My intention was to talk about the “history of ideas”, and in that sense, in the illustration nearby, you can see that in the flow and history of ideas, especially in talking about western Europe, that there was a very long time when Roman Catholicism was the only game in town.
On 4 September 476, one hundred years after the Goths crossed the Danube, the last Roman emperor in the west, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed, and it was the descendants of those Gothic refugees who provided the military core of one of the main successor states to the Empire: the Visigothic kingdom. … (Heather, Peter. The Fall of the Roman Empire (p. xi). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.)The papacy after that point held to a “two-swords” theory of power and authority. In 494 AD, not long after the city of Rome was sacked, “Pope Gelasius” wrote to the then-emperor Anastasius “on the superiority of the spiritual over temporal power”:
There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment.This pronouncement set the tone for political order in western Europe for the next 1000 years.
You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation.
In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.
And so, when I say that Roman Catholicism was THE source for all of our cultural and political difficulties today, it is this event that I had in mind.
* * *
Just to give you a brief outline of the political history of Europe from that point, the pope, “Pope Leo”, crowned Charlemagne as emperor of the Holy Roman empire in 800 AD. By 1054, the eastern and western churches officially split (after much bickering prior), effectively severing the western from the eastern empire as well. The “high middle ages” represent almost a total “reconstruction” of the old Roman empire. Peter Heather cites a letter of Peter Damian, who was one of the Cardinals in the inner circle of the Roman hierarchy in the eleventh century:
Now the Roman Church, the see of the apostles, should imitate the ancient court of the Romans. Just as of old the earthly Senate strove to subdue the whole multitude of the peoples to the Roman Empire, so now the ministers of the apostolic see, the spiritual senators of the Church Universal, should make it their sole business by their laws to subdue the human race to God, the true emperor. (Heather, Peter. The Restoration of Rome (p. 388). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.)
This was a period of period of great accomplishment. Local church and monastic “schools” came together over time, eventually leading to the founding of the great universities of Bologna, Paris, and Oxford. New religious orders such as the Dominicans (teachers) and Franciscans (“friars minor”) formed and also developed “schools of thought”. Writers such as Anselm of Canterbury, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, and others worked greatly to synthesize what was known of Christian doctrine.
That period also offered many troubles. Thomas Aquinas wrote a long work, “Error of the Greeks”, which gave reasons that the eastern churches should submit to the papacy – it had to be retracted later, because its arguments were found to be heavily reliant on forged documents that were rampant during the prior centuries.
The “great schism” also developed during that time, when political infighting led to a time when there were two and even three “popes” in place. English kings realized that their land-owning allies would not necessarily fight every war without having some say-so, leading to the development of a bi-cameral parliament.
William of Ockham dared to write about “papal tyranny”. Marsellius of Padua wrote a treatise that led to the idea that government involvement of the citizenry that would provide for the best political systems.
* * *
During that 1000 year period, however, there was really only the one source of political power, and its “source” was the papacy. All political and religious thought was either an affirmation of or rejection of the thinking and institutions that were in place at the time.
With this kind of history in mind, it is hard for me to imagine that I “overreact” to Roman Catholicism, by the way. There is such a thing as specialization. Nobody ever said that Stephen Hawking (for example) spent too much of his life studying physics.
It seems to me that most people don’t pay enough attention to it, and in that way, they are missing a lot. The damage is not a surface kind of damage. It lies deeper, in the underlying thinking of things.
That kind of phenomenon is still in place today, although to a much lesser degree. It is the kind of thing I have in mind as I write this.
So, back to First Things. THEY SAY: “Culture is the root of politics, and religion is the root of culture.” For a 1000 year period of time, the papacy was at the root of religion AND politics. Perhaps there is some of that they would want you to stop thinking about. At the time of the Reformation, John Calvin was absolutely right to say that the papacy was the institution through which “satan has polluted every good thing that God has appointed for our salvation.” I did not think it would be controversial on a Reformed blog to repeat such a thing.
The historical papacy has polluted much else, too, and the effects are still with us today, either in the form of affirmations of, or rejections of, papal thinking and teaching.
I say all of this as background for some of the things I hope to discuss going forward. Perhaps I should have outlined it better before I got started. As I said in an earlier comment, I do appreciate your feedback and even your objections. If I’m going to be writing about this topic moving forward (as I hope to do), it is true that “iron sharpens iron”, and you all are helping me to better focus my thoughts.
I don't think anyone had any problems with you saying the roman catholic church is corrupt and evil and everything else, but I don't see how catholics down the ages (medieval catholics) are connected with how theyre ruining American culture today? Im not disagreeing theres a connection but I dont see how you're making the connection.
ReplyDeleteIdeas.
DeleteYes but how do you trace these catholic ideas when these catholic ideas have evolved through the ages. Medieval catholic ideas are very different from catholic ideas after Vatican II. Augustine is very differnet from Anselm from Aquinas from pope Francis. American cultural ideas on the left are influenced from different sources, why is it mainly catholic ideas that are the main culprit? Seems socialism or communism would be more influential on the american left. But maybe you are saying medieval catholic ideas are the main source of socialism or communism?
DeleteToday does the left heed the catholic church as much as the catholic church heeds the left?
DeleteI've written about this a bit in the past, but much more needs to be said. Stephen Hicks, in his "Explaining Postmodernism" posits that there really only have been three (and maybe only two) "philosophical premises". These include the "pre-modern", the "modern" or "enligtenment", and now the "post-modern". Obviously, these things fall into the realm of "ideas", and so there are no hard-and fast lines of demarcations. But it is still possible to identify where "individualism" or "group" think, for example -- the "intersectionalism" of our day wants to put everyone into groups, as opposed to, say, the "individualism" of the enlightenment era.
