tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post451773060165047764..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Soteriological Truths Common to Catholics and Classic EvangelicalsFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70712909862294671522009-05-06T22:02:00.000-04:002009-05-06T22:02:00.000-04:00Fr Kirby: Thank you for reading my comment.
LKWFr Kirby: Thank you for reading my comment.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2736632623771869762009-05-06T09:51:00.000-04:002009-05-06T09:51:00.000-04:00First, a matter of definition. "Catholic" in this ...<I>First, a matter of definition. "Catholic" in this essay immediately becomes Roman Catholic.</I> <br /><br />Incorrect. The very phraseology "that part of the Church" shows I was deliberately dealing with one part of the Catholic Church, and because it was the one which actually has a dogmatic soteriology. The Eastern Orthodox, strictly speaking, are committed to the rejection of Pelagianism by the Ecumenical Councils and little else by way of soteriological dogma. And there is nothing in my list of 12 Agreements opposed to the teaching of the Greek Fathers in the context of that official anti-Pelagian position which requires that prevenient grace be seen as necessary. Or if there is, say what it is specifically, which was the challenge I gave.<br /><br />Also, note this sentence, which makes very clear the intra-Catholic distinctions I was making: "The second section will list apparent differences, either between the RCC and other Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, or between Catholics more generally and Evangelicals."<br /><br /><I>He has diligently cited three sources for "Catholic" doctrine: Thomas Aquinas, Trent, and "old standard works of moral theology written for confessors."<br />(I suspect it is mostly the last of the three.)</I> <br /><br />Incorrect. It is all either Tridentine or Thomist or more normally both and can be found in one of the references I cited in those sources. No. 12 drew on Thomas and the manuals. It was only here the manuals helped. Aquinas helped more.<br /><br /><I>The same problem exists in his conception of "Classical Evangelical."<br />He cites no sources whatever, and we are left to wonder how he formed his mental picture. Is he thinking of 16th century Reformers, 17th century Lutherans, or 17th century Calvinists, or 17th century Arminians, or 18th century Anglicans, or 19th century Finneyites? It is a long distance from Martin Luther to Billy Graham, or from John Calvin to Rick Warren. Monolithic generalizations simply will not do.</I> <br /><br />I'm sorry for the confusion. I thought it reasonably clear that I was talking mainly about the Reformed or Calvinist tradition, including its moderate strain, rather than Arminianism or Revivalism, which would hardly be called "classical" normally. Also, I do not see any great difference between this classical Evangelicalism and Lutheranism on soteriology, except perhaps in the area of double predestination and the finer points of the Sacraments. However, again, please, I invite <B>specific</B> corrections. Which proposition I attribute to Evangelicals is denied by any significant portion of them? As for my sources, they are numerous, but two of the most helpful were <I>Calvin</I> by Francois Wendel (translated by P. Mairet) and <I>The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism</I> by Pierre Marcel (translated by P. Hughes).<br /><br /><I>I see a serious historical error in the first of his "proposed agreements." ... For Rome, Original Righteousness was lost, but Man was still the same creature which God created. IOW, the Fall was not too serious an event. For the Reformation, while the loss of original righteousness and the damage to the Imago Dei do not entirely annihilate human nature, nevertheless the Fall is a real threat to the integrity of human nature. The Fall in this view is a real tragedy.</I> <br /><br />Incorrect. Not too serious or a real threat to integrity of human nature? This is what Trent actually said about Original Sin, in perfect conformity with my 1: "the <B>entire</B> Adam ... was changed, in body and soul, for the worse ... If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being <B>defiled</B> by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the <B>death</B> of the soul; let him be anathema" [Emphasis added.] Aquinas states "Man’s nature may be looked at in two ways: first, in its <B>integrity</B>, as it was in our first parent before sin; secondly, as it is <B>corrupted</B> in us after the sin of our first parent" [S.T. 2a Q109 A2. Emphasis added.] Integrity lost, defiled; corruption pervasive. According to the RCC.<br /><br />Isn't it better to look carefully to the primary sources, rather than repeat polemical stereotypes without checking them?<br /><br /><I>The Roman view allows room for a synergistic cooperation between God and man in the process of salvation. The Reformation view sees man as utterly lost, totally dependent on the Divine mercy, "dead in trespasses and sins."</I> <br /><br />The Roman view, as I showed in 2-4 and 6, which are all perfectly Tridentine and Thomist, as all can easily check for themselves in the references I gave, posits no such salvific synergy BEFORE prevenient grace. It is only the already-graced will capable of cooperating with God for salvation, and then only in the post-forgiveness, sanctifying aspects. Do Evangelicals really deny we cooperate with God in our sanctification? I think not. Do RCs claim synergy precedes God's initiative towards the ungraced, sin-soaked will? No. Read the sources.<br /><br /><I>But I would cavil (no, I would protest loudly) at Fr Kirby's title "Apparent Disagreements."<br />The issues of the 16th century Reformation were real, not illusory. Luther, Calvin, Cajetan, and Bellarmine were all brilliant men and gifted theologians. It is simply patronizing to describe their debate as a series of "apparent disagreements." If that were the case, then the Council of Trent should and would have discovered it.