POSTED BY KEPHA
There were so many reforms taking place at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries: printing reforms, biblical scholarship reforms, reforms of scholarship in general (in what we would call the Liberal Arts), political-philosophical reforms (with the discovery of the Americas and Cicero), philosophical reforms (with the appearance of Plato), and monastic reforms. So much was happening at simultaneous and overlapping times. In all honesty, I cannot help but think of the Book of Daniel, for in that writing the Angel Gabriel makes clear to Daniel the governance of God over this world, His world; every ascension of every king, every disposal of every king, the rise and fall of every nation – everything is governed by this great God of ours!
The primary reason why I have begun to study this massive movement (i.e., The Reformation) within the People of God, a movement that shook the world, is because as my views of Catholicism have begun to substantially change, I found myself plagued with confusion, fear and anxiety, because while my views of Catholicism were changing for the worst, my views of the alternatives (i.e., Protestantism) remained the same: Protestantism was, I had been taught via the Catholic apologetics cultural movement, various man-made movements (e.g., Lutheranism, Calvinism, Zwinglism) that broke with the True Church of Christ, and have since spiraled into chaos and were in desperate need of re-conversion to this Church. Thank God that the infallible Council of Vatican II decreed that Protestants, alone with atheists, Muslims and Jews, might be saved! What mercy is shown by Holy Mother Church!
Having this view of the alternatives to Rome while continuing to have a negative view of Catholic claims does not bring about a very good spiritual status. Thankfully, I finally came to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, I was wrong in my understandings of the alternatives. In fact, I came to realize upon reflection that I had never read a single book on the Reformation. All that I had ever known about this diabolical act of depraved man was mediated to me by the Catholic apologetics cultural movement. Thus began my formal studies into the Reformation. So far I have read only Roland Bainton's The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, and am now half-way through Dairmaid MacCulloch's massive The Reformation.
So where is Cogito now in his still novice stage of inquiry? He thinks that The Reformation, that is, the various Reform movements that permeated a sinful Christendom, sparked by a monk, priest, and professor of the people of God in Wittenburg, Martin Luther, a man of tremendous passion and conscience and love for God; these Reform movements, collectively, called Sancta Mater Ecclesia to metanoia, and calls her still to repentance. But this call to repent by the Reformers was very specific. It was not a call to repentance of someone who was as of yet unconverted. This call to repentance was to the Church! Nay, there is a yet better description. Various, independent representatives of the People of God stood up during the homily, so to speak, and chunked a roll of toilet paper at the preacher because there was crap coming out of his mouth.
It was interesting to me that MacCulloch in his first chapter paints such a positive picture of the Catholic laity in the pre-Reformation period. Despite the political and ecclesiastical corruptions that existed here and there, the laity knew what they needed from the Church and they sought it out, even if they had to find it elsewhere (e.g., confraternities or devotions). Even outside of these, there was a common cultural understanding that everyone had to help each other get to Heaven. The foundation of this was intercession, be it from the saints, the Virgin or from the people. But as I re-read these initial chapters, I see that it was precisely from among this people, the People of God, that the Reformers and the Reform movements came from.
To be sure, Catholics, there was and is no Reformed Church. But to look for such is to completely misunderstand what the Spirit of God was doing. The Reformation . . . . The Reformation was calling the Church to re-examine herself in light of her existence. Centuries had passed and various erroneous pious traditions had affected and shaped the Church, forgeries had affected and shaped the Church, sinful leaders had affected and shaped the Church, tradition had affected and shaped the Church, the pope had affected and shaped the Church; now, the Church was called to look into the mirror of God's Law, as James says in his epistle, and examine herself. Even now when Rome has done so much cosmetic or plastic surgery, there are at least some faithful left of The Reformation cause(s) that still hold Rome accountable to God's Law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
So what do we do today? is it better to stay within the fold of the RCC and seek reform from within? or to separate and seek reform from without? can one separate from Rome yet remain within the Catholic Church?