Delete(And if you think that these are really categories that are too blunt into which to put the whole big world of ideas, consider that Francis Schaeffer said that there were only three possible "beginnings" to the universe: that it had a "personal" beginning; that it had an "impersonal" beginning ("time-plus-chance")" or just simply that it came from "nothing" (or as he said it, "nothing-nothing"). Everything else is just a variation on one of those three. (And the third, he said, was inconceivable, and so he quickly dismissed even that).
I am looking at the rioting and the political situation, and I am working very hard to understand what is going on, particularly from a historical perspective. Hicks posited that "modernism" was a response to "pre-modernism", and "post-modernism" is a response to "modernism". There are different manifestations.
If I'm not saying things as quickly and as thoroughly as you'd like, it's because I'm writing these things with the idea of writing them into a book. Not sure if I'll ever finish it, but a friend of mine tells me that I need to work on some things a little bit every day.
Meanwhile, I'm hoping to shed some light on what's going on in the political sense so that Christians can have some clear thoughts in mind as to how to address it.
Today does the left heed the catholic church as much as the catholic church heeds the left?
DeleteIt is not a question of "heeding" or of "not heeding". It is a question of where the ideas came from, what kinds of things they led to (or against). For example, it is well known that the French Revolution involved a total rejection of Roman Catholicism in the late 18th century. That wasn't very helpful at all, for anyone, and it turned into a bloody mess.
John, thank you for the explanations. I still dont see it but im not the sharpest tool in the shed. The catholic church itself could fit into premodern, modern and postmodern depending the historical period were talking about. I dont understand what Schaffers beginnings of the universe had to do with your argument about the catholic church being the main culprit behind leftist politics, either. Maybe ill have to wait for your book to see your entire argument. Its hard to see it piece by piece for me.
DeleteI'm tracking with you John, and look forward to more to come.
DeleteDQ, you wrote:
"Yes but how do you trace these catholic ideas when these catholic ideas have evolved through the ages."
I assume you look for patterns of thought which have been, or were pervasive throughout history and see if there is a link to modern or post-modern thought today. For example, leftist politics today is really all about placing POWER into the hands of a centralized authority to fix all things. That looks a lot like the papacy of old, doesn't it?
Now we know for certain we are best governed under a centralized authority, that authority being God Himself... but the Scriptures are clear, while we are here in cursed creation, we should not seek a king to fix all our problems. To do so is to reject God as King over us (1 Samuel 8:7). We also know that Jesus is the everlasting King, and Hebrews tells us He is also our High Priest. The NT is clear about the Apostles setting up a plurality of elders in different towns to lead churches.
So how did we get to the idea of a centralized monarchical episcopate? And out of that, what kind of thoughts pervade today? What kind of thoughts pervaded throughout history?
The idea that the "WORLD" and not nation, should be governed under one authority... which is a growing idea today amongst leftist globalists, could be traced to papalism... but it could also be traced beyond that back to the Ancient pagan Rome, Ancient Greece, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians.
I'm not saying John rests his case on a centralized power, I'm just demonstrating quickly how ideas can be passed on throughout history in contradiction to God's Word.
One step remains in my example, which I did not close the loop on... I would need to show how the ideas subverted our nation's historic ideas of democracy, (ie through what systems?) The system does not have to be the modern Roman Catholic Church. Ideas grow wings.
French revolution seems to have more in common with modern leftists than the catholic church, like you said the French revolution rejected religion, that seems more similar to leftists today rejecting Christian foundations. Just saying.
DeleteNG, if it's about centralized power, then that could be traced back to even before the catholic church ever existed. To despots or tyrants. Maybe tonthr Roman Empire, too. Its like regurgitating The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. You can connect almost anything with anything else that way.
DeleteThanks NG
DeleteI assume you look for patterns of thought which have been, or were pervasive throughout history and see if there is a link to modern or post-modern thought today. For example, leftist politics today is really all about placing POWER into the hands of a centralized authority to fix all things. That looks a lot like the papacy of old, doesn't it?
Seems that way to me.
The NT is clear about the Apostles setting up a plurality of elders in different towns to lead churches.
So how did we get to the idea of a centralized monarchical episcopate? And out of that, what kind of thoughts pervade today? What kind of thoughts pervaded throughout history?
The whole Roman empire (following the reign of Augustus) was built on the notion of a hierarchy, with Augustus proclaiming himself not "emperor" (although that's what he functionally became), but "principate", or "first citizen". The wealthy of Rome -- senators, landowners, etc., could find their places in this hierarchy, which itself was based not so much on wealth but on "honor".
I think the monarchical episcopate was a response to and a reflection of this Roman civil schema, and Allen Brent, whom I will be quoting to some large degree in the near future, wrote to that effect.
Interestingly, in our day, the left is all about "equality" -- which itself is a response to the notion of hierarchy. And Jordan Peterson has been writing a kind of secular ("modern") version of the necessity for "hierarchy" in nature.
The thing that I'd like to do is to look for legitimately Biblical and Christian ways to talk about things like "hierarchy" -- Israel's demand for a king, God's giving them a king, the notion that Christ already rules and reigns (see my post entitled "God Rules", which I'll likely link to, for example).