</I> <br /><br />Appearances can be real or not. I do not think all disagreements between Catholics a a whole and Evangelicals can be solved without some movement from Evangelicals, but I think some of the disagreements can be resolved by clarification, especially intra-Catholic ones. As for why Trent or Luther or Bellarmine did not discover the resolutions, the main reason would be that they were not really looking for them. They were usually looking to win an argument and consolidate their position, especially as time went on, not for common ground or the avoidance of miscommunication. To find peace one must seek it. <br /><br />And they did not really understand one another that well, often. For example, a number of scholars have, if my memory serves me correctly, noted that Luther's negative reaction to Aquinas owed very little to actual familiarity with his works!<br /><br />But, again, let us move on from generalised assertion of incompatibility to the specifics. And maybe even look for resolutions and synthesis rather than asserting <I>a priori</I> that such is impossible.<br /><br />P.S.<br /><br />Re: E. Orthodoxy and Original Sin:<br /><br />The now common statement that the EO only think of OS as merely the passing on of mortality is quite false. One can find Eastern Fathers and more modern EO theologians who refer also to the corruption of nature and tendency to sin. They do reject Original Guilt, however. The RCC has moved away from it too, but strict Calvinism still asserts it with St Augustine, as I understand it.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22999166327111010272009-05-06T09:49:00.000-04:002009-05-06T09:49:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57428217383390978012009-05-06T09:46:00.000-04:002009-05-06T09:46:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-62983654117864041802009-05-04T10:38:00.000-04:002009-05-04T10:38:00.000-04:00This essay has been up for over a week and has dra...This essay has been up for over a week and has drawn only one comment. That is hardly fair to the hard work which Fr Kirby expended and ignores some real issues which he has raised. <br /><br />First, a matter of definition. "Catholic" in this essay immediately becomes Roman Catholic. He has diligently cited three sources for "Catholic" doctrine: Thomas Aquinas, Trent, and "old standard works of moral theology written for confessors."<br />(I suspect it is mostly the last of the three.) I would respectfully submit that Fr Kirby is working with a narrow and truncated conception of what Catholic means. Not only does he exclude the literature of Eastern Orthodoxy, but he bases his summary on a slender portion of western theology. Since he frequently (but not as frequently as formerly) appeals to the doctrine of the "ancient undivided Church," I find it puzzling that he gives no citations from the Seven Ecumenical Councils nor from any writer prior to AD 1054. And since he regards the RCC as "that part of the Church which has most clearly and exhaustively defined its soteriology,"<br />then how can the documents of Vatican II and the CCC be disregarded? <br /><br />The same problem exists in his conception of "Classical Evangelical."<br />He cites no sources whatever, and we are left to wonder how he formed his mental picture. Is he thinking of 16th century Reformers, 17th century Lutherans, or 17th century Calvinists, or 17th century Arminians, or 18th century Anglicans, or 19th century Finneyites? It is a long distance from Martin Luther to Billy Graham, or from John Calvin to Rick Warren. Monolithic generalizations simply will not do.<br /><br />Moving on, I see a serious historical error in the first of his "proposed agreements." RC theology and 16th century Reformation theology really have different conceptions of Original Sin. (EO is quite different from both, proving that no agreement exists.) RC theology sees both the Imago Dei and Original Righeousness as "dona superaddita," whereas the Reformation saw them as essential to human nature.<br />For Rome, Original Righteousness was lost, but Man was still the same creature which God created. IOW, the Fall was not too serious an event. For the Reformation, while the loss of original righteousness and the damage to the Imago Dei do not entirely annihilate human nature, nevertheless the Fall is a real threat to the integrity of human nature. The Fall in this view is a real tragedy.<br />The Roman view allows room for a synergistic cooperation between God and man in the process of salvation. The Reformation view sees man as utterly lost, totally dependent on the Divine mercy, "dead in trespasses and sins."<br /><br />The remaining "Proposed Agreements" seem sound enough. But I would cavil (no, I would protest loudly) at Fr Kirby's title "Apparent Disagreements."<br />The issues of the 16th century Reformation were real, not illusory. Luther, Calvin, Cajetan, and Bellarmine were all brilliant men and gifted theologians. It is simply patronizing to describe their debate as a series of "apparent disagreements." If that were the case, then the Council of Trent should and would have discovered it. <br /><br />I note the number of times Fr Kirby uses the phrase "some Catholics" or equivalent language. In this he is being very honest, which I commend. But the repeated need for this qualification suggests that he is trying to find a monolithic view where no monolith really exists. What he describes as "Catholic" is at most the view of SOME RC's, during a narrowly defined period of history, which is hardly the Faith held and taught semper et ubique et ab omnibus.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64236062286131785342009-04-27T00:39:00.000-04:002009-04-27T00:39:00.000-04:00...a self-proclaimed Calvinist Anglican....
Actual...<I>...a self-proclaimed Calvinist Anglican...</I>.<br />Actually a self-proclaimed <I>five point</I> Calvinist. Anyone who blames TULIP on Calvin (or,in this case, attributes it to him) is boasting by showing his own ignorance.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.com