I'm not a prophet, so I have no predictions for Catholicism under Pope Francis. However, I'll venture to discuss what may play out.
He's already pushing 78, so he could die tomorrow–or he could still be in charge 10 years from now. It's also possible that he won't press ahead with the policy changes adumbrated at this year's synod, although he seems to be a very determined man, so I doubt that. This is not a caretaker pope. He means business.
A problem with one-man rule is that a pope can single-handedly derail a billion-member sect by unilateral fiat. That's always been in the cards, but faithful Catholics don't believe that's a live possibility because God will allegedly protect the One True Church® from a rogue pope. Francis may put that to the test.
To judge by the synod, his plan is to make the church more inclusive, more open and affirming with respect to homosexuals and divorced and/or remarried Catholics. If that happens, it's a policy change that will simultaneously please the least committed Catholics while alienating the most committed Catholics. On the one hand, he runs the risk of losing core Catholics. The true believers.
On the other hand, he really gains nothing. He's not winning new converts to his position. He's not changing minds. Rather, he's capitulating. He isn't bringing them over to his side. Instead, he's going over to their side. They don't have to change what they think or do. All the change is coming from his end.
It's hard to think of a more disastrous policy. Burn your base while getting nothing in return. Yet that seems to be the course he's bent on. We'll see.
Keep in mind that this is a sect which hasn't recovered from Vatican II. That already did a lot of damage to faith of faithful Catholics.
The contemplated policy change has the potential to precipitate a schism in the church of Rome. That doesn't mean the church of Rome is going away anytime soon. It has too much sociological inertia to fade away overnight. However, the continued existence of Rome as a major denomination is not a given. Consider how much ground it's lost in Europe in a century. Consider how much ground it's lost in Quebec in a generation.
In fact, the papacy has been quietly moving left for some time. This didn't begin with Vatican II or John XXIII. That didn't happen out of the blue. It's funny that sedevacantists regard Pius XII was the last true pope, because, to my knowledge, it was encyclicals like Humani generis and Divino Afflante Spiritu that took a left turn in traditional Catholic dogma.
If the contemplated policy change goes through, that will pose a real dilemma for faithful Catholics. Compare Catholicism to a Protestant theological tradition like Calvinism. Calvinism can live off the land. It's a belief system grounded in Scripture. Very portable. Calvinism can survive and flourish as a theological movement. It doesn't begin with institutions. It begins with theology. It forms institutions to service the theology.
By contrast, Catholicism is not a lay movement. It can't survive indefinitely, disconnected from the Magisterium. Its theology is wedded to a particular polity. The institution dictates the theology.
If the Magisterium goes liberal, there's nowhere for the laity to go. They have no church apart from the Magisterium. Catholic theology is not a free-floating belief system that can be sustained or practiced in isolation from the authority of popes and bishops, or the sacramental actions of a priest. If Catholics have nowhere to go to Mass, no priests to confess to, no apostolic succession, no valid sacraments, they have nothing.
There is no "true Catholicism" which a faithful Catholic remnant can preserve, observe, and pass on, if the Magisterium goes belly up, for there is no true Catholicism apart from the pope, episcopate, and priesthood.
Faithful Catholics can weather persecution. You can have an underground Catholic movement in the wake of external persecution. What it can't survive is a decapitation strike. A headless body will die.
By contrast, Protestantism is essentially decentralized. Our rule of faith is a book, not a man. The head of our church rules in heaven. Catholic apologists think that's our fatal weakness, but it's actually our hidden strength.
A problem with one-man rule is that a pope can single-handedly derail a billion-member sect by unilateral fiat. That's always been in the cards, but faithful Catholics don't believe that's a live possibility
ReplyDeleteI think in medieval times he would be killed before they would let that happen, which i think is likely in the case of Pope Sixtus V due to the danger of the Bull Aeternus Ille becoming binding. Did you ever look into that much?
The contemplated policy change has the potential to precipitate a schism in the church of Rome.
You mean another one. EOs already charge,
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith [context] and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."
Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs....
On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html
And the SSPX offers,
The documents of Vatican II, in many cases, remain an enigma to theologians with no key to open them and clarify things. We are in the midst of a fog with no way to distinguish. Analyzing the comments of Cardinal Brandmuller, 5-24-2012; , http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/card_brandmuller_not_all_vatican_ii_is_binding_5-24-2012.htm
While those of the SSPX charge,
Has not the Second Vatican council itself welcomed certain demands which, among others, were expressed by Luther, and through which many aspects of the Christian faith are better expressed today than formerly? Luther gave his age a quite extraordinary lead in theology and the Christian life."
Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents...
as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master" (CRC May 1980). - Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.; http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.htm
And aside from formal sects and schisms are the many, if relative few conservative RCs who basically are SSPX or closer to schism, while the majority of RCs whom Rome treats as members in life and death are the largest sect,.
But as long as Francis worships the wafer, and basically makes Mary part of the Trinity, saying "Without Mary, there would be no Jesus Christ; without the Church, we cannot go forward,“ then there is not much he could be expected to do that would create a split.