Steve's thought in recent years was that it is "naturalism" that is Christianity's greatest enemy. I agree with him. And both "modernism" and "post-modernism" fall within that realm of thought. What I'd like to do is to find some good and useful way of talking about "supernaturalism" (for want of a better term at this point) -- looking for a way forward wherein we all understand that "In the beginning, God created ..." without it being relegated by other sound thinkers of our time to be relegated to the "pre-modern".
Understandably, then, this creates the need for another category, beyond the three that Hicks mentions. We need some sort of Christian Supernatural category that enables Christians to navigate in the current world of "postmodernism" and "technology". We need to address those things head-on.
Christianity has not fared well in our world, in a number of realms: legislatively, judicially, culturally, intellectually. Some, like Alvin Plantinga, have sought to use the world's intellectual resources, and his notion of "Warranted Christian Belief" provides some good foundational work for us.
But it seems to me that it falls far short of useful in the current environment.
Christians, and Christianity, need to be smart in the current environment.
DQ: I dont understand what Schaffers beginnings of the universe had to do with your argument about the catholic church being the main culprit behind leftist politics, either. Maybe ill have to wait for your book to see your entire argument. Its hard to see it piece by piece for me.
DeleteJust an analogy showing that some things, complex as they are, can boil down to just a few broad causal explanations. Both "personal, impersonal, and nothing beginnnings" and "pre-modern, modern, and post-modern thought" may fit into those broad categories.
John, I accept thats true of many things. Just not sure how its true of what youre trying to say. But I understand youre still working on it.
DeleteAt this point I'm just saying that Hicks is doing the same thing that Schaeffer did in grouping things into three broad categories.
DeleteDQ,
DeleteI was not saying it is about power. I was using an incomplete example to demonstrate how you tie historical thought to current leftist policy. Obviously I have not studied this matter to a conclusion, but I do not need a fully developed thought to understand a process. You said,
“if it's about centralized power, then that could be traced back to even before the Catholic Church...”
And yet I already noted that when I wrote,
“The idea that the "WORLD" and not nation, should be governed under one authority... which is a growing idea today amongst leftist globalists, could be traced to papalism... but it could also be traced beyond that back to the Ancient pagan Rome, Ancient Greece, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians.”
Centralized power may just be ONE aspect of a larger, and more developed world view which was first born in the 5th century. There are likely unique qualities in papalism which cannot be found in previous thought developed by Ancient Greek philosophers. Monotheism on a global level changed thought, and in fact, you could argue that papalism constrained thought by perpetuating the, “get in line or get tied to the stake and burned,” thought.
It could be argued that Ancient Greeks welcomed differences in thought. They debated and argued, but the various Mystery Religions in support of a plethora of gods and schools of philosophical thought tell us the emperors were tolerant at some level of differences in thought.
Wielding power to force thought compliance is pervasive today. Leftist believe they are justified to root out and convert or kill differences in thought. Looks a lot like the inquisition.
Papalism may have been the advent of a centrailized authority, merged with a very specific ideology, wherein the authority was used to enforce the ideology. It may have been the first time the philosophers wielded true power to force compliance. That sounds like a leftist utopia.
Again... “may” have been. I have certainly NOT thought this through fully, nor studied it to a great extent.
NQ, you've written alot about a trivial example. Still doesnt change the principle point to John. Another example is Jesus mythicists. Its easy for Jesus mythicists to see patterns or connections between Jesus and resurrected gods in pagan myths but that doesnt prove Jesus is a myth like other pagan myths with resurrected gods just because someone sees patterns or connections. John sees connections from medieval catholicism to modern leftism, but that doesnt mean patterns or connections are really there even though John claims to see them. But maybe John has a better case than Jesus mythicists. Hes still working on it he says so I withhold final judgment.
DeleteDQ,
DeleteRemember you said to me,
“if it's about centralized power, then that could be traced back to even before the catholic church ever existed. To despots or tyrants. Maybe tonthr Roman Empire, too. Its like regurgitating The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. You can connect almost anything with anything else that way.”
Yes. I agree. You can connect almost any thought to an earlier thought, which is why it takes more study and analysis, (ie piling on building blocks) to conclusively declare a particular thought pattern’s origin.
My examples were meant to simply show how that building begins, NOT how it is finished.
I am highlighting the process. You seem to think I am answering the question or advocating for a final outcome. I’m not.
I see merit in the premise perhaps.
Your example, played out with good historical research fails every time. The building blocks crumble under critical historic research.
I gave two examples off the top of my head which seem rather obvious. You said they are trivial. OK, maybe they are, but they were never meant to stand on their own without a lot of supporting evidence. I have not provided that evidence because I am not trying to prove the point. I am highlighting the process to answer the question you asked originally,
"Yes but how do you trace these catholic ideas when these catholic ideas have evolved through the ages."
You trace thought, and you prove your case by building upon your hypothesis.
Perhaps you disagree with the process I outlined. OK. But I am not trying to prove John’s premise by simply giving a couple examples, which is what I believe you are implying I am trying to do by giving an example of the Jesus myths not proving something simply because there is an apparent similarity.
I am not saying the premise is true because of apparent similarities. I’m noting some possible building blocks to show the process has merit and possibility. Further study and analysis could very well crumble my examples, but even if it does, the process remains the same.
If my examples are proven correct, they alone would not prove John’s premise. They would be only be one building block.
NG, theres a reason i phrased it as a conditional statement to you origins. But all this is besides the point because were now debating each other in how to correctly interpret what John is trying to do or say. Youre even trying to improve Johns argument for him. But the problem with all this is its not JOHN saying any of this or doing any of the work but you and I are going back and forth about what JOHN should be doing. Does that make sense?
