Sunday, October 26, 2014

Called to Communion on the Roots of the Reformation

Since October is Reformation month, one expects to find content from the defenders of Rome explaining why the Reformation was a tragedy or why it wasn't a movement actually reforming the true church. One particular blog entry was offered by Called to Communion on October 1 by David Anders- Roots of the Reformation: What it Means for Today. Dr. Anders says he's a former Calvinist and Protestant historian. The argument he ultimately puts forth appears to be as follows:


1. In all periods of history, the church has been plagued with corruption. Corruption was not the cause of the Reformation. 

2. The Roman church wants corruption responded to. The Roman Church is actually responsible for creating the expectation that corruption should be rooted out and the the church should be reformed.

3. Throughout her history, the Roman church worked towards responding to corruption, this before Luther and the Reformers.

4. The Protestant Reformers "stepped into a gap that would not have existed had the Catholic Church not been working for centuries to root out corruption and raise the level of lay spirituality."

5. Those involved in the Reformation had "a personal or a political agenda" and "exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering." They were not responding to corruption.

6. One other possible argument Dr. Anders makes is that the Reformers sought to create a perfect church. Any such attempt though will result in "hypocrisy or tyranny." I say this is a possible argument because I was not entirely sure it was being inferred from his final paragraph.

Dr. Anders basic argument boils down to saying it was not corruption in the church that provoked the Reformation. The Reformers were not reformers but were simply disseminating propaganda against the true church. One of the roots of the Reformation therefore is the Roman church. The Roman church "created the expectation that things should be better," not Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, or Knox. Whatever their motivations were, the Reformers weren't motivated to reform due to church corruption.

Before responding to this argument, let me describe two of the good things about this blog entry. First, Dr. Anders blatantly admits that the defenders of Rome don't understand the cause of the Reformation:

If you ask most people why there was a Protestant Reformation they answer, “Because of corruption in the Church.” That’s the common view. They might blame the indulgence controversy or Papal involvement in politics. If they’re Protestants, they probably claim the Church was doctrinally corrupt. Even Catholics give this answer. (I know. I just polled a roomful of Catholics on the question.) For centuries, in fact, this was the standard line for Catholic historians: if only the Church had done a better job, there would have been no Protestant Reformation. There is one small problem with the corruption thesis, however. It’s just not true.

While the defenders of Rome claim doctrinal certainty and unity, when it comes to interpreting history, particularly the Reformation, that's a different story. I agree fundamentally with Dr. Anders that the defenders of Rome are by and large ignorant of the Reformation at best. I would go further and say at worst many rely on out-dated historical information and are often too stubborn to go beyond the likes of Grisar, Denifle, or O'Hare. Ironically, it was actually one of their own historians that helped popularize the corruption theory, Jospeh Lortz. Now, Dr. Anders is saying this notion that corruption was the root of the Reformation is "just not true," and as we'll see, in its place, he'd rather believe the view of someone who thought religion was fundamentally dangerous and to be avoided as an old way of thinking.

Second, another good point raised by Dr. Anders is that the Roman church has been plagued by corruption for the entirety of her existence: "...corruption in the Church didn’t make the 16th century any different from every other century." He says also, "...It is good to know that the Church has always had corruption, has always fought corruption, and has never made 'absence of corruption' a mark of the true Church. Jesus told us to expect corruption in the Church until the end of time. (Matthew 13:24-30)." This is a helpful point to use in demonstrating a typical double standard put forth by many of Rome's defenders. There are those that argue Luther regretted the Reformation because it made people worse. They typically argue the Reformation was a failure and was morally bankrupt. It didn't produce good fruit, nor were its results any better than those of the corrupt church Luther and the Reformers fought against. Luther knew this, and admitted it. He died despondent over the mess he created. Heretics never lead good lives, nor produce good fruit. Since Rome is the true church and the Reformation was a failure, we as separated brethren must reunite with her. Trent cleaned up the situation as well, so what are Protestants waiting for? It's only by being in the true church that someone can attain true holiness. Here Anders dissolves the idea for Roman Catholics that true religion will lead to spiritual success and religious tranquility. No: the enemy is always sowing weeds among the wheat. If Rome can claim that she exists as the true church of God despite failure and sin, Protestants can do likewise.