Calvinism can survive without an institution, but it can't flourish simply because the majority of people think it's basis in scripture is tenuous at best. That's not an opinion, that's a fact based on observing its long term decline.
ReplyDeleteCatholicism actually does survive without the magisterium, as evidenced by various Catholic groups that have abandoned Rome. Depending how you count those groups I'd say they outnumber Calvinists.
@John
Delete"Calvinism can survive without an institution, but it can't flourish simply because the majority of people think it's [sic] basis in scripture is tenuous at best. That's not an opinion, that's a fact based on observing its long term decline."
This is simplistic. For one thing, it depends on time or place.
"Catholicism actually does survive without the magisterium, as evidenced by various Catholic groups that have abandoned Rome."
Wouldn't Rome disagree they're Catholic if they've abandoned Rome?
"Depending how you count those groups I'd say they outnumber Calvinists."
Well, sure, lots of things depend on how you count! "Depending how you count," your bank could inform you you're a multi-billionaire or bankrupt!
@John
Delete"Calvinism can survive without an institution, but it can't flourish simply because the majority of people think it's [sic] basis in scripture is tenuous at best. That's not an opinion, that's a fact based on observing its long term decline."
By the way, check out the New Calvinism aka Young, Restless, Reformed movement.
@John
Delete"it can't flourish simply because the majority of people think it's [sic] basis in scripture is tenuous at best."
Also, this is illogical inasmuch as the former doesn't necessarily follow from the latter (e.g. Calvinism could "flourish" based on other factors).
You should also define what you mean by "flourish" since it's possible to flourish in several different ways.
"This is simplistic. For one thing, it depends on time or place."
DeleteHmm. Declining in every time and every place since Calvin walked this earth doesn't seem like its dependent.
"Wouldn't Rome disagree they're Catholic if they've abandoned Rome?"
Rome would, but I'm guessing you wouldn't, in so far as they believe 90-99% of what Rome does.
"Well, sure, lots of things depend on how you count! "
Perhaps, but I'm guessing if you wrote down your top 10 distinctives of Catholicism, they would meet 9 of them.
"By the way, check out the New Calvinism aka Young, Restless, Reformed movement."
Something less than 10 years old, and unheard of by the vast vast majority protestants, let alone the rest of Christendom, doesn't rate.
@John
Delete"Hmm. Declining in every time and every place since Calvin walked this earth doesn't seem like its dependent."
Nice bare assertion.
Calvinism isn't pegged to John Calvin.
"Rome would"
Thanks, that's the only concession I needed to hear from you.
"Perhaps, but I'm guessing..."
First you say, "depending how you count."
Now you say, "I'm guessing."
Your statements sure are unsure!
"Something less than 10 years old,"
Another illogical statement: just because something is "less than 10 years old" doesn't mean it's not flourishing.
"and unheard of by the vast vast majority protestants,"
Another bare assertion.
Also, another simplistic statement: it in part depends on the time or place.
"let alone the rest of Christendom"
Yet another simplistic statement, for "Christendom" could vary (once again) depending on time or place.
Also, it depends on how one defines "Christendom." For example, if Rome is defining, then it's possible the Orthodox could be excluded.
"doesn't rate."
Phew! Good thing most Christians don't live for your approval or disapproval.
@John
Delete"Rome would, but I'm guessing you wouldn't, in so far as they believe 90-99% of what Rome does."
Notice John doesn't cite a source. He may as well have pulled the "90-99%" figure out of thin air.
Same with several of his other statements here. At least up till this point, John is long on opinions, but short on facts.
Not to mention he has made a couple of illogical statements (see above).
John
Delete"Calvinism can survive without an institution, but it can't flourish simply because the majority of people think it's basis in scripture is tenuous at best. That's not an opinion, that's a fact based on observing its long term decline."
i) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Calvinism is in "long term decline," how does this demonstrate that "the majority of people think it's basis in scripture is tenuous at best"? Many people are hostile to Scripture. As a result, they are hostile to denominations and theological traditions that are faithful to Scripture. They prefer denominations and theological traditions with a tenuous basis in Scripture. Indeed, they prefer secularism. The less Scripture the better.
ii) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Calvinism is in "long term decline," why do you imagine that has something to do with Calvinism in particular rather than a general decline in Christian adherence, influence, and practice in the Western hemisphere?
"Catholicism actually does survive without the magisterium, as evidenced by various Catholic groups that have abandoned Rome."
It can't survive indefinitely. It treads water in the desperate hope that eventually their kind of pope will be elected. But if every pope since John XXIII has been an antipope, then eventually there are no valid bishops or priests. No valid sacraments. Once apostolic succession is interrupted, it can't be reinitialized. You can't skip over that gap and restart at the other end.
John
Delete"Calvinism can survive without an institution, but it can't flourish simply because the majority of people think it's basis in scripture is tenuous at best. That's not an opinion, that's a fact based on observing its long term decline."
I trust you have the same theory to explain the long-term decline of Greek Orthodoxy:
"In a startling find, statistics disclose over 60% of Greek Orthodox families of the last generation and 90% of Americans with Greek roots are no longer in communion with the Church."