DeleteIn case im not making sense, what I mean is you and I are going back and forth trying to make sense of Johns arguments, but its better to actually hear from John.
DeleteDQ, I have some ideas and I am thinking things through. I have not tried to write a blog post yet that gives the entire argument I'm making in bullet point form. Although I think over time I will get things to that point. My hope is precisely to provoke discussions in such a way that my thoughts *can* be improved upon (or not!).
DeleteJohn, its one thing to provoke discussion when theres already a concrete idea to discuss, but its another thing to provoke discussion in order to get a new idea because theres not much of an idea there in the first place.
DeleteDQ, Yes. I agree, and understand. I intentionally chose examples pertaining to the topic to both illustrate the point I was making about the process while interacting with the topic.
DeleteThe comments section is intended for such interaction. John even made the comment that he appreciates the dialogue because “iron sharpens iron.”
This comments section allows us to add building blocks to support the premise, (not prove it), or destroy those building blocks one by one so the premise no longer stands.
I personally think the premise may be a bridge too far, but I see merit in the process and even possibly in the premise itself. For me, there’s more of a challenge thinking through possible connections than simply dismissing the whole premise off-hand.
John, respect, youve written alot of blogs about this so far but I still havent seen much of an argument? Its just something about medieval catholics methods of manipulation and their corrupt ideas somehow related to leftism today. How many more blogs before we can get something more meaty?
DeleteNG, thanks thats a fair reply I agree with you.
DeleteOnly thing is it feels weird were like students in a classroom while John is the teacher letting us figure out what hes trying to do, provoking ideas, giving us building blocks to build our own ideas. Seems like were being treated like children but maybe I'm misreading.
DeleteI assume this topic is too big to cover in a few blog entries. I think John has a framework a general premise and some evidence to support his thoughts; he is testing some of his thoughts in these blog entries. He is still learning.
DeleteI think when you study a topic, at some point you become convinced of a specific position with the mounting evidence. That doesn’t mean you know all there is to know, or that your position is right.
If that is where John is, I assume he is putting some thoughts out there in digestible form so people can consider and provide feedback to disprove or improve his position.
It’s a shared learning experience, which is the best way to learn.
I appreciate your comments as well as others. They challenge me to think.
I appreciate you guys.
DeleteThanks John, NG. I appreciate you guys, too. I like exploring ideas, too. Each of these ideas is interesting -- medieval catholicism of Aquinas, Anselm, modern catholicism rat zinger and Francis, also French revolution and Enlightenment ideas, modern leftism, wokism, BLM Marxism, socialism, communism, cancel culture, everything. May be best to read a history of philosophy ideas book to really dig into these ideas and see how they developed. Recommendations?
DeleteDQ, I'm primarily working from the perspective of John Frame in his "History of Western Philosophy and Theology". Frame says at a couple of points in the book that (and I'm paraphrasing) the whole philosophical enterprise from the Greeks to the present time are huge failures because they put human reason above God".
DeleteThis is from his epilogue: In the preface, I mentioned that Van Til saw his historical work as a form of apologetic. He believed that the best apologetic would carry weight not only with the man on the street, but also with the opinion-makers of the academy and society. So he tried to show in his historical writing that thought-systems denying biblical presuppositions fall into incoherence. I have tried to write this book so that readers can see that a biblical philosophy and theology can prevail against even the most intelligent among its detractors. And an apologetic that does that can be made to prevail against unbelief also in the man on the street.
Frame, John M.. A History of Western Philosophy and Theology (pp. 560-561). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.
John, thank you! Ill have to look at this book. Catholics and leftism have probably placed human reason above God, and now reason might be giving way to tribal relativism, maybe that can be a good theme for you to pursue to connect these two?
DeleteI think the difficulties are two-fold, and they really don't have much to do with modern day Roman Catholicism, directly. I think Roman Catholicism really has dug its own grave. And I think that is largely because, as Frame says, Rome has put its own faith in its own sense of "reason" and has (for one reason or another, including unreasonable reasons, fallen into incoherence, because they deny biblical propositions). It is their very "method of thinking" that does this. In some comment somewhere in here I've given a more thorough reason.
DeleteHere is that particular comment
A bigger problem, I think, has to do with the fact that postmodernism has corroded the very nature of truth, and this type of thinking is hugely widespread not only in universities now, but all throughout the world of "wokedom". This lack of an ability for things to be true (all of them are "social constructs", constructed by people with power, until recently all of them "white males of European descent").
Why this is harmful is evident if you are watching the rioting that is going on. Trump says that he can call in the National Guard and stop the riots in an hour. Maybe he can, but the "thinking" behind all of it will not go away. It is still hugely pervasive, it is well-funded, and it is, in fact, a "new religion" that has adherents that now seem to be "sacrificing their lives" for the cause.
John, yes I agree with all this. Ive heard others talk about these things, too. There are good books and movies about postmodernism corroding truth and everything youre saying. Its what radical socialists always do, tear down the established institutions to make way for their new dystopian society. I shudder thinking the left wants this today. Frightening future.
DeleteIt depends on what town you are talking about. There have always been a variety of Christian sects, though the growth of the power of the Roman church made it the most prominent in all of Christendom by far for a time. I would say this prominence had two prongs that both stemmed from its sacralism:
ReplyDelete1. The RCC was wed with the state in an unholy matrimony of military power and the incentive to develop bad theology that supported the corruption inherent with crossing church offices with political offices.