As to his argument: It isn't really an argument based on factual data. It's an argument based on a presupposition that only those approved by Rome (at some point) are the actual reformers of the church. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. were "People with a personal or a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering." Only Rome can respond to the corruption of Rome. To respond in kind to this argument one need simply assert that those who attempt to promulgate Romanism and want to see the elimination of sola fide, sola gratia, or sola scriptura are disseminating anti-biblical propaganda against the true church. Further, during her history have not the forces of Rome been responsible for political agendas, propaganda, bloodshed and suffering? Certainly she has, so it's a double standard to claim the Reformation exhibited this devious behavior and is therefore not ordained by God, whereas the Roman church exhibits this behavior and is ordained by God, able to ferret out corruption.

Despite an official historical pronouncement from Rome on the cause of the Reformation, Anders asserts, "The real cause of the Reformation was not Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) but how people felt about it." This does not alleviate the fact that at the time of the Reformation there was rampant moral and doctrinal church corruption. Why is it not the case that God brought forth the Protestant Reformers to combat it? Why is what the Reformers did simply "a political agenda exploited the popular mentality and disseminated propaganda that caused centuries of bloodshed and suffering"? Dr. Anders doesn't say. Rather, he expands his position by saying:

There were many, many factors leading to the Reformation: economic and political changes, demography and societal attitudes, technology (printing), intellectual developments (scholasticism and the renaissance), religious sentiment, and the contributions of colorful personalities. It is impossible to point out one cause of the Reformation. These all came together at a critical moment in western history. “Corruption,” as such, was not the cause of the Reformation.

So, according to Dr. Anders there were large categories of economics, politics, demographics, social issues, technology, etc... one might as well just say all spheres of human existence were factors leading to the Reformation, with the exception of one: corruption in the Roman church. On what basis does one decide that virtually all spheres of human social existence were factors leading to the Reformation except one? One what basis does one decide that an ill-working institution that has her tentacles wrapped around every sphere of social existence wasn't a factor leading to the Reformation? The basis appears to be that put forth by a French secular historian:  

The Protestant Reformers merely stepped into a gap that would not have existed had the Catholic Church not been working for centuries to root out corruption and raise the level of lay spirituality. This is not simply my private theory. Lucien Febvre made the argument in 1929 in his famous essay, “Une question mal posée.” Today, this is the consensus view among historians. A good book on the subject is Steven Ozment’s, The Age of Reform: 1250-1550.

I happen to have Ozment's book, and he does in indeed discuss the theories of Lucien Febvre. Ozment states, "Lucien Febvre scoffed at the very notion that church abuses, regardless of their magnitude, could explain a religious revolution." He goes on to say, "The medieval church failed, he believed, precisely in those matters that touched the heart" (p. 211). Ozment himself though goes on to argue that to understand the Reformation, one should consider not only Febvre's conclusion, but to link that with the position argued by Roman Catholic historian Jospeh Lortz (corruption did ignite the Reformation). Ozment then goes on for multiple pages in describing the corruption present at the time. In another less-technical work, Ozment gives a basic overview of the different theories as to what caused the Reformation: Protestants, The Birth of a Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1991). He documents six basic (and sometimes contradictory) theories as to the impetus of the Reformation. While Febvre's view is popular today, it is hardly the only player in the continuing debate as to the cause of the Reformation.

What was the cause of the Reformation? Certainly Dr. Anders is correct that there were "many, many factors."  Arguing though that every social aspect of human existence was a factor save the ill-working institution that was involved with virtually every social aspect of human existence appears to me to be nothing more than a scholarly parlor trick.


Addendum
One final set of criticisms of Dr. Anders article can be found in a comment below his entry on the Called to Communion website.  I have no idea who this person is. While I think he missed the fundamental argument being put forth by Dr. Anders, he did ask a good related question based on the idea that Rome is the historical vehicle to combat her own corruption:

David Anders, How should someone react to corruption in the Church? From reading other material on this website, it seems that when someone commits themselves to the Roman Catholic Church, they are subjecting their whole person to the Teaching Magesterium as their God-appointed Shepherds in the faith. So how can an individual even “know”, in any degree above the level of opinion, that corruption is actually taking place? Much less begin to know how to properly react to it.