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/departments/marriage/interfaith/guest-writers/challengeforGOC
John
Delete"Calvinism can survive without an institution, but it can't flourish simply because the majority of people think it's basis in scripture is tenuous at best. That's not an opinion, that's a fact based on observing its long term decline."
When I became a Calvinist about 30 years ago I didn't ask myself, "Am I joining a movement in long-term decline?"
The only salient question in choosing a faith-tradition is whether its doctrines and practices match up with what God is really like and does.
But as far as "flourishing" goes, the best way to flourish in the long term (i.e. forever) is to have beliefs and practices that line up with divine reality.
"Notice John doesn't cite a source. He may as well have pulled the "90-99%" figure out of thin air. "
ReplyDeleteOh come on, they range from sede vacantists who believe 100% Rome does, apart from who actually is the pope. I mean, I know this is a place for being especially argumentative, but come one.
"Nice bare assertion."
Well come on, where does Calvinism form a bigger proportion of the population than Calvin's Geneva? I mean, really.
"Calvinism isn't pegged to John Calvin."
Really!
"just because something is "less than 10 years old" doesn't mean it's not flourishing."
There's nothing like being embedded in a small sect and thinking you are the centre of the universe. Come hither Westboro Baptist!
"Another bare assertion."
Oh come on. I could walk into any protestant church around here and not find anyone who even heard of "Young, Restless, Reformed"
@John
Delete"Oh come on, they range from sede vacantists who believe 100% Rome does, apart from who actually is the pope."
Come on then. Let's play your game. Say being a sedevacantist means you're 90-99% in agreement with Rome. However, what's deceptive is the 1-10% difference would be a crucial difference to the sedevacantist. It's like you're saying: "H20 (water) is basically the same as H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), so what's the big deal? Come on!"
"I mean, I know this is a place for being especially argumentative, but come one."
So your definition of "argumentative" means holding a person to facts and reason. Sounds good to me! :)
"Well come on, where does Calvinism form a bigger proportion of the population than Calvin's Geneva? I mean, really."
Well, come on, what does this have to do with my point that what you previously said is a bare assertion? Say Calvinism has since declined in Geneva. According to you, does this mean Calvinism has declined "in every time and every place"? I mean, really. :)
"Really!"
Oh come on, it's actually quite amusing how flabbergasted you are about basic facts. :)
"There's nothing like being embedded in a small sect and thinking you are the centre of the universe."
I suppose better than being embedded in a heterodox sect and thinking you are orthodox, amirite. ;)
"Come hither Westboro Baptist!"
Because Westboro represents Calvinism? You demonstrate how obviously well-versed you are in the art of detection by exposing a hitherto hush hush Calvinist connection! Ever consider taking your gumshoe work to the next level by applying for a job at the National Enquirer? :)
"Oh come on. I could walk into any protestant church around here and not find anyone who even heard of 'Young, Restless, Reformed'"
So your own anecdotal experience trumps other people's experiences? Now who's the one who thinks he's "the centre of the universe"! :)
On a more serious note, even if for the sake of argument Calvinists are small in numbers, it doesn't necessarily mean they're not "flourishing" (which is how you originally framed it). It's quite possible Calvinists have had and continue to have significant moral, political, social, cultural, and other influences beyond their numbers.
RCs do not usually like stats on their church as they are not good in comparison with evangelicals , but which themselves are in overall decline in the US along with Prots in general (51%, down from 60- 65% in 1970-80), with those who do not I.D. with any religion being the fastest growing segment in America. (Caths. maintain their 23% status mainly due to Latino immigration, up to 90% of which is illegal). Worldwide things as different in may parts. See a post here by me on that.
ReplyDeleteAs regards Calvinism or Reformed, I see the case for both to a certain degree, and that in conversion God draws souls, opens hearts, convicts them of their need for salvation, and grants repentant faith, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:9; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9), so that in conversion man does what he otherwise could not and would not do, and being chosen to election before they were born, not on the basis of what they had done. (Rm. 9)
Yet i see lost men turning from basic belief to unbelief, (Rm. 1:21) and having a choice to sin, (Gn. 4:7) and able to obey God in prevenient grace due to a basic innate sense of the law, (Rm. 2:14) Christ wanting non-elect to be saved, weeping over the damned, (Jn. 19:41-44) and dying for all. (1Jn. 2:2) And with eternal damnation not being essentially due to what Adam did, but what they were culpable for in accordance with the degree of grace given them. And God at least warning believers against departing from the living God in unbelief, and drawing back into perdition. (Gal. 5:104; Heb. 13:6,12,14; Heb. 12:26,38)
But without reconciling the two as yet, in practical terms it means that i am to call every morally cognizant to repentant faith as if they could repent and are responsible for not doing so, as that is how i see God doing in Scripture.
As regards the Arminian vs. "Calvinist or Reformed" war, Barna reports [2010] that about three out of every 10 Protestant leaders say the latter phrase accurately describes their church (31%). This proportion is statistically unchanged from a decade ago (32%)...Pastors who embrace the term "Wesleyan or Arminian" currently account for 32% of the Protestant church landscape – the same as those who claim to be Reformed. The proportion of Wesleyan/Arminian pastors is down slightly from 37% in 2000."