2. The RCC became the force that preserved the culture and academia while the Roman Empire devolved into feudalism.
The Reformation benefited from the academic preservation and was fueled by a rejection of the sacral corruption, so we can attribute the Reformation to both of these in their own way.
I would also say that the Catholic church has suffered from trying to maintain the theological corruption due to its former strong sacralism to the detriment of its preservation of culture and academics in the wake of its decline in power. Instead of recognizing its flaws, Catholics have doubled down on error, all in an attempt to preserve not academics and culture, but what little power they have left. Since their thinking is fundamentally flawed, its no wonder that they have started to bow to evil political movements.
Jim, this is good and this makes alot of sense to me.
DeleteDQ has said much of what needs to be said. I want to reiterate and supplement some of his comments.
ReplyDeleteThe sort of associations between Roman Catholicism and leftism that John has cited so far are reminiscent of arguments that Christianity was derived from paganism, that Christmas is pagan, etc. Ironically, there's also some resemblance to the left's efforts to blame events of the seventeenth century, the nineteenth century, or whenever for problems that seem to be far more rooted in more recent factors. Similarly, we often see people blame their parents or their childhood for their current situation far more than they ought to.
Let's say a nation in Europe that had been Catholic during the era of history John is highlighting were to become Islamic at some point. If that nation were to develop certain problems a century into its time as an Islamic nation - problems that have some precedent in both Catholicism and Islam (e.g., the manipulation of language) - do you blame those problems on Islam, Catholicism, both, or neither? It depends on factors I haven't mentioned. You can't answer the question simply by appealing to the fact that the nation was Catholic before it was Islamic, the fact that the nation was Catholic for a longer period of time, the fact that the Pope claimed so much authority during the medieval era, or some other such factor.
We need to keep in mind how dangerous it is to misjudge what's behind a problem like leftism. It's not just a matter of being inaccurate, misrepresenting Catholics and Catholicism, damaging our standing with Catholics, etc. Those are bad and should be taken into account, but we also should keep in mind that misdirecting people's attention to Catholicism hinders the effort to address leftism in an appropriate way.
In his earlier threads, John made much of Roman Catholicism's manipulation of language, and he highlighted that alleged connection between Catholicism and leftism as what he was heading for in his series of posts. Has Catholicism manipulated language? Yes. But Satan, Adam, and Eve were already pretty good at manipulating language long before Catholicism came along. So were a lot of other people. And once Catholicism arrived, even the people most influenced by it had various non-Catholic motives and means for manipulating language. There's a lot of manipulating of language that goes on in families, for example, between spouses, between parents and children, and among siblings. The families who lived in Catholic Europe when Catholicism was at the height of its political standing didn't need any help from the Pope or Catholicism more broadly to manipulate language. Today's leftists have been preceded by millennia of language-manipulating governments, businesses, philosophers, marketers, etc. John wrote:
"To put it bluntly, it is the Roman Catholic mastery of the art of language manipulation that is 'the source of all of our troubles'."
That's far too vague of a connection to single out Roman Catholicism or something like medieval Catholicism, the papacy, or a pronouncement from Pope Gelasius.
Jason said: The sort of associations between Roman Catholicism and leftism that John has cited so far are reminiscent of arguments that Christianity was derived from paganism, that Christmas is pagan, etc.
DeletePerhaps you missed this comment where I outlined the broader line of thinking that I'm aiming for:
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/08/medievalism-as-source.html?showComment=1598529796642#c1435969842742865748
Or this one:
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/08/medievalism-as-source.html?showComment=1598532376968#c4551844463608087141
Or perhaps you've missed the comments where NG says "I'm tracking with you John". So you are missing my point, but someone "gets it".
In any event, you have failed to show how my "associations" are similar to "arguments that Christianity was derived from paganism, that Christmas is pagan, etc." Take a look at the two linked comments here and see if your criticisms are still valid.
Jason said: Ironically, there's also some resemblance to the left's efforts to blame events of the seventeenth century, the nineteenth century, or whenever for problems that seem to be far more rooted in more recent factors.
This is very vague. Can you point to some specific examples and tell me how what I am doing compares with them?
Jason said: Similarly, we often see people blame their parents or their childhood for their current situation far more than they ought to.
Again, what is the connection? You are making very vague accusations here.
Let's say a nation in Europe that had been Catholic during the era of history John is highlighting were to become Islamic at some point. If that nation were to develop certain problems a century into its time as an Islamic nation - problems that have some precedent in both Catholicism and Islam (e.g., the manipulation of language) - do you blame those problems on Islam, Catholicism, both, or neither? It depends on factors I haven't mentioned. You can't answer the question simply by appealing to the fact that the nation was Catholic before it was Islamic, the fact that the nation was Catholic for a longer period of time, the fact that the Pope claimed so much authority during the medieval era, or some other such factor.
This is non-sequitur. I am not talking about nations, or problems of nations. I am talking about ideas, which are not culturally-dependent. They can be traced through time.
For example, if you were to have some patience, you would find that I am going to discuss the kind of thing that I mentioned in this comment from Steve's post on "Enlightment Skepticism"
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/12/catholic-fideism.html
Steve cites from "a standard work on Enlightenment Skepticism" by Richard Popkin. I actually used Popkin's work to discuss current trends in Roman Catholic "ecumenical" discussions, in a paper that I wrote for the World Evangelical Alliance journal, here:
https://johnbugay.com/2020/08/25/negotiating-with-roman-catholicism/
Similarly, I have two works on "the history of the development of doctrine" (one of whom is "Bossuet to Newman", by Owen Chadwick, and the other of which is "From Newman to Congar", by Aiden Nichols.