Gentlemen such as Michael Liccione, Ray Stamper, and Bryan Cross, unless I have misunderstood them, have taught that when one comes into the Catholic Interpretive Paradigm (not to say every faithful Catholic does this, or must do this), they are giving an assent of faith that is supernatural in character, and then far exceeds the limits of human reason. Thus, “Whatever the Church says, Christ says” and “Whatever the Church does, Christ does”. Under this principle, one sees that Christ is working above and behind the whole ecclesial program. Any seceding or doubt that occurs in the heart is quickly repented of, because of the higher order of knowledge that is working behind the visible structure of the Catholic Church, and one must trust and commit themselves to this higher order. Therefore, how can one even know beyond his/her own opinion that there is corruption in the Church?

I think of a scene that is in the old movie Martin Luther (from the early 1900’s) where there is a local friend of Fr. Luther who is walking around drunk who is walking around with a paper with the official stamp of the Pope’s approval that one had been given a plenary indulgence. The drunk says “I payed good money for it”. I think of when some days I ago I was looking old photos and documents of my family’s history and I found an official authoritative document concerning how the faithful are to pray for a member of our family who had died. From what my family tells me, this individual lived and died outside of communion with the Catholic Church, and died in the middle of the day when he was fighting Chickens in Puerto Rico. Aside from our being able to know the depths of the human heart, one questions how the Church had the authority to simply write it off as if he was in purgatory, and that all should pray for his soul.

When these things occur, how does the faithful Catholic, holding to the Catholic Interpretive Paradigm (as above described), know when to identify something as “corruption” or whether he is in sin for even thinking that he had the right to have such a suspicion. And if it is the case that an individual must not identify anything as corruption, for in so doing one raises his himself up against the Church, then how does one “react” to what appears like “corruption” by anything other than submission and obedience?

Another example would be Exsurge Domine (1520), which is a famous bull promulgated by Pope Leo X against Dr. Martin Luther. This Bull comes from the Pope himself, he is acting as Pastor of all the faithful (“In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor”….and “We forbid each and everyone of the faithful”), invoking his Apostolic Authority (“Rise Peter, and fulfill this pastoral office divinely entrusted to you as mentioned above. In virtue of our pastoral office committed to us by the divine favor..”), to an issue related to faith and morals (“We can under no circumstances tolerate or overlook any longer the pernicious poison of the above errors without disgrace to the Christian religion and injury to orthodox faith…”) , in which the following is stated:

“….we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these errors… 33) That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit”

Dr. Luther is well-known to have decried the Church -approved practice of burning heretics at the stake. And here, it would appear very clearly, in an ex-Cathedra statement, the Church says that Dr. Luther’s position is “against the Holy Spirit”. The whole document is said to have been dealing with the faith and morals of the Church.

In Canon 3 of the 4th Lateran Council of 1215, we read:

“We excommunicate and anathemative every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox, and Catholic faith which we have above explained, condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known…Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the Faithful (faith/morals/church membership), so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church….If [a ruler] refuses to comply let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, they he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance, and preserve it in the purity of faith…>Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land”.

Now, how would anyone who was Catholic at the time be able to respond to such an Ecumenical decree as corruption (for no doubt today Catholics believe this is corruptible) with anything but obedience and submission. I mean, he is told, for the sake of his soul, that is is bound to obey such decrees, and that if he does so, he does so to his eternal ruin.

Now, before we begin by distinguishing what is “infallible” and what is “not infallible”, I would like to keep this consonant with Dr. David Anders original post. Despite the fact that today some Catholics will argue that these teachings of the past are dead and buried in the ground of fallible teaching, it still does not answer how one was to react to these teachings, which, for the modern Roman Catholic is totally corruptible. To say that one would not be held accountable because the Church was speaking with her authority, and the laymen is bound to subject himself to the Church, is to put the eternal law of God under the living Voice of the Church, however shape or form that it comes. The authority of the Church did not come with any flexibility, and if you disobeyed the Church, you were to be considered, by all as well as yourself, not in communion with Christ.

So this all goes back to the question of how is one to react to corruption in the Church. For this does not bear upon just the window of history wherein the European Reformation took place, but also for today and forevermore. For just as the Church has revised things, calling one thing binding in one place and not binding in another, in the past, presumably, it can do so in the future. And for all we know, we are living in a time wherein there is teaching and practice, that will be later seen as unacceptable by the very same Church.