And LifeWay Research "Nearly equal numbers of pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention consider their churches as Calvinist/Reformed as do Arminian/Wesleyan, although more than 60 percent are concerned about the effect of Calvinism on the denomination"- http://www.lifeway.com/Article/research-sbc-pastors-polled-on-calvinism-affect-on-convention states
The C.S. Monitor affirms, "Christian faith: Calvinism is back" - http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0327/Christian-faith-Calvinism-is-back
This thread is pretty funny. The article accuses Catholicism of being in decline. When it's pointed out that Calvinism's decline is far worse we have squirming on all fronts, claiming (a) yes, the numbers are appalling, but boy are the few remnants flourishing and influential!!! (b) half of those with Greek genes are not Orthodox. ( to compare apples with apples, I suspect 1% of those with Swiss genes are Calvinists, but anyway...). (c) doesn't matter anyway, because we are right!!! (d) oh well we're all in decline. (e) God decided it, it's not our fault!
ReplyDeleteTo address some specific points, yes Westboro Baptists are Calvinists, but I was more thinking about their total disconnect from broader society, and insular thinking that their beliefs are the Centre of the universe, when they are extremely fringe.
Even faithful Catholics believe that true apostolic succession takes place apart from Rome, so why anyone would think Catholicism is completely dependent on Rome, I don't know.
Yes, there are some, arguably important differences between regular Catholics and sede vacantists. But I suspect many modern Calvinists would have been executed in Calvin's Geneva for differences over various things too. Just one example, many Calvinists are Baptists and Calvin's Geneva wouldn't have tolerated that.
Now when someone tells me where Calvinism is a bigger portion of the population than Calvin's Geneva, then we can say it hasn't declined in all places and to all times. Until then the point is unassailed.
@John
Delete"This thread is pretty funny."
Indeed, you've been providing a lot of comic relief. :)
"The article accuses Catholicism of being in decline."
Actually the post does quite a bit more than that.
"When it's pointed out that Calvinism's decline is far worse we have squirming on all fronts"
That's the problem: lots of assertions from you, nothing to back up your assertions. (For your sake, I hope you're not indicative of how the Orthodox do apologetics!)
"(a) yes, the numbers are appalling, but boy are the few remnants flourishing and influential!!!"
Where was this claim made? At most, all I said was since you didn't bother to define what you mean by "flourishing," then "flourishing" could just as well be defined as various forms of influence.
"(b) half of those with Greek genes are not Orthodox."
Where was this claim made? Numbers were cited, but none which say "half of those with Greek genes are not Orthodox."
Perhaps that's your own take (not ours), but if so then it means you can't even keep track of your own argument.
By the way, what's funny is you write as an Orthodox apologist, but given your performance thus far in this thread it's evident you can't even do basic apologetics (e.g. a lack of supporting arguments for your assertions, illogical and contradictory statements).
Although I suppose it's possible your brand of Orthodox apologetics doesn't require reading comprehension, the ability to reason, supporting evidence, etc.
"to compare apples with apples, I suspect 1% of those with Swiss genes are Calvinists"
You "suspect" a lot of things, but never provide any evidence for your suspicions.
"(c) doesn't matter anyway, because we are right!!!"
Yes, this shoe does fit quite nicely on your foot.
"(d) oh well we're all in decline."
Where was this claim made? Not in this thread. Unless it was from you.
"(e) God decided it, it's not our fault!"
Where was this claim made? It sounds like you're operating with tendentious assumptions about Calvinism.
"yes Westboro Baptists are Calvinists"
Say a group claims they are Eastern Orthodox, but they behave in contradiction to Eastern Orthodoxy. Your belief would be they're still Eastern Orthodox.
"but I was more thinking about their total disconnect from broader society, and insular thinking that their beliefs are the Centre of the universe, when they are extremely fringe."
And you were attempting to tar Calvinists with this brush. But you never bothered to explain why you think this even sticks.
"Even faithful Catholics believe that true apostolic succession takes place apart from Rome, so why anyone would think Catholicism is completely dependent on Rome, I don't know."
DeleteWhere did we ever claim "Catholicism is completely dependent on Rome" (emphasis mine)? You're trying to sneak in an additional idea into your assertion.
Also, Roman Catholics inform us Roman Catholicism is dependent on Rome.
"Yes, there are some, arguably important differences between regular Catholics and sede vacantists."
I appreciate your concession.
"But I suspect many modern Calvinists would have been executed in Calvin's Geneva for differences over various things too. Just one example, many Calvinists are Baptists and Calvin's Geneva wouldn't have tolerated that."
Apples and oranges. For one thing, you're taking Calvin's Geneva as the benchmark rather than modern Calvinism. But this would be like saying modern Catholicism is best represented by the Catholicism of the 16th century. However, the current pope and many Catholic scholars today would disagree with you. (Although an internal critique of Catholicism could very well involve pointing out these inconsistencies.)
Plus, as Steve mentioned in his very post, which you fail to grasp, Calvinists take the Bible as their benchmark (unlike Catholics). Whatever historical precedences or councils or even statements of faith may or may not obtain for Calvinist theology are a distant second to how the Bible is understood and interpreted. And it's not as if Calvin's understanding of the Bible is the gold standard. Not even in his day and age.