As a follow up, the quotations below are from Carl Trueman, professor of church history at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. What do you think of his perspective, and what do you think would happen if more people today shared it?
The Reformation, for good or ill, was driven at a theological level by certain ideas: a critique of papal authority, a changed view of sacraments and grace, an emphasis upon assurance, and a reconstruction of justification in terms of faith and imputed righteousness. In many ways, the last point – that of justification – is the foundation for the others. Thus, if you want to reject justification by grace through faith, as articulated by the consensus of the Protestant creeds of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, you might as well do the decent thing and return to Rome. Being a Roman Catholic is not illegal; it is not a source of social shame; and Rome has the good arguments for historical continuity. Indeed, being a Roman Catholic should be the default position in the West – we need good reasons not to be Catholic!! And when you abandon justification by faith, you have really lost the main reason for being Protestant. Source
----------
I am a committed, passionate Protestant; but I can recognize in Catholicism much in which I take delight even as I see much from which I must differ. I have said it before in this column and I will say it again: Protestants need good reasons not to be Catholic. Catholicism is the Western default position. If you do not regard the great confessions and catechisms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as being biblical in their teaching on justification, then you should probably do the decent thing and become a Catholic. The implications your position has for scripture’s teaching, for church history, and for notions of authority, makes such a move a good one. Converting to Catholicism is not a crime, after all. Yet justification is not the only issue: if you buy into the theological anarchy of modern evangelical thought, then acknowledge it for what it is -- a statement about the fundamental obscurity of scripture’s teaching, then do what Newman did in similar circumstances: turn to Rome.
If, however, you value the Protestant tradition on justification, and its concomitant pastoral point, that of the normativity of the individual’s assurance, you may, indeed, you should, appreciate much of what Catholicism and Protestantism share in common, but you should remain at Geneva and not head to Rome. For me, the right to claim Question One of the Heidelberg Catechism as my own, as the most profound statement of a truly childlike faith and ethic, is too precious to cede either to the numpties of postmodern evangelicalism or the geniuses of Rome, even the great Newman. Source
----------
Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church. I cannot go down that path myself, primarily because of my view of justification by faith and because of my ecclesiology; but those who reject the former and lack the latter have no real basis upon which to perpetuate what is, in effect, an act of schism on their part. For such, the Reformation is over; for me, the fat lady has yet to sing; in fact, I am not sure at this time that she has even left her dressing room. Source
----------
Now, if I did not have serious criticisms of the Roman church, guess what? I’d be a Roman Catholic. Source
----------
Michael Liccione wrote a response to Trueman on Beckwith: here.
Someone else wrote a brief response to Liccione: here.
Great post Kepha. So what direction do you see yourself heading?
I agree with Trueman: Justification by Faith alone and assurance are the core of Protestantism. The Reformed Faith is nothing else then the logical outworking of Augustine's doctrine of grace brought out as a reaction against late medieval semi-pelagianism. If JBFA fails then the church has no reason for division.
FWIW, this passage by Thomas Boston illustrates the historic Reformed standard on separation and schism:
Those who reject communion in the ordinances of Christ with a true church, and separate from her, because of corruptions in her, while in the meantime they might keep communion with her without sin, are guilty of schism and sinful separation: this I think will not be denied, for if our thus keeping communion be not our sin, it must be our duty; surely it is not left indifferent. But so it is, that our dissenters do thus reject communion with us, and separate from us, while, in the meantime, they might keep communion with this church without sin: therefore their separation is schism, and they are schismatics. That they might keep communion with us without sin, that is, without involving themselves in the guilt of the corruptions of the church, will appear, if ye consider, that there are no corruptions amongst us, whether real or pretended, which the church obligeth them to approve or join in the practice of, as terms of communion with her: nor is there any real or pretended truth which they own, that the church obligeth them to renounce, as a term of communion with her. Source.