This is not to deny that one must be able to see the hand of God in history. The limits of our understanding in what God does is clearly testified by the Scriptures “My ways are above your ways, my thoughts are above your thoughts”. And we also know that Salvation and Redemptive history was not always “ideal” (Abraham’s fornication w/ Hagar, the sins of the 12 sons, Joseph’s betrayal into Egyptian slavery, etc,etc,etc), but that God is moving his plan through it anyhow.

But when there is an exercise of Ecclesiastical authority which binds the conscience, and the conditions and qualifications for such authority to be binding or not binding are different throughout the ages, how is one to really “react” properly when the Church acts in ways, that, in heinsight, we now know to be, in fact, false??

33 comments:

Ken said...

Peter Kreeft rightly lays the blame for the Protestant Reformation on the Roman Catholic Church itself, for failing to preach the gospel:

“This is the root issue because the essence of the gospel is at stake here. How do I get right with God? This was the issue of the first century church at Galatia, a church Protestants see as making the same essential mistake as the Catholics — preaching the gospel of good works. Protestants dare not compromise on this issue or they would be turning to what Paul calls “another gospel”. Thus his harsh words to the Galatians, the only church for which he has not one word of praise:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel — not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. “ [from Galatians 1:6-9]

How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and good works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. “

Peter Kreeft, “Toward Re-Uniting the Church” (my emphasis)

However, I noticed Kreeft got a lot of criticism for that aspect of his article, and he has totally re-written it.

Here is Kreeft’s original article:
http://www.christlife.org/evangelization/articles/C_reuniting.html

Here is a totally different version that has replaced the one I quoted from:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/toward-reuniting-the-church.html

James Swan said...

Very interesting Ken. From a cursory look, they seem like two completely different articles with the same name.

The original is said to be:

"Toward Reuniting the Church" Chapter 46, 287-298 in Fundamentals of the Faith.

The re-write is:

"The Sacraments" Chapter 45, pages 282-286 in Fundamentals of the Faith.

Both claim to be from the 1988 edition. When I checked both against that on Google Books, they were indeed two different chapters from the same book.

Do you have any links to the criticism of the original article?

James Swan said...

Of interest to Kreeft:

http://youtu.be/geuTVWetlzw

Ken said...

I don't have a link; it was what some RC apologists said in com boxes in my interaction with them years ago; when I would use this quote, the answer was that Kreeft had changed his mind on that.

You are right - they are two completely different articles with the same name. the same url that I got the original quote from, was changed to the new article.


Ken said...

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com.tr/2009/08/gods-soverignty-history-reformation.html

The url I used in this article I wrote years ago was where I got the first edition from; then later I noticed Kreeft totally changed the content of the article sometime later.

James Swan said...

Thanks.

While the sola fide statement from Kreeft is interesting, the bulk of his interpretation of the Reformation presented in the article in the links you have would probably be dismissed by Dr. Anders.

I don't expect any follow-up from Dr. Anders or any of the CTC folks, or any of Rome's defenders on this post. The thing is, the more complicated something gets (like the arguments put forth by Anders) the less interaction is to be expected.

Ken said...

I left some more comments over at CtC on this issue and linked to your article here.

David Anders is easier to engage with and lets my comments through and speaks in normal language. I like commenting on his articles because he doesn't just dismiss them, and doesn't reject them as "off topic", and doesn't put them through heavy philosophical jargon and Latin jargon that no one can understand. (like, IMO, Bryan Cross does)

Bryan Cross is different though, and is so high and philosophical and Latin oriented that I cannot understand him; and he rejects a lot of my comments as "not on topic", etc. That is not meant as a personal attack, but just an honest feeling I get from him and my weakness as not being able to understand him. Maybe it is like the past 50 years or so of people arguing over how to interpret the meaning of the Latin of the Popes from Vatican 2 to today? Even Roman Catholics are still debating over what the whole Vatican 2 and post Vatican 2 theology actually means in relation to pre-Vatican 2 RC tradition and theology.

Ken said...

I finally found some time to listen to Scott Hahn's statement calling what Kreeft wrote in his book, Fundamentals of the Faith, as heresy.

I wonder if Kreeft changed / updated the info in his book.

It would be interesting to get that paper that Scott Hahn refers to and also have a copy of Kreeft's new statement.