I believe you said you read Allen Brent's work on Ignatius. In that case, you would understand Brent's argument that much of the hyperbole in Ignatius is due to his having been influenced by "the Second Sophistic".
All of these things track ideas through time, in specific ways.
More to follow.
Jason wrote:
DeleteWe need to keep in mind how dangerous it is to misjudge what's behind a problem like leftism. It's not just a matter of being inaccurate, misrepresenting Catholics and Catholicism, damaging our standing with Catholics, etc. Those are bad and should be taken into account, but we also should keep in mind that misdirecting people's attention to Catholicism hinders the effort to address leftism in an appropriate way.
I listened some time ago to a lecture series by James Anderson in which he mentioned that Kant, Schleiermacher, Hegel, and maybe one or two other "enlightenment" figures were sons of Lutheran pastors. That does not quite make the connection with Roman Catholicism, but there is also the Tubingen school, which is thoroughly Roman Catholic.
As for the connection to Roman Catholicism, Herman Bavinck wrote, “Around 1750 Reformed theology fell into decay”. (“Reformed Dogmatics”, Volume 1: Prolegomena, ed. John Bolt, trans John Vriend, pp. 189-190). He does so in a chapter devoted to defining “Reformed Dogmatics” (the title of his work), which features sub-titles including the following:
Lutherans and Calvinists
The Beginnings of Reformed Theology
Reformed Scholasticism
Challenges: Rationalism and Mysticism
Decline of Reformed Theology
Nineteenth-Century Streams
Reformed Theology in North America
It is a relatively short chapter, marked by the specificity of twists and turns in the thinking of various writers of the age. At one point, he discusses the effect in Scotland of a work of “Edward Fisher called The Marrow of Modern Divinity, which first appeared in 1646, was reissued by Boston in 1700, and again, with a preface by Mr. Hog of Carnock, in 1718”.
I’m not sure even Steve would go into that kind of detail about the various editions of a work.
The sweep of names in this chapter will be familiar to most of us: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, William Perkins, William Whitaker, Hyperius, Voetius, Alsted, Utrecht, Wollebius, Turretin, Pictet, Hooker, Owen, Rutherford, Olevianus, Witsius, Coccecius, and literally hundreds more. Some of us will know these names, and the particulars of theology for which they’re known. Maybe not. (Today, in Germany, there is not a single theological university or school left that stands on the basis of the Reformed confession”. In America there were the Old lights and the New lights and the Princetonians.)
He continues to discuss “the march of ideas” that “did not stop”, including ideas from adherents of deism, empiricism, materialism, the theory of evolution. “The influence of the modern mind…”.
"The modern mind".
What is meant by that? Well, “modernism” has several broad definitions.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, Stephen Hicks, in his “Explaining Postmodernism”, envisions three broad eras of thought: Pre-modern, “Modern”, and “Postmodern”. positions “postmodernism” vs “the enlightenment”. In that scenario, “Modernism” comes after “pre-modernism”, which is characterized by “supernaturalism”, “mysticism”, and “feudalism”. Basically it is the period following the Medieval world – marked perhaps by “the Renaissance” (or, re-birth of knowledge, perhaps reflecting “the Classical” period), the Reformation, and then “the Enlightenment”.
We might note that Bavinck’s year, 1750, falls near the end of that “Enlightenment” period.
We also know of a series of popes who railed against “modernism”, particularly the Piux IX, the Infallible pope, who also is known for his “Syllabus of Errors”
Today our world is concerned with something called “liberalism”, although that means different things to different people. Someone like Patrick Deneen decries "the failure of liberalism". Deneen is a Roman Catholic professor of Political Philosophy at Notre Dame. Guys like Ben Shapiro (and the "intellectual dark web) are holding onto "liberalism" as being the proper response to leftism.
Which is it?
Jason wrote: In his earlier threads, John made much of Roman Catholicism's manipulation of language, and he highlighted that alleged connection between Catholicism and leftism as what he was heading for in his series of posts. Has Catholicism manipulated language? Yes. But Satan, Adam, and Eve were already pretty good at manipulating language long before Catholicism came along. So were a lot of other people. And once Catholicism arrived, even the people most influenced by it had various non-Catholic motives and means for manipulating language. There's a lot of manipulating of language that goes on in families, for example, between spouses, between parents and children, and among siblings.
DeleteAre you familiar with precisely how "wokism" uses language?
James Lindsay at his "New Discourses" site is taking pains to define
Lindsay is an atheist who has written several books on atheism (including one or two with Peter Boghossian). He has since turned his sights on "Wokism", and he is writing a "Social Justice Encyclopedia". He calls it "Translations from the Wokish", and it is "A Plain-Language Encyclopedia of Social Justice Terminology.
https://newdiscourses.com/translations-from-the-wokish/
For example, he has 20 different entries for variations on "Racism":
Race
Race-based trauma
Race traitor
Racial anxiety
Racial contract
Racial cray-cray
Racial culture
Racial equilibrium
Racial humility
Racial justice
Racial knowledge
Racial stamina
Racial stress
Racialize
Racism (aversive)
Racism (cultural)
Racism (institutional)
Racism (new)
Racism (systemic)
Racism-blind
I was planning to write a number of blog entries on these and many other topics. As for the Roman Catholic connection to "racism" and slavery, have you seen my blog entries on "the history of the African Slave Trade", explaining how it was popes of the 1400s who first authorized the African Slave Trade, first, with the Portuguese, and later with the Americas?