The threshold for a legitimate separation is therefore quite high. I suspect that even a Roman Catholic might be able to agree with it in theory. The difference is that, for the RC, the Church cannot err in requiring sinful terms of communion.
I cannot type much now, but I do want to say these few things:
Today my parish-priest preached on, basically, doing works of love if one wants to enter Heaven. This is not unusual at all. Our parish-priest is very much concerned with the salvation of his sheep. On the way home, however, I was thining about the message of salvation that we frequently hear from our parish-priest, and, specifically, I was thinking about how works-oriented the message always is. Now, my parish-priest would be the first one to quote Jesus' words that "without Me you can do nothing," or James's words that "faith without works is dead." Thus, there is no Pelagianism at work here (i.e., I can get to Heaven myself), nor is there any semi-Pelagianism (i.e., I first do, then God does), but there is a "Christian Pelagianism" at work (i.e., God moves me and provides me with the materials, but it is I who must do).
Some of the common things that my parish-priest mentions are fasting, saying extra Roseries, helping the poor, or reading the Bible. More importantly, his concern is whether or not his sheep are frequenting the Sacraments. Usually, he emphsizes how we, unlike Mary and the saints, don't live up to the requirments set down by Christ. We should, therefore, have recourse to the Church's merciful provisions of Indulgneces, and to the saints, especially Mary.
The Christian life consists of works, chiefly the Sacraments. It is primarily by these that we can hope to acheive final perseverance and Purgatory.
In going through all of this, I thought to myself how much I envy the faithful Protestant, for he/she is so strengthened in their faith in Christ that they truly do not fear death. For myself, I cannot say that, as of right now, I have such assurance. In fact, I pray that I die in my sleep, because I do not know if I would be able to take being conscious of my death.
Kepha,
Have you tried asking your parish priest how he understands Paul's words in Romans 5?
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Michael Horton has said that "If we are justified by a process of cooperating with grace, we can only have peace with God when we no longer sin."
Iohannes,
My priest would say something like, as long as we are frequenting the Sacraments (i.e., Confession/Penance and the Blessed Sacrament/the Eucharist), and as long as we are not committing mortal sin, then we have peace. At the most basic level, these works are all that Catholics are required to do. It would be helpful if works of chairty were added to these, because one's "time" in Purgatory would be lessened.
My priest would also say that because we are in a spiritual battle and the Evil One is always seeking souls to devour, as is amply testified to by the lives of the saints, we must always be striving to increase in holiness. The more holiness, the more assurance of safeguard upon our death. This last part is especially dear to my priest's pastoral heart. He is always preaching about how we must prepare now for the "greatest day of our lives," our last day of life, because at that moment, he says, as we see in the lives of the saints, the Evil One will come with more force than he has ever done before. It is, therefore, imperative that we begin filling ourselves with grace by way of prayer, works of charity, and the Sacraments. We must, he would say, earn the grace of perseverance now.
Kepha,
Thanks for the explanation. I have seen that kind of reasoning before; Sungenis uses it, for example, in responding to Horton.
It looks to me like rather than having peace with God, the doctrine your priest teaches has the Christian in a truce with God, or maybe on probation. That is just my perspective, and I stand to be corrected. But as I see things, I can only agree with Machen's last recorded words: "I'm so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it."
Mozley argued in favor of the possibility of assurance in his Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, pp. 37-45. I think you might find interesting his comment that, as presented in scripture, the Christian life is "a purgatorial rather than a trial state" (p. 41). Hodge's brief remarks on assurance might also be helpful. I think he was entirely correct in saying that 'We may examine our hearts with all the microscopic care prescribed by President Edwards in his work on “The Religious Affections,” and never be satisfied that we have eliminated every ground of misgiving and doubt. The grounds of assurance are not so much within, as without us.'
The article upon which the Church stands or falls, to be sure!
Post a Comment