“Pope Francis” faces credibility issues on clergy sex abuse

Yes, these are the liberals who love “Pope Francis”. There’s trouble in paradise on the left, too:

https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/editorial-clergy-culture-sustains-sex-abuse-scandal:

The resignation of Marie Collins from the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors is a turning point in Pope Francis’ pontificate. It cannot be seen any other way. For all the hope and promise that we find in Francis and his vision for the church, we believe his pontificate teeters on the brink of failure on the issue of sexual abuse by the clergy.

For three and a half years, Francis has promised to take real action to bring accountability to the highest structures of the church and to help heal survivors. Now the commission he created to do that must confront serious questions about its credibility.

Is the Reformation Over?

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/has-rome-really-changed-its-tune

While some things have changed with the Roman Catholic Church to bring Catholics and Protestants closer together after five hundred years, many major differences remain to divide them. One approach to this quandary is to minimize the division. For example, it is anticipated that within the next year, Pope Francis will declare that the Reformation is over. Working from the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification, he will emphasize the agreements achieved on this once divisive doctrine and underscore that the sixteenth century anathemas (condemnations) of Protestants by Catholics and of Catholics by Protestants are removed. Thus, the Reformation will be formally finished.

Tragically, this perspective fails to address the continuing differences between the two traditions. The Catholic Church still holds to untrue doctrines of justification, salvation, authority, transubstantiation, Mary, seven sacraments that are effective ex opere operato, and purgatory. It is not helpful to skirt those issues for the sake of unity in a lowest-common-denominator approach.

While we can agree that much has changed, we must also agree that the Reformation remains unfinished.

The Reformed Orthodox were anti-Thomist in their epistemology

One of the main problems with the Thomist metaphysic is the Thomist epistemology.

Edward Feser begins his work “Scholastic Metaphysics” with what he calls “a basic philosophical truth, which is that metaphysics is prior to epistemology” (pg 27). But why is this the case? He doesn’t say. “Metaphysics” has been roughly defined as “what there is” or “what really exists” (Michael Rea, London UK and New York, NY: Routledge Publishing, 2014, pg 29). How can we understand metaphysics if we don’t know how we understand and precisely what it is that we are trying to understand?

John Frame, in his “History of Western Philosophy and Theology” (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2015) writes that “metaphysics, epistemology, and value theory (ethics) are not independent of one another and influence each other”, and that “one type of epistemology will lead to one kind of metaphysics, another to another kind”.

He also cites Aquinas (who cites Aristotle) from his early work “Being and Essence” to the effect that “a small error at the outset ends by being great” (pgs. 146, 154).

That is precisely the complaint against Aquinas’s work, which create in his own thinking, and later in Roman Catholicism, the enormous distances we see between those systems and biblical and historical Christianity (of which the Reformation is a part).

What’s wrong with Rome’s Christ-Church Interconnection?

The Roman Catholic “Nature-Grace Interdependence”
along with its “Christ-Church Interconnection”

In the last three blog posts, I’ve followed Gregg Allison’s comprehensive work on Roman Catholicism, “Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment”, which I’ve called “Eternal Rome, Eternal Mediator? (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

This “Christ-church interconnection” places Rome squarely in the ontological plan of Christ and Christ’s kingdom, in a way that it can never be moved (from a Roman perspective). It is an ontological reality that places Rome upon the very “edge of the Godhead”, so to speak (“grace completes nature) – and renders it as the sole channel of grace in the world, as Allison notes. Check out this link for one succinct example of how this plays out in real life:

The Catholic faith, however, contains a doctrine involving Christ’s founding of and indissoluble union with the Catholic Church as His Mystical Body, sustained in part but essentially through His unique relation to St. Peter and his episcopal successors in Rome in their role as the Vicar of Christ until Christ returns. The Catholic act of faith is in this way unique, because in making this act of faith, one does not merely assent to propositions concerning Christ as considered apart from the Church, or as considered apart from any visible body on earth.