Do you think that I would not be able to tie those together?
John wrote:
ReplyDelete"And so, when I say that Roman Catholicism was THE source for all of our cultural and political difficulties today, it is this event [a pronouncement of Pope Gelasius] that I had in mind."
But we still haven't been given sufficient reason to connect that pronouncement in a relevant way with the modern leftist movement you referred to, John.
When Steve Jackson criticized your original post in this series, you responded, "I'm kind of looking at this globally". But now you're referring to how medieval Catholicism was "the only game in town" because of its influence in a large region of the world, though not worldwide. And even in the West, the influence of Catholicism and the papacy in particular fluctuated a lot.
You wrote:
"With this kind of history in mind, it is hard for me to imagine that I 'overreact' to Roman Catholicism, by the way. There is such a thing as specialization."
Saying that you overreact to Catholicism isn't equivalent to saying that there shouldn't be specialization. You need to be accurate in what you say about an area you specialize in, for example, and people often make inaccurate claims because of an overreaction to something.
You wrote:
"At the time of the Reformation, John Calvin was absolutely right to say that the papacy was the institution through which 'satan has polluted every good thing that God has appointed for our salvation.' I did not think it would be controversial on a Reformed blog to repeat such a thing."
Calvin isn't considered infallible by the Reformed, and his comments aren't equivalent to yours, nor do they imply yours. Even if somebody agrees with Calvin's assessment of the situation he was addressing, it doesn't follow that Catholicism "is the source of the damages" you're addressing.
Jason wrote: John wrote:
Delete"And so, when I say that Roman Catholicism was THE source for all of our cultural and political difficulties today, it is this event [a pronouncement of Pope Gelasius] that I had in mind."
But we still haven't been given sufficient reason to connect that pronouncement in a relevant way with the modern leftist movement you referred to, John.
Please see my three comments in response to your previous comment.
Jason wrote: When Steve Jackson criticized your original post in this series, you responded, "I'm kind of looking at this globally". But now you're referring to how medieval Catholicism was "the only game in town" because of its influence in a large region of the world, though not worldwide. And even in the West, the influence of Catholicism and the papacy in particular fluctuated a lot.
You are quibbling about words. "Global" does not necessarily mean that I am required to talk about developments in Antarctica. I have already written about the 15th century African Slave Trade, and I have in mind to go into some detail about how African slavery developed in the first place, how White slavery in Europe was viewed, (again, under the purview of the papacy), and the role that Islam played in that.
Medieval Europe was very much representative of all the civilization that would have existed in the world, outside of maybe the Mayans in central America, or the Islamic world (which I mentioned), or the far east, which nobody in Europe knew about.
Jason wrote: Saying that you overreact to Catholicism isn't equivalent to saying that there shouldn't be specialization. You need to be accurate in what you say about an area you specialize in, for example, and people often make inaccurate claims because of an overreaction to something.
I have not made inaccurate claims. You have simply failed to have the patience to allow me to develop a blog series at my own pace, and with input from some of the readers of the blog.
Jason wrote: Calvin isn't considered infallible by the Reformed, and his comments aren't equivalent to yours, nor do they imply yours. Even if somebody agrees with Calvin's assessment of the situation he was addressing, it doesn't follow that Catholicism "is the source of the damages" you're addressing.
I didn't say it was considered infallible -- now you're putting words in my mouth. Nor did I say they were "equivalent" to mine, although they support my contention, and there is much more of that kind of sentiment in Reformed theology.
Perhaps you are not reading all of my comments, but you seem to be stuck on the notion that in saying "source" that I am pointing to a direct causal relationship or something, which I am not.
In the comments, I have allowed that perhaps saying "the" source was too much, and I could have said something like "a primary source" or "there are a lot of parallels", or something like that, but (as was also discussed in the comments) I was looking for a provocative headline, which is something that I frequently have done.
More than that, I have also noted in the comments here that I was hoping to write things here and I purposely solicited comments in such a way as to help me to refine my thoughts. I'm not sure if you saw that either, but there are more than 100 comments on these three threads, and it is difficult to keep up with everything.
John, reading what Jason Engwer wrote, and you wrote, I want to reply, too, becaues I dont think youre being fair to his concerns --
DeleteI dont think Jason Engwer is asking or raising illegitimate concerns. What he says is what Ive thought, too. I know you outlined your broader line of thinking, but I still dont see the line exactly? The line is still blurry to me. Its still very unclear to me after reading your many blogs and comments how youre connecting medieval catholicism (not the religion but their methods as youve been saying) with modern leftism. Its hard to track what you are doing. Its fair to ask what Jason Engwer asked because what you are arguing is not clear! Sorry, its true.
In my reading of NG, NG "gets" you, but because NG actually IMPROVES your arguments for you. What NG says, and what others say like Jim Pemberton say, actually make more sense than what you are saying, to me. When you talked about what John Frame said about putting human reason above God that was also good, but again it was you quoting SOMEONE ELSE who is making an IMPROVED argument over what you have been saying so far. Maybe like I said, you can say with John Frame that the overarching idea is putting human reason above God. Or maybe you can say postmodernism makes reason culturally relative and this idea of cultural relativity is something connected to the catholic church's development of doctrine. These seem like clearer arguments to me. But these are also arguments others are making for you. What about YOUR OWN IDEAS?