I am surprised that there is not more information about this issue (Kreeft's original statement, Hahn's rebuke, and Kreeft's change) being analyzed or blogged about.

EA said...

"These guys don't even interact with their readers for the most part. They just post articles asserting this or that ( denying Luther totaly rejected James for instance ), and then don't have the time to engage those of us who would like to discuss it."


Hi Guy,

Happily, James has made some of his Luther research available via the Home Page, see Favorite Entries on Martin Luther Section.

Sections 4-7 of the following page, for instance, address the question on how Luther regarded the Book of James.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140803220107/http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a4

Hope that helps.

PeaceByJesus said...

James, God bless you for exposing the smoke and mirrors of Rome.

From reading other material on this website, it seems that when someone commits themselves to the Roman Catholic Church, they are subjecting their whole person to the Teaching Magesterium as their God-appointed Shepherds in the faith. So how can an individual even “know”, in any degree above the level of opinion, that corruption is actually taking place?

This question reflects what in essence Rome came to teach, and common Traddie-type RCs express, that left to fallible human reasoning, and a fallible magisterium, all we have is doctrinal anarchy, and no assurance of Truth. Thus an infallible magisterium, and a church with assured veracity is essential for correct determination, dissemination and preservation of Truth, fulfilling promises of God's leading into all Truth, and binding/loosing, and preservation

And that Rome is that church with assured veracity in the light of its historical instrumentality and stewardship of express Divine revelation and apostolic succession.

Of course, this premise effectively invalidates the NT church, since it began in dissident from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, as the historical instrument and steward of Divine revelation.

And which instead began with common souls discerning both words and men of God as being so, and thus following an itinerant Preacher and preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.),

Thus unity is dependent upon the strength of this substantiation, with the limited unity of the NT church being under unmistakable God-ordained apostles, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God...By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 4,6:7)

Lacking this degree in leadership, we can expect a corresponding lack of unity.

Rome's solution to both is cultic self-declaration of herself as possessing assured veracity, upon which premise the RC has assurance of doctrine, and which is typically their final appeal when refuted ("the Catholic church gave you the Bible so...) She thus subjects Scripture to doctrinally being made a servant to support her, if convenient, as that is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but the premise of her assured veracity is. As Keating declared,

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275

While in fine print Rome allows for the possibility of error, but not salvific, in non-infallible teaching, and thus allows for some reverent theological dissent in such - assuming you can be sure you know the teaching is fallible, yet implicit assent to Rome is what is inculcated.

"the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X, February 11, 1906

"in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both.. (Providentissimus Deus)

James Swan said...

Ken said...I left some more comments over at CtC on this issue and linked to your article here.

I visited those comments. Dr. Anders is correct about the position of Lortz. I may have mentioned the same thing somewhere over the years. By the way, I'm quite fond of the work of Lortz.

On the other hand, I found this comment from Dr. Anders curious:

I think this is something that McGrath does well in his iustitia dei, wherein he distinguishes between the meaning and the mode of justification. It is with reference to the former that McGrath calls Luther’s doctrine “a complete theological novum.”

I have two different editions of Iustitia Dei (the second and third edition). If one reads McGrath, he doesn't use the word "complete."

2nd edition:
“The protestant understanding of the nature of justification represents a theological novum, whereas its understanding of its mode does not” (186-187).

"The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification -­ as opposed to its mode-­ must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."

3rd edition:
"The Protestant understanding of the nature of justification thus represents a theological novum, whereas its understanding of its mode does not." (215)

"The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification -­ as opposed to its mode-­ must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."

I point this out because using the word "complete" is not what McGrath said. Words in Iustitia Dei matter, as does McGrath's context of continuity and discontinuity.

In regard to Mr. Cross: he is correct that Kreeft does not really factor in to what Dr. Anders has posted. Dr. Anders is taking a position in which doctrinal corruption isn't a cause of the Reformation. So, both Kreeft and Lortz, if they were arguing that Luther rediscovered a Catholic doctrine that had been corrupted by being obscured, this was not a reason for the Reformation according to the historical paradigm Dr. Anders is using.

James Swan said...

How about this blog? Or TurretinFan's? These guys don't even interact with their readers for the most part. They just post articles asserting this or that ( denying Luther totaly rejected James for instance ), and then don't have the time to engage those of us who would like to discuss it.