One expresses faith in Christ-as-inseparably-united-to-the-Catholic-Church, and thus faith in His working in and through His Church, to guard her from error and guide her into all truth until He returns. Because of the essential role of St. Peter and his episcopal successors in the structure and identity of the Catholic Church, the act of Catholic faith includes faith in Christ regarding each successive pope, specifically faith that Christ will protect each pope in his exercise of the papal office from promulgating any false doctrine.

This “act of faith” as he describes it is a mere presupposition – and further, it is a presupposition that has been challenged by history, and found to be sorely wanting.

Here is how Allison “assesses” this doctrine:

Eternal Rome? The Eternal Mediator? Part 3

The Roman Catholic Magical Mystery Tour

The Roman Catholic Magical Mystical Tour.

Here is Gregg Allison’s summary of how the Roman Catholic view of itself as the “ongoing incarnation of Christ” plays out in its various doctrines. Note how indispensable Rome makes itself out to be in the world. It is something of a “Roman Catholic Magical Mystical Tour”: “how wonderful, wonderful it is that Rome is in the world”.

And note that it is Rome making these “interpretations” about itself. Jesus said, following the principle from Deuteronomy 19:15, “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established”. Jesus said, “If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true” (John 5:31). He says further:

You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me” (John 8:18).

Later, in John 15, Jesus confirms that both the Holy Spirit and the Apostles will also “bear witness”:

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning (John 15:26-27).

This is one of the Scriptural reasons why the Protestants rely on both “word and Spirit”. The internal confirmation of the Holy Spirit confirms the Word of God for believers.

Rome, on the other hand, excludes witnesses other than itself: “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone.”

And for this reason, Allison points out that, with Rome in the world (according to Roman doctrine), of what use is the Holy Spirit in the world?

Here is Rome’s “Magical Mystery Tour”, based on its lone testimony about itself:

Eternal Rome? The Eternal Mediator? Part 2

The Roman Catholic Magical Mystery Tour

Why do Roman Catholic converts (especially) seem to have such reverence for the Roman Catholic Church? It stems from the fact that Rome thinks highly enough of itself to blur the lines of the Creator/creature distinction, and it holds that the Roman Catholic Church (hierarchy especially) as an ontological (“by no weak analogy” – Lumen Gentium 8) extension of the Incarnation of Christ:

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.

[For most “cradle Catholics”, it is no big deal, just another day at the office. But for converts, still oo-ing and ah-ing over the “Magical Mystery Tour” through the “nature/grace” continuum, where sin is not such a big problem.]

This section of blog posts on “Eternal Rome, Eternal Mediator?” is of course intended to bring out the second of De Chirico’s two “core doctrines” of Roman Catholicism, the first being the “nature/grace interdependence”, and the second here being “Rome’s self-understanding”, which he calls the “Christ/Church understanding”, stated earlier as the [Roman] Catholic Church’s understanding of itself as the continuation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Allison investigates the history of this idea:

Eternal Rome? The Eternal Mediator?

Eternal Rome, Eternal Mediator?

Continuing to follow De Chirico’s presentation of the Catholic system as consisting of two pillars, the second element is the Catholic Church’s understanding of itself as the continuation of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. This axiom is connected to the first in the following way:

“Between the orders of nature and grace, a mediating subject is needed to represent nature to grace and grace to nature, so that nature will progressively and more fully be graced and grace will eventually achieve its final goal of elevating nature. That mediation is the theological raison d’être [reason for the existence] of the Roman Catholic Church and the chief role of the Church within the wider Roman Catholic system.”

Allison, Gregg R. (2014-11-30). Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment (Kindle Locations 1075-1080). Crossway. Kindle Edition, pg 56 in the printed edition.

