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.
I'm surprised no one noticed this before. What is this a reference to? I don't recall any of Pope Pius XII's successors doing this. In fact, this oft-repeated line has been refuted by several authors on countless occasions.
If "sophistry" means "topcat54 can't read."
R. Scott takes off in his first line: The latest, of which I'm aware, is Robert Koons ...
I wonder what the R stands for. There’s a Scott Clark around here, owner of a chain of auto dealerships, but he’s not the one in my high school class, either.
tauthor has a common misunderstanding of Anathemas as is relates to post Reformation Protestants.
From the website of David McDonald
“Anathemas - are they the kiss of death for ecumenism?
I was reading your site and couldn’t help notice that you don’t mention the subject of Anathemas, the curse that the council of Trent put on all non-Catholics (including Protestants). I was just wondering if you have studied this yourself and what you think of this. I think it’s a pretty important thing to mention considering that the decrees of Anathemas by the council of Trent have never been withdrawn, and the council of Trent is frequently cited even in the catechism.
...The above statement has several fundamental misunderstandings. In particular, the statement that anathemas were “put on all non-Catholics” is incorrect. In fact, the anathemas were only put on Catholics. You had to be a “card carrying Catholic” in order to “qualify.” Anathemas never applied to non-Catholics. Anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can’t be “ex-communion-icated” if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of Anathema was removed from Canaon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism. “
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/anathemas.htm
Although I gotta say the ceremony does sound impressive if what I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia still holds.
...” In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words...
...we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.” Whereupon all the assistants respond: “Fiat, fiat, fiat.” The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent.”
Now me, I would get a big jolly old tickle in the belly to see the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Guiliani, and other sundry lay,clergy and Bishops get such a letter. Maybe then they will believe the Church when she says NO SUPPORT OF ABORTION IS EVER PERMITTED.
But rest assured Protestants are not Anathema. As much as it might give you the sense of struggle against the big mean ole Papacy, you get a pass. The Church has her hands full with her own member’s forgetting they’re Catholic why would she worry about those who never were.
(I thought it was funny.)
Anyone who has read any significant amount of St. Augustine, knows he did not deny the genuine freedom of the human will. Canon 4 of session 6 is not inconsistent with Augustine’s views on grace and freedom, nor with Aquinas’s. Give the bishops at Trent and their theological advisors a little more credit: they were deeply knowledgable about Scholastic theology on grace. They would not have drafted an article that was patently inconsistent with St. Thomas’s teaching, and they didn’t. This R. Scott Clark seems to be as naive about the internal operations of the Catholic Church as about the theology he discusses. OBVIOUSLY, Vatican II did not repeal the dogmatic decrees of Trent! One does not have to go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church to prove that. The dogmatic decrees of Ecumenical Councils CANNOT be repealed or abrogated or reversed. Once a dogma, always a dogma. And anyone who has read Lumen Gentium 25 from Vatican II knows that Vatican II explicitly taught the infallibility of the dogmatic decrees of Ecumenical Councils, including those of Trent. So it is silly even to talk about whether Vatican II did or any future Council could undo the dogmatic decrees of Trent. This R. Scott Clark is strictly an amateur on these questions. As far as unity goes, no one has ever claimed that the Catholic Church ever had or will have unity in the sense that there are not disagreements about important points of theology or jurisdictional disputes. From the Book of Acts, the squabbles that St. Paul had to deal with, the dispute in Corinth that prompted the Letter of Clement in 97 AD, the ferocious controversies over the nature of Christ in the 3rd to 6th century, and down through the ages, there have been innumerable disputes. However, there is a difference between husband and wife arguing and even throwing pots and pans at each other and them divorcing, and separating from bed and board. The Church has been given the power to resolve disputes and settle controversies. However, she does not do so immediately as soon as they arise or even pre-emptively. The controversies have to come to a head before any definitive action is taken. It takes the Church time to make up her mind, so to speak, but make up her mind she can and does. Jurisdictional disputes also get resolved in time. Abuses get reformed in time. The Church is a living body. Living bodies are subject to ailments, but they have powers to heal, to counteract the pathogens, to vomit out the poisons, to repair the torn ligaments and tissues and broken bones. And the bones heal stronger than before: we will not have to refight the Arian controversy or the Pelagian controversy again. There will be new controversies and challenges, however. I would not want to live in a family where there was no room for argument or disagreement of opinion. But I also would not want to live in one where the arguments were allowed to mortally threaten the peace unity of the family and lead to family breakup. One needs an active ministry of authority in a family that is neither tyrannical nor weak and permissive.