Typically people get my attention when they post comments directly related to what I've written. For instance, if I post on Calvin's view of Mary's perpetual virginity and someone has a direct question on Calvin's view, I'll be more interested in the dialog. On the other hand, if someone asks me an indirect question on say, asking me to compare different periods of history on the Protestant understanding of Mary, I'm less inclined to this sort of indirect topic. That topic by the way- which you brought up- led to me writing a lengthy blog post that's still in draft.

PeaceByJesus said...

Here is a totally different version that has replaced the one I quoted from:

Well, as the idea of literally consuming anything physical - let alone human flesh - in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life (as per RC assertions of Jn. 6:53,54) is utterly foreign to Scripture (but not paganism ), then Kreeft might as well claim justification by faith. From the second link/version:

It has ceased to scandalize me, though it has not ceased to amaze me, that Almighty God suffers me to touch him, move him and eat him! Imagine! When I move my hand to my mouth with the Host, I move God through space. When I put him here, he is here. When I put him there, he is there. The Prime Mover lets me move him where I will...."unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you" -

He further fantasizes,

So it seems unfair that we are given all this extra sacramental help, easier grace, so to speak.

But "where's the beef?" Catholics testify to far less commitment and conformity to moral values overall than those who hold most strongly to the primary distinctive of the Reformation, that of the supremacy of Scripture as the wholly inspired, assured and accurate word of God.

As a weekly mass-going RC who believed in the Real Presence (though originally an Anglican term it seems), i saw no manifest difference in myself or others due to receiving the Eucharist, or for that matter, a marked spirituality in RC baptized children versus evangelical ones.

And from the first link,.

There is only one horse, and it is the Bible. But it needs a rider, and that is the Church...the Church is authoritative as interpreter of Scripture, that all the teachings of the Church must be based on Scripture.

Kreeft misses the issue here, which is not the need and viability of the teaching office, which Westminster affirmed, but of an infallible one. For under the latter, Scripture (as well as Tradition) only assuredly consists of and means what Rome says.

On justification by faith, Kreeft does clarify his affirmation of it in saying,

Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can be only the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven.

the Council of Trent affirmed, contrary to Luther, that good works contribute to salvation, it meant... that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation...

Catholic and Protestant theologians mean different things by the word faith. Protestants usually follow biblical usage.. In Protestant language, faith means heart faith, or whole-person faith; in Catholic language, faith means mind faith.

Which is part of his interpretation of Trent. And which basically teaches in canon 32,

"If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema."

Which as interpreted by RCs thru its interpretation by other levels of the magisterium is too often something like,

"I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see...." — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2

James Swan said...

Happily, James has made some of his Luther research available via the Home Page, see Favorite Entries on Martin Luther Section.

Thanks. if there's one subject I've beaten to death over the years with blog posts and discussion, it's Luther's view of James. The good part about this is if Mr. Fawkes is interested in this topic, it simply requires me to cut-and-paste what I've previously written.

James Swan said...

PeaceByJesus said...
James, God bless you for exposing the smoke and mirrors of Rome.


I included that section from CTC you commented on because Dr. Anders did not respond to it. I can understand why- because I think the comment missed the thrust of the blog entry (it was tangential to what Dr. Anders posted). On the other hand, the comment makes a cogent point. I see now that Mr. Cross has responded to it- 24 days later. The comments from Mr. Cross could easily be the topic of another post- and I do understand Ken's point about his writing style.

David Anders said...

Hi James,

I've posted a brief response to your blog in the comment section at CTC.
Thank you for your thoughts.

Peace,

David Anders

EA said...

"Thanks. if there's one subject I've beaten to death over the years with blog posts and discussion, it's Luther's view of James."

I would have thought that the assertion that Luther added the word "alone" to Romans would have first place. Goes to show what I know.

EA said...

Hi Guy,

I'd again refer you to the materials that James Swan has made available regarding this subject.

EA

James Swan said...

Luther never came around to really accepting James. His "Jimmy in the straw" statement wasn't an isolated event.

That's right. Luther had lifelong doubts about the canonicty of the book of James.

Ken said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken said...

Everybody, Catholics included, have the same complaint about Bryan Cross. You are not alone.

I appreciate you saying that.