There are other ways in which your attempted analogy between Catholics/sedevacantists and paedobaptist Calvinists/credobaptist Calvinists is disanalogous. But I'll stop here for now since it's already more than enough to deal with your objection.
"Now when someone tells me where Calvinism is a bigger portion of the population than Calvin's Geneva"
I've already corrected you on the fact that Calvinism isn't pegged to John Calvin let alone John Calvin's Geneva. All you did was react in surprise (i.e. "Really!") as if this was the first time you ever heard this, which only goes to show you don't understand Calvinism. But as an apologist, even if you vehemently disagree, you should at a minimum correctly represent the other side before you attempt to criticize the other side.
"then we can say it hasn't declined in all places and to all times."
Your assertion, on its very own, is illogical. Say I agree with your premise about the percentage of Calvinists in John Calvin's Geneva. Say 90% of Calvin's Geneva was Calvinist. Say today Geneva's population is only 10% Calvinist. How does tracking a single city in the 1500s until today, even if it has declined considerably, imply Calvinism as a whole has "declined in all places and to all times"? This is just dumb.
"Until then the point is unassailed."
I'll grant your "point" (such as it is) may be "unassailable" if one were doing Orthodox apologetics. :)
I didn't accuse Catholicism of being in "decline." And I didn't contrast that with Catholicism "flourishing." You're recasting the post in your own categories, not mine.
DeleteAnd if I wanted to use those categories, I wouldn't defining "flourishing" or "decline" in primarily quantitative rather than qualitative terms.
To the extent that Catholicism is in decline, that's primarily a case of doctrinal decline. And that's been going on for centuries. It's not about numbers or influence.
Numbers concern survival, not "flourishing" or "decline."
Westboro baptists are Hyper-Calvinists, not Calvinists.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-fred-phelps-calvinist.html
"At most, all I said was since you didn't bother to define what you mean by "flourishing," then "flourishing" could just as well be defined as various forms of influence."
ReplyDeleteYup, flourishing might mean we're influential, like Westboro is more influential than any 20 person Church has a right to be, so ignore the numbers!!!!
" Numbers were cited, but none which say "half of those with Greek genes are not Orthodox."
Another vague and meaningless objection to my summary of the claim made. The claim was something about people with Greek origins, not being in attendance in orthodoxy. Note that no apples to apples comparison was made with Protestantism, nor with previous time periods, so interpret this factoid ANY WAY YOU WANT, and it has no meaning whatsoever.
"Where was this claim made? Not in this thread. Unless it was from you."
Amazing. Try reading the thread before commenting, huh?
"than a general decline in Christian adherence, influence, and practice in the Western hemisphere?"
"overall decline in the US along with Prots in general"
I mean, if you want to be contrary for the sake of it, at least pick your battles to points worthy of debating, huh?
"behave in contradiction to Eastern Orthodoxy. Your belief would be they're still Eastern Orthodox. "
Another vague and poorly enunciated point. Are you saying Westboro behave in contradiction to Calvinism? Only the Calvinist belief system is capable of underpinning their behavior.
"And you were attempting to tar Calvinists with this brush. But you never bothered to explain why you think this even sticks."
You seem a bit slow on the uptake. My thesis since my first post is that Calvinism is in decline. The tiny remnant of Calvinists think they are important in Christendom, in the same way Westboro think they are important. Yes they make a lot of noise disproportionate to their numbers, but that's it. Calvinists are maybe 2% of Christendom, like 60 million of 2500 million. And in my experience, half of those going to churches claiming to be Calvinist wouldn't be able to tell you what Calvinism it's, so even the 2% figure is shaky.
"The tiny remnant of Calvinists think they are important in Christendom, in the same way Westboro think they are important."
DeleteI, for one, don't wake up each morning saying to myself, "I think I'm important in Christendom." Only God knows how important or unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things.
"Calvinists are maybe 2% of Christendom."
If God has predestined Calvinism to be 2% of Christendom, so what?
@John
Delete"Yup, flourishing might mean we're influential, like Westboro is more influential than any 20 person Church has a right to be, so ignore the numbers!!!!"
Another one of your tendentious characterizations.
However, as far as it goes, since you never bothered to specifically define what you mean by flourishing, I was at liberty to float various ideas, even if I don't happen to agree with them. I suppose, in a sense, I was even trying to help you out, but you obviously can't grasp this. Pity for the Orthodox apologist!
Also, Steve already pointed out to you numbers as such aren't the issue, even though you want to make them the issue. Consider how Catholic fidelity to the Bible has deteriorated over the years, decades, centuries.
"Another vague and meaningless objection to my summary of the claim made."
Say it's true my objection was "vague and meaningless." However, since it was decidedly hitched to your "summary," what does that say about your summary? :)
"The claim was something about people with Greek origins, not being in attendance in orthodoxy."
One reason your "arguments" ring so hollow is because you're so sloppy in your thinking - e.g. "The claim was something about...". Really? That's the sort of vague idea you're basing your "argument" on? I suppose this passes muster in your Orthodox apologetics, but it doesn't quite work in the real world.