True, but so what? Are logical distinctions (in this case the source of the dogma) intrinsically evil?
or among 3-6 (take it or leave it).
That's a reductionist error. "Teachings proximate to faith" (3.) "are regarded by theologians generally as a truth of revelation," and as such require the assent of the faithful, even though such teachings have not been formally promulgated as infallible teachings. An example might be the impermissibility of so-called homosexual marriage.
A Teaching pertaining to the Faith (4.), "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);" i.e., a doctrine that is logically pre-supposed by, or bound up with, a certain Church teaching. Such teachings also require the assent of the faithful.
The next level of teaching regards free opinion. (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."
The lesser grades of teaching are self-explanatory (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."
Now what is the degree of certainty in Protestant teaching? Is my personal interpretation of the Bible infallible?
A Catholic believes a certain thing, let's call it A. A is anathema, and so the church says, "we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan." Your quote, not mine.
Now, let's say a Protestant also believes A. Does the RCC believe that the Protestant is also condemned, and if so, on what grounds? If not condemned, then on what grounds does the church justly condemn the Catholic? If condemned, there are only two options: First, if salvation is only possible within the Catholic Church, in which case said Protestant is condemened to eternal fire with Satan anyway. Second, if salvation is possible outside the church, then believing A must, by definition, condemn one to eternal fire with Satan.
It's quite the conundrum.
A man without authority speaks for whom?
This man is ignorant of basic Roman Catholic doctrine which is that all Christians are in one form or another part of the RC denomination (since there is only one true organizational church). He may be right that anathemas never applied to Buddhists or Hindus, but there certainly apply to all who claim Christ.
Anyone who claims Christ and denies the things which Trent speaks of is "anathema". Period. Post Vatican II "scholars" may try to nuance things their way to make their theology of the Church appear more palatable to non-Roman Catholics, but in so doing they ultimately deny their own church fathers and councils.
And thus you have a growing sedevacantist movement within the RC denomination who recognize the Vatican II was the watershed wrt church authority. It gave folks like this McDonald character the opportunity to spout whatever they wish.
Nice try, R. Scott Clark, but ultimately futile. There is only one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, and that Church will continue drawing Christians from every schism and sect back to the true fold. “My sheep know My voice.”
Oh I noticed it. I just get tired of flogging the same old dead horse over and over again. People who write stuff like that aren’t interested in truth anyway.
Nope. I don't think so.
You can be in communion with the See of Rome and not be Roman Catholic. For example, Maronites are catholics but not Roman Catholic.
Somebody check me on this, but I'd bet serious loot on it.
Just because it is removed from the Code doesn't mean it is removed from the Law. Canon Law is a far larger thing than the Code.
You are correct. There are quite a few - 15? 20? CNEWA has a list on their website, I think - non-Roman, Catholic Churches.
However, it is not unusual for non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, non-Mormon Christians to be totally unaware of the existence of non-Roman, Catholic Churches.
I think I'm coming down with Comma Chaos. If I don't come back, sprinkle semicolons over my ashes.
Over the ashes semi-colons (or Cristobal Colons) (If I can get ‘em) I will scatter.
Not really. God condemns only for voluntary fault; quite unlike American civil law, ignorance of the law here is an excuse.
So someone who does not claim to be a Catholic and who, in good faith, believes condemned error "X" does not have any guilt imputed to him because of that.
He is, in the literal sense, ignorant (the casual reader is reminded that "ignorance" is the state of not knowing something; it's not a synonym for "stupid") of the identity of the Catholic Church as having been founded by Christ for the salvation of the human race, and of the (normative) necessity of belonging to it, and may also be ignorant that error "X" has been condemned.
God knows all of this, and no guilt is imputed to the person because of his error.
(Aside: When you get into moral issues instead of revealed dogma, ignorance may not be a protection, because the moral wrongfullness of act "Y" may be knowable by natural law without recourse to the teaching of the church.)
If not condemned, then on what grounds does the church justly condemn the Catholic?
"From whom much is given, much is also expected."
It would seem you have a problem with original sin then?
Please see the explanation I posted. Anathemas are the most extreme form of separation from the Church, being above and beyond the censure of excommunication. Since Protestants have never been members of the Catholic Church they could not be excommunicated let alone declared anathemas.
The modern never was a member of the Catholic Church Protestant is therefore not condemned. A Protestant is not answerable to the Catholic Church, a Catholic is and therefore could fall under anathema if so declared by the Pope.
It would be like the LDS telling me I was excommunicated from their church because I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon.
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.