How about this blog? Or TurretinFan's? These guys don't even interact with their readers for the most part.

If I have time, and it is in my articles that I write, I try to interact with Roman Catholics as people and treat them with respect. As time allows, as much as possible, I try to answer.

James Swan said...

David Anders said...
Hi James,I've posted a brief response to your blog in the comment section at CTC.
Thank you for your thoughts


Thank you for taking the time to read my entry and comment. I have some further comments to make in the next few days.

Ken said...

James wrote:

In regard to Mr. Cross: he is correct that Kreeft does not really factor in to what Dr. Anders has posted.

It seemed to me that the content of what Kreeft originally wrote agreed with the Protestant position that the main cause of the Reformation was doctrinal corruption and failing to preach the gospel.

So, It seemed like a contradiction to what David Anders was saying.

So, how does the content of it not factor in, in what David Anders wrote?

Kreeft later changed his position, per Scott Hahn's rebuke, but we Protestants would say that Kreeft was originally correct on that issue and his quote of Galatians.

Don't you think?

Ken said...

I left this comment over at CtC, among a few other comments. They are in moderation.

James Swan wrote (at Beggar’s All) in response to David Ander’s article:

What was the cause of the Reformation? Certainly Dr. Anders is correct that there were “many, many factors.” Arguing though that every social aspect of human existence was a factor save the ill-working institution that was involved with virtually every social aspect of human existence appears to me to be nothing more than a scholarly parlor trick.
see:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com.tr/2014/10/called-to-communion-on-roots-of.html

I think this analysis is key. You cannot exclude the doctrine corruption, because of the Medieval Synthesis, which included everything. The Roman Catholic Church had total control of every aspect of life of Europe (called the “Medieval Synthesis”) from the 600s AD to the Reformation. The Reformation was the spark that broke up the Medieval Synthesis. The Reformers main concern was correct doctrine, but also moral corruption was a secondary concern; but we also agree with you, David, that other factors were involved and played their parts. (politics, economics, social issues, etc.)

Ken said...

That's right. Luther had lifelong doubts about the canonicty of the book of James.

Even so, your article is more balanced than the RC attacks on that issue; and you pointed out that Luther preached from James also all the while he had those doubts.

But, as James White has pointed out, the "epistle of straw" comment was in the context of "in comparision with Galatians, Romans, John, Acts, 1 Peter, etc." (from my memory, not an exact quote).

Ken said...

One of my other comments over at CtC:

David,
And here comes one of the greatest historical ironies: people grew intolerant of corruption in the Church at least in part because the Church told them to.

It would seem to me that the church was teaching that, because it was doing what the Bible was saying to do – grow spiritually, repent of sin and corruption, walk in the light (1 John 1:5-2:2), confess your sins(1 John 1:9), and strive for the unity of the Spirit around the truth of God’s word. (John 17:17, Ephesians 4:1-16) “. . . until we all attain to the unity of the faith”. The call for Reform comes from obeying the Bible, in other words, Sola Scriptura and Toto Scriptura. Leaders have to repent and walk in the light and follow correct doctrine, and admit their mistakes, both moral errors and doctrinal errors. The letter to the Ephesians does not distinquish between leaders and lay people – all are called to not be tossed and fro by false doctrines.

” . . . until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. ”

Ephesians 4:13-25

James Swan said...

It seemed to me that the content of what Kreeft originally wrote agreed with the Protestant position that the main cause of the Reformation was doctrinal corruption and failing to preach the gospel. So, It seemed like a contradiction to what David Anders was saying. So, how does the content of it not factor in, in what David Anders wrote?

Dr. Anders is arguing that the basic paradigm that "Church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise)" is an outdated and incorrect paradigm by which to explain the cause of the Reformation. I can't speak for him, but I would speculate that he would say doctrinal issues did not ultimately cause the Reformation, but rather went along for the ride.

James Swan said...

I think this analysis is key. You cannot exclude the doctrine corruption, because of the Medieval Synthesis, which included everything. The Roman Catholic Church had total control of every aspect of life of Europe (called the “Medieval Synthesis”) from the 600s AD to the Reformation. The Reformation was the spark that broke up the Medieval Synthesis. The Reformers main concern was correct doctrine, but also moral corruption was a secondary concern; but we also agree with you, David, that other factors were involved and played their parts. (politics, economics, social issues, etc.)