"Note that no apples to apples comparison was made with Protestantism, nor with previous time periods, so interpret this factoid ANY WAY YOU WANT, and it has no meaning whatsoever."
Note again you can't keep track of the logic of your own argument. Is this a "win" in Orthodox apologetics?
"Amazing. Try reading the thread before commenting, huh?"
Too bad you didn't take your own advice.
"I mean, if you want to be contrary for the sake of it, at least pick your battles to points worthy of debating, huh?"
Says the person who randomly brought up Calvinists in a post about Catholicism.
"Another vague and poorly enunciated point."
Just because you can't follow the logic doesn't mean it's not a perfectly valid parallel which demonstrates the incongruity of the "logic" of your original assertion. Or can't you keep up with your own point?
"Are you saying Westboro behave in contradiction to Calvinism? Only the Calvinist belief system is capable of underpinning their behavior."
Another assertion without the benefit of argumentation.
Steve already told you this, but apparently John the Orthodox apologist is too dense to adjust to new information.
"You seem a bit slow on the uptake."
DeletePerhaps others "seem" slow to you because people like Steve are running circles around you. You're still on your first lap while Steve is on his 10th lap. He's overtaking you once again, which makes it appear as if you're in front even though you're behind by several laps.
"My thesis since my first post is that Calvinism is in decline."
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "thesis" since a thesis actually has some sort of evidence or at least an argument behind it. However, again maybe this would indeed constitute a "thesis" according to Orthodox apologetics. :)
"The tiny remnant of Calvinists think they are important in Christendom, in the same way Westboro think they are important."
Once again, the numbers aren't the issue.
Once again, even if numbers were the issue, you've never given evidence to think Calvinist numbers are so "tiny."
Once again, even if Calvinist are a "tiny remnant," then you've never shown why Calvinists would have a problem with this.
Once again, you've never given evidence suggesting Calvinists think they're "important in Christtendom, in the same way Westboro think they are important." In fact, if anything, Calvinists would think they're unimportant in God's grand plan. God could get things done with or without us.
"Yes they make a lot of noise disproportionate to their numbers, but that's it. Calvinists are maybe 2% of Christendom, like 60 million of 2500 million."
Better to be small and faithful to God than large and faithless to God like many if not most of the Orthodox churches.
"And in my experience, half of those going to churches claiming to be Calvinist wouldn't be able to tell you what Calvinism it's, so even the 2% figure is shaky."
You're assuming your "experience" is generalizable. But that's a tremendous assumption. On the plus side, I don't expect you would be able to operate at more complex levels as an apologist.
Also, as far as your "experience" goes, it doesn't sound like you even live in the US. You probably live in a more secular country where Reformed Christians constitute a smaller overall percentage than in the US.
"Where did we ever claim "Catholicism is completely dependent on Rome"
ReplyDeleteWe've been lectured that "It can't survive indefinitely" and "Catholic theology is not a free-floating belief system that can be sustained or practiced in isolation from the authority of popes and bishops, or the sacramental actions of a priest. If Catholics have nowhere to go to Mass, no priests to confess to, no apostolic succession, no valid sacraments, they have nothing. "
No come on, oh contrary one. If we're told you have nothing without a pope and you can't survive, then you're completely dependent. That's logic.
" But this would be like saying modern Catholicism is best represented by the Catholicism of the 16th century."
Right, but the thesis of this article is that Catholicism can't survive, or in other words to compare current reality to a Catholicism arbitrarily far in the future. If you can compare current reality to an unknown and fabricated future, why can't I compare actual documented history to now?
"And it's not as if Calvin's understanding of the Bible is the gold standard"
Haha, we'll add (f) to the list of weak responses: "our beliefs are so amorphous and our doctrines are so swaying with the winds of change and current theories about how to interpret the bible, that you can't even link us to Calvinists of the past!!
" Say 90% of Calvin's Geneva was Calvinist. Say today Geneva's population is only 10% Calvinist. How does tracking a single city in the 1500s until today, even if it has declined considerably, imply Calvinism as a whole has "declined in all places and to all times"? This is just dumb. "
It's called math. Maybe you heard of it. If Geneva was 90% Calvinist, and no city ever has got to that number, then it's inexorable decline. All places beca1310671use no place had ever regained those numbers. All times, because no time has ever regained them.
@John
Delete"No come on, oh contrary one. If we're told you have nothing without a pope and you can't survive, then you're completely dependent. That's logic."
No come on, oh Orthodox apologist! There's a difference between being "completely dependent" and being, say, "dependent on core components." Completely dependent assumes these are in toto explanations. That's logic.
More importantly, as Steve mentioned, you're attempting to recast the issue.
But it's like you can't juggle more than one or two thoughts in your head at the same time.
"Haha, we'll add (f) to the list of weak responses: 'our beliefs are so amorphous and our doctrines are so swaying with the winds of change and current theories about how to interpret the bible, that you can't even link us to Calvinists of the past!!'"
