One problem with the low cost of “publication” over the Internet is that just about anyone can entertain the delusion that he’s a decent writer.
I like the guy who lives in a shack in Montana.
You must have been reading the quotes from Trent. :-)
One of those guys you mention was "elected" "Pope" on a conference call. (His "coronation" took place in a hotel ballroom in Montana.)
And I'm not sure any of them (other than Benedict XVI, of course) are really validly ordained bishops.
Oy vey.
Obviously Benedict XVI.
The other three individuals you named aren't even Catholics.
Try Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. It's a must for every Catholic library.
The Introduction is even available on-line. Here's an exerpt:
§ 8. The Theological Grades of CertaintyMost Protestants, and many Catholics, misunderstand the grades of Church teaching.1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."
2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.
3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.
4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).
5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opimo tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.
The Anti-Pope Michael I might need to get out more, ROTLFMAO.
Can the Chair of St. Peter be a porch swing?
I have to wonder if Green Acres is exempted from the below:
DECREE ON RADIO, TELEVISION AND MOVIESCanon 2318, paragraph 1 is extended to movies, television and radio programs by apostates, heretics or schismatics in defense of apostasy, heresy or schism. In addition Canon 2318, paragraph 1 applies to the same works of non-Catholics of any sort, which defend apostasy, heresy or schism. In this matter, knowingly read or retain , extends to all who willfully watch such programs, make recordings of them or retain such recordings.
Movies and Programs Condemned by Law1. All Talk Shows , unless it is morally certain that they will not violated Canon 1399. Such certainty may not be determined by watching or listening to the first few minutes, but must be determined by other means, unless a certain program generally does not violated the Canon.
2.Soap Operas, unless it is certain that a certain series does not promote violation of the Natural or Ecclesiastical Law.
3. All programs on religion by non-Catholics, including but not limited to all radio and TV preachers, etc. The only exception are those produced by Catholics (i.e. those subject visibly to the Apostolic See), or those which certainly do not violate paragraph 4 of Canon 1399. (i.e. in which certain has been obtained that they contain nothing contrary to the Catholic Faith)
4. Any program, which depicts an immoral situation as the main theme. (i.e. a divorced person or persons, living together in sin , even if fornication does not take place, homosexuality, etc.)
5. Any depiction of Satanism.
6. Because of the danger involved, all rock music is condemned, unless a certain song, song writer, etc. has been found to not violate the law.
I went to high school with a Scott Clark
Scott's this guy's middle name ("R. Scott Clark"), if that helps.
So, there’s no practical distinction between 1 and 2 (must be believed), or among 3-6 (take it or leave it).
Can you say “sophistry” boys and girls? I knew you could.
Pulvermacher is not a bishop, but he was validly ordained a priest.
Bawden was never ordained by anyone.
Corral was ordained and consecrated by the excommunicated bishop Thuc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.