I think Dr. Anders probably sees it the other way: politics, economics, social issues were of greater importance and the Reformers used church corruption (moral, doctrinal, or otherwise) for propaganda purposes.

James Swan said...

Even so, your article is more balanced than the RC attacks on that issue; and you pointed out that Luther preached from James also all the while he had those doubts.

I think Luther's attitude about the book of James is probably more important to the folks who post at the Catholic Answers forums than it was to Luther. He did use the book throughout his career, and the O.T. apocrypha as well.

PeaceByJesus said...

people grew intolerant of corruption in the Church at least in part because the Church told them to.

Not effectually overall, as Scripture teaches that what you do and effect constitutes the evidence of what you really believe (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)

Like counting and treating proabortion, prosodomote promuslim RC politicians as members in life and in death, with a church funeral with its inferences of gaining eternal life through the character-affirming eulogy and intercession of the church, as they did for comrades Ted Kennedy and Chavez, and can be expected for Menino, and the multitudes that support and follow them.

And in one century obedience to the pope can require physically torturing and exterminating the (RC defined) "heretics," and in another such would be unlawful.

In addition you have an individual declaring an extraBiblical event, which even lacks early testimony from tradition, as a binding doctrine.

Such are some of the problems with man assuming assured veracity and supremacy over Scripture (as in Rome and cults): it takes the problem of errant individual interpretation to a corporate level, thru binding obedience to immutable errors as well as following the declensions of men at variance from unchanging Scripture.

As for what Rome was most effectually teaching leading up to the Reformation,

Cardinal Ratzinger

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

Cardinal Bellarmine:

"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

More .

PeaceByJesus said...

Continuing the theme, "So how can an individual even “know”, in any degree above the level of opinion, that corruption is actually taking place?" without engaging in interpretation,



After his criticisms about the Synod being manipulated and censored, the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, is continuing to raise concerns – in an increasingly distressed tone – about the direction the Church is taking, criticising the Pope, whilst at the same time claiming he does not wish it seem like he is speaking out against he Pope.”

His latest interview with Darío Menor Torres was published by Spanish religious news weekly Vida Nueva.

“Many have expressed their concerns to me. At this very critical moment, there is a strong sense that the Church is like a ship without a helm, ...They are feeling a bit sea sick because they feel the Church’s ship has lost its bearings...The catechism remains the same.” - http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/sinodo-famiglia-37234/

The latter is the typical recourse of a conservative RC when faced with papal liberalism, or at best a trumpet with an uncertain liberal sound.

However, it remains that not only is the CCC an interpretation of what was always believed by Rome, despite the contrasts , but what one does and effects is what one really believers, as the hearers of the word look for its interpretation by how the preachers of it translate it into their own lives with their actions.

PeaceByJesus said...

We also have the interpretation of the state of the church by the late Jesuit cardinal and papal candidate (in the last election) Carlo Maria Martini, who lamented,

“The Church is tired, worn out in bourgeois Europe and America,” he said. “Our culture has aged, our churches and monasteries are big and empty, the Church bureaucracy is bloated, our rites and vestments are pompous … Prosperity drags us down.” He called for “the pope and the bishops to seek out 12 people from outside the system for administrative positions, people … who will try new things.” “The Church,” he said, “is 200 years behind the times.” - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/05/the-pope-in-the-attic/359816/?single_page=true


Its actually about 2,000 year in divergence from the NT church.

PeaceByJesus said...

And almost daily it seems there is more evidence of the non-interpretive certainty RCs enjoy due to the papacy:

Is the Pope Catholic? Critics Rally Around Benedict As Talk of Schism Looms

For over a year conservative Catholics have had their chastity belts in a twist over Francis and apparently, the chafing has finally grown too much to bear.

Over at The New York Times, columnist Ross Douthat, a convert to Roman Catholicism, warned that Francis’s current path could “eventually lead to real schism.” ..

Other conservatives agree, pointing to Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, in which the upstart self-proclaimed Apostle Paul describes a meeting when he called out Peter—the first Pope—for hypocrisy. To his face and everything. According to Paul, Peter backed down. Now traditionalists want to use this as a precedent for calling out the Pope when he’s not Pope-y enough...

Traditionalists appear to be buying into the media spin about which they themselves complain.