Consider the role that Rome has assumed for itself, with the way that the Lord thinks of worldly empires. Speaking to Cyrus, who defeated the Babylonians and who enabled the Israelites to be released from their “Babylonian Captivity”, God says:

Gregg Allison addresses Rome’s “Nature-Grace interdependence”

You can purchase this work here.

As was shown in my last three blog articles on “the Roman Catholic View of Nature and Grace” (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3), this “interdependence” serves as a foundational tenet of Roman Catholicism, and virtually every Roman doctrine is shaped and underpinned by it.

Finally, here, Allison gives his opinion of this “interdependence” – the source of it, and the reason why its source is flawed. What follows is from Gregg R. Allison, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment (Kindle Locations 1006-1073). Crossway. Kindle Edition, pgs 52-55 in the printed edition.

Each of the above doctrines and practices will be assessed in due time in the remainder of this book, but an appraisal of the first pillar on which they are built—the nature-grace interdependence—will be undertaken now.

Evangelical theology disagrees strongly with its counterpart concerning the interdependence between nature and grace. One objection is that the Catholic system’s concept of nature owes more to philosophical traditions—the Neoplatonism at the heart of Augustine’s theology; the Aristotelian philosophy to which Thomas Aquinas’s theology was wedded—than to Scripture.

Because Catholic theology defines “nature” philosophically, rather than shaping this concept according to Scripture, evangelical theology considers its notion of nature to be fundamentally flawed.

A Roman Catholic View of Nature and Grace Part 3

How the Roman Catholic view of nature and grace intersects with a variety of Roman Catholic doctrines and practices.

See also:

A Roman Catholic View of Nature and Grace Part 1.

A Roman Catholic View of Nature and Grace Part 2.

Aquinas was the problem; the Reformation was the solution.

I’m continuing to work through Gregg Allison’s work, “Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment”.

A proper evangelical assessment of Catholicism will treat Catholic theology as a coherent, all-encompassing system with one of its two key tenets being the nature-grace continuum that underscores the less-than-devastating impact of sin on nature, which, as a consequence, retains some capacity to receive, transmit, and cooperate with grace.

Specific theological doctrines and practices in which the outworking of this understanding of the nature-grace continuum can be seen are:

A Roman Catholic View of Nature and Grace Part 2

The source of synergistic justification and holy water

I’m continuing the Gregg Allison’s explication of “nature and grace” in Roman Catholicism that was started here:

In one sense, these two divergent views reflect in part the different models of the nature-grace relationship as developed by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas: “[W]hereas the Augustinian tradition has stressed the concept of natura vitiate [spoiled or fallen nature], therefore underlining the pervasive and corrupting reality of sin and the utter primacy of grace, the Thomistic tradition has instead insisted on the inner resources of nature’s capacitas dei [capacity for God], giving a more positive account of its intrinsic disposition towards the elevating operations of grace” (citing De Chirico, pg 228. See footnote [1] below for more information).

On this issue, [following the Reformers] evangelical theology follows the Augustinian tradition, with its pessimistic view of nature because of the devastating impact of sin on it, while Catholic theology follows the Thomistic tradition, with its relatively optimistic perspective on nature and its openness to and capacity for grace.

A Roman Catholic View of Nature and Grace Part 1

When Protestants think of the various topics or loci that comprise the various systems of “systematic theology” that have been studied over the centuries, the lists of these loci might include the “prolegomena” (which might encompass a discussion of philosophy and a doctrine of Scripture or a doctrine of “revelation”) – and following that we might find the doctrines of God, the Trinity, creation, humanity, sin, the person of Christ, the atonement, the Holy Spirit, soteriology, “the church”, “last things” – we tend to see these things as inter-related, but each having their own “self-contained-ness” as well.

In Roman Catholicism, which (following De Chirico and Allison) may and should be thought of as a “system”, there are two “core doctrines” or ideas or themes which underlay all of the other loci -- these two are what Allison has referred to as the nature-grace interdependence.

Now, one of the first things I’ll say is that, as Reformed believers, we tend to think we know