Its confusing but you insist, too, youre not finished, this is only the beginning, this is a work on progress. I have to accept your word on this, but you have posted several blogs and many comments and its still somehow a work in progress. I dont get why it takes so many blogs and comments to get a decent argument going, but Im accepting your word on this that all this is just introduction or setup. Its a long and confusing setup, to me, however.
Sometimes it just seems like you are agreeing with anyone who agrees with you (ex., Ben Cormack in Jason Engwer's blog). So again these are legitimate concerns for people to wonder about. Maybe you will hvae your answers but nothing wrong for people to "push back" and ask.
You make it sound like you want to hear from people, get feedback, improve your ideas, but then you say its difficult to keep up with everything. But if you want feedback, iron sharpening iron, and improving your ideas wouldnt you want to read through all the feedback?
DeleteYou use alot of big picture ideas and people -- Anselm, Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Alvin Plantinga, the Roman Empire, French revolution, roman catholic church, premodernism, modernism, postmodernism, human reason above God. You bounce back and forth between these different big picture ideas and people. Sometimes the ideas clash with one another (ex., French revolution and catholic religion are not good bed fellows as French guillotined catholics and tried to wipe out religion for Enlightenment secularism). The catholic church itself has evolved in their ideas over the ages. Pope Francis or Ratzinger for an intellectual are very different from Aquinas. The methods of the catholic church today seem very different from the methods of the medieval catholic church. Catholic church uses many different methods throughout history, sometimes siding with leftists and socialists (ex., liberation theology in South American) but other times very reactionary (ex., counter Reformation). I still dont see how modern leftism in the US today is connected to these ideas or people, not directly. Why didnt the left influence modern catholics more than modern catholics have influenced the left? Im sure you have your answers but again Im just saying its not like what you have said is very clear and its not wrong to ask about these things!
DeleteJohn wrote:
Delete"Perhaps you missed this comment where I outlined the broader line of thinking that I'm aiming for"
You then cite two comments in which you referred to your intention to discuss postmodernism, supernaturalism, etc. You write, for example, that "We need some sort of Christian Supernatural category that enables Christians to navigate in the current world of 'postmodernism' and 'technology'." But that doesn't have much relevance to what I said. I was addressing what you've written so far about Catholicism and leftism. The fact that you also referred to how you want to expand your treatment of the subject and discuss other topics in the future doesn't have much relevance.
You wrote:
"Again, what is the connection? You are making very vague accusations here."
I'm drawing parallels to other circumstances in which people connect things on insufficient grounds (Christianity and paganism, Christmas and paganism, the behavior of a person as an adult and the behavior of his parents, etc.). If you would demonstrate a relevant connection between Catholicism and leftism, you would demonstrate that I'm wrong in drawing such parallels. So far, you haven't done that. Instead, shortly after your first post in this series went up, you started backing away from your initial claims, admitting that you hadn't thought much about certain issues involved, etc., only to periodically return to your initial claims from time to time, then back away from them again, etc. If you wanted this series to be the sort of learning experience NG referred to earlier in this thread, you shouldn't have framed it the way you did. You can do something like ask questions or tell people about a highly undeveloped idea you have in mind without making the sort of claims you made at the outset of this series and using the language you used there.
You wrote:
"I am not talking about nations, or problems of nations. I am talking about ideas, which are not culturally-dependent."
My analogy involves ideas. The analogy doesn't depend on whether the entity involved is a nation. It would be applicable if the entity were a continent, the whole world, etc.
You wrote:
"All of these things track ideas through time, in specific ways."
You keep acting as if your critics are opposed to the concept of tracing ideas. I'm not opposed to it, and I doubt that any of your other critics here are. The problem is that the connection you've drawn in this series of posts, between Catholicism and leftism, seems dubious, your comments so far haven't even come close to justifying the connection you've drawn, and your behavior suggests that you don't have any justification to offer.
You wrote:
"'Global' does not necessarily mean that I am required to talk about developments in Antarctica."
Of course, you neglected far more than Antarctica.
John wrote:
Delete"I have not made inaccurate claims."
You then wrote:
"In the comments, I have allowed that perhaps saying 'the' source was too much, and I could have said something like 'a primary source' or 'there are a lot of parallels', or something like that, but (as was also discussed in the comments) I was looking for a provocative headline, which is something that I frequently have done."
One of the reasons why I'm responding to you publicly like this is because I've been warning you for years that you're overreacting to Catholicism and that it's doing harm in other contexts as well, such as in your overly negative view of the church fathers, and you don't seem to be improving much. You've been largely unresponsive to my recent emails on these issues. In one of those recent emails, I corrected your comments above, but you're acting as though you're unaware of what I said to you in that email. As I said there, your use of the language "the source" isn't just found in the title of your initial post. It's also found in the body of that post. And you've reiterated it in this thread. Yet, in the comments section of the original thread, you acknowledged to Daniel, "You're probably right, it is just 'a' source". You then go on to say that Catholicism is prominent as one the sources in question, and you've been adding further qualifiers since then, all the while periodically returning to your "the source" language and denying that you've said anything that's wrong.
You brought up the issue of whether I've read all of the comments in these threads. Yes, I have, and I had been reading all of the comments before each one of my previous responses to you.
I'm glad that you do so much good work, John, and that you think, read, and do other such work as widely and deeply as you do. But there doesn't seem to be enough of a connection between Catholicism and leftism to justify what you've been saying. And you need to be more careful to not overreact to Catholicism. It's not just doing harm in the context of Catholicism and its immediate surroundings, but also has implications for other contexts.