Laugh it up, fuzzball! :) (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
Just because you fail to understand Calvinism doesn't mean Calvinism is "amorphous," etc. It just means you're ignorant about Calvinism. And again as I've already pointed out to you multiple times, an apologist should accurately represent his opponent even if he vehemently disagrees with his opponent. Well, at least if the apologist wishes to make a sound argument. But of course expecting an argument let alone a sound argument from John the Orthodox apologist may be expecting a bit too much.
Plus, I never said "you can't even link us to Calvinists of the past." At the risk of sounding like a broken record, that's another one of your tendentious characterizations. All I said was these are a distant second to how the Bible is best understood and interpreted.
This likewise doesn't imply Calvin's interpretation is second-rate, just that he was a man of his times. At the risk of stating the obvious, we've had several centuries of textual, archaeological, and many other discoveries which shed further light on the Bible. It doesn't change what the Bible means, but it does help understand the Bible better. On the other hand, perhaps Orthodoxy is too feeble and senile to keep up with such developments.
"It's called math. Maybe you heard of it. If Geneva was 90% Calvinist, and no city ever has got to that number, then it's inexorable decline. All places beca1310671use no place had ever regained those numbers. All times, because no time has ever regained them."
It's also called logic. I'm sure you haven't heard of it. :)
How do you know "no city ever has got to that number"? Sure, this may be true, but it may just as well be false. But as is your habit, you just keep making assertions without evidence.
The rest of what you say is just a sad reflection of your hard-headed stupidity. Ironically (considering your math remark) it also displays your lack of mathematical acumen. After all, by your "logic," or "math" if you prefer, a little Greek village in the hills with 10 people all of whom claim to be Orthodox should be the benchmark for Orthodoxy. If it can be demonstrated this little village went from a population of 10 out of 10 Orthodox individuals (100%) to a population of 1 out of 5 Orthodox individuals (20%) over the last 100 years (or whatever), then according to your "logic" or "mathematics" it'd be "inexorable decline" and "All places because no place had ever regained those numbers" and "All times, because no time has ever regained them."
@John
Delete"It's called math. Maybe you heard of it. If Geneva was 90% Calvinist, and no city ever has got to that number, then it's inexorable decline. All places beca1310671use no place had ever regained those numbers. All times, because no time has ever regained them."
By your "logic" or "math," if a city was 90% Calvinist, but then it declined to 50% Calvinist solely because non-Calvinists moved into the city (and no Calvinists left or died), you would say it would show Calvinism is "inexorable decline."
"At the risk of stating the obvious, we've had several centuries of textual, archaeological, and many other discoveries which shed further light on the Bible. "
DeleteYawn. Wake me up will you, when you've had enough textual studies and dug up enough old rocks, so that you can know what the bible says, will you? Then we'll all know (for now) what God said, until you dig up the next old rock.
"How do you know "no city ever has got to that number"?"
Because I'm a keen observer of the world. Surprised you didn't notice.
"by your "logic," or "math" if you prefer, a little Greek village in the hills with 10 people all of whom claim to be Orthodox should be the benchmark for Orthodoxy."
Clearly a little Greek village in the hills is not the height of Orthodoxy, because Orthodoxy reached greater heights in ubiquitous influence. Would you like to nominate a stronger peak for Calvinist influence than Calvin's Geneva?
"By your "logic" or "math," if a city was 90% Calvinist, but then it declined to 50% Calvinist solely because non-Calvinists moved into the city (and no Calvinists left or died), you would say it would show Calvinism is "inexorable decline.""
Well, if the population doubled from immigration, and you failed to convert a single one of them, as in your example, yeah, that would quite likely be the beginning of the decline for that belief system.
@John
Delete"Yawn. Wake me up will you"
The fact that you've been asleep this entire time may help explain why your "arguments" have been so inert! :)
"when you've had enough textual studies and dug up enough old rocks, so that you can know what the bible says, will you? Then we'll all know (for now) what God said, until you dig up the next old rock."
Sigh. Another tendentious characterization about what I actually said. Is one reason you keep saying the same thing over and over again despite being corrected numerous times because you lack imagination? LPT: if you can't be right, at least try to be interesting.
"Because I'm a keen observer of the world. Surprised you didn't notice."
Ah, I see, so you believe your "keen observ[ation]" is what establishes facts. Ironic considering you're the one who originally faulted others for "thinking [they] are the centre of the universe." :)
"Clearly a little Greek village in the hills is not the height of Orthodoxy, because Orthodoxy reached greater heights in ubiquitous influence."
I'm just answering you on your own grounds. Try to keep up if you can! :)
"Would you like to nominate a stronger peak for Calvinist influence than Calvin's Geneva?"
There's no need for me "to nominate a stronger peak for Calvinist influence" since that's not even my argument in the first place. You're the one who keeps trying to frame the debate in terms of Calvin's Geneva as the standard by which to measure whether Calvinism has "flourished" or "declined." But if one doesn't grant any of this, then what's the point in "nominat[ing]" anything at all? Or do you hope others can make your argument for you since you evidently can't do it on your own?
"Well, if the population doubled from immigration, and you failed to convert a single one of them, as in your example"
Nope. Conversion wasn't part of my example. Nor was it logically implied in my example. You have some serious deficiencies in basic reading comprehension and elementary reasoning. Alas, it's enough to feel badly for Orthodoxy to know you're one of its "apologists"! :(
"yeah, that would quite likely be the beginning of the decline for that belief system."
But let's grant "conversion" should be part of the equation. I could just as well say the following. Say a city once had 100,000 Calvinists and 0 non-Calvinists - i.e. a 100% Calvinist city. Say over the years it has reached 1,000,000 Calvinists due to various factors including conversions. But say the city now has 9,000,000 non-Calvinists due to immigration. Thus the city is now 10% Calvinist and 90% non-Calvinist. Yet it would appear Calvinists have experienced a ten-fold increase in numbers, from 100,000 to 1,000,000 Calvinists. As such, there'd be no good reason to think Calvinists have "declined" over the years despite their "drop" in proportion to the total population. In other words, both Calvinists and non-Calvinist could each have "flourished" over the years. So your "argument" is still a shoddy argument, whether or not one grants "conversions." Now, what was that about "math" you mentioned earlier? :)
"I didn't accuse Catholicism of being in "decline." And I didn't contrast that with Catholicism "flourishing." You're recasting the post in your own categories, not mine."
ReplyDeleteSo what? I reserve the right to apply categories to bring some order to the random disorganised statements made in articles like this. When you use terms like "never recovered" and "lost ground", like a normal person I interpret that as a claim of decline.
"I didn't accuse Catholicism of being in "decline." And I didn't contrast that with Catholicism "flourishing." You're recasting the post in your own categories, not mine.
"And if I wanted to use those categories, I wouldn't defining "flourishing" or "decline" in primarily quantitative rather than qualitative terms. "
When you say "the church of Rome is not going away, HOWEVER consider how much ground it's lost " that certainly sounds like a statement about numbers. But with the level of backtracking that goes on around here, why does it not surprise me you want to nuance everything you claimed out of existence?
It wasn't a claim about numerical decline or flourishing, but about "survival." That's how I framed the issue. Sorry you're so easily confused.
DeleteJohn:
Delete"When it's pointed out that Calvinism's decline is far worse we have squirming on all fronts, claiming (a) yes, the numbers are appalling, but boy are the few remnants flourishing and influential!!!"
I didn't affirm or deny that Calvinism is either flourishing or influential at present. That's irrelevant to the post.
"Even faithful Catholics believe that true apostolic succession takes place apart from Rome, so why anyone would think Catholicism is completely dependent on Rome, I don't know."
Are you addling to sedevacantists? They're running out of oxygen. Take Matatics.
"Yes, there are some, arguably important differences between regular Catholics and sede vacantists. But I suspect many modern Calvinists would have been executed in Calvin's Geneva for differences over various things too."
A red herring. Calvinism doesn't depend on apostolic succession. Your analogy is vitiated by patent equivocation.
"Now when someone tells me where Calvinism is a bigger portion of the population than Calvin's Geneva, then we can say it hasn't declined in all places and to all times. Until then the point is unassailed."
i) Your point is pointless. Irrelevant to the post.
ii) And even if I wanted to recast the issue in terms of flourishing, I wouldn't do so in mainly quantitative terms.
"It wasn't a claim about numerical decline or flourishing, but about "survival.""
DeleteOh, and survival has nothing to do with numbers? Really? How does that work exactly?
"A red herring. Calvinism doesn't depend on apostolic succession. "
Point being what? Your claim was Catholicism can't survive without a pope, and I pointed out that Catholicism itself doesn't claim that.
You keep trying to salvage your original mistake. Numerical flourishing and numerical survival are two different things.
DeleteWhen you assert that "Catholicism itself doesn't claim that," are you still alluding to sedevacantists? If so, that's hardly normative Calvinism. It's schismatic and sectarian.
@John
ReplyDeleteI'll just make some general observations:
1. Evidently my above examples illustrating your inability to do basic apologetics have hit quite a nerve with you! :)
2. So now you're back in the attempt to show otherwise. But regrettably your most recent comments don't exactly help your case as an apologist.
In fact, you're digging yourself into a deeper hole with each comment you make. Every time you open your mouth to say something, it just provides more examples about how you can't complete simple tasks expected in basic apologetics. Such as follow an argument, back up an assertion with a source or other evidence, and accurately represent your opponent before you criticize his argument(s) even or perhaps especially if you disagree with him.
Again, all this is deliciously ironic considering you write for an Orthodox apologetics blog.
3. Assuming they're at least half-decent apologists, you might consider asking your co-bloggers for advice about how to improve, since you're unlikely to want to hear it from us.
4. Otherwise, at least consider Prov. 17:28: "Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent."
That's hilarious considering that every assertion both you and Steve have made in this thread I've shown to be either wrong, uninformed, or just unsupported by evidence.
Delete@John
Delete"That's hilarious considering that every assertion both you and Steve have made in this thread I've shown to be either wrong, uninformed, or just unsupported by evidence."
Saying so doesn't make it so. You can keep making assertions over and over again until you're blue in the face (which you appear intent on doing). But if anyone cares, they can read what you've written and see just how poorly what you've said holds up. Better luck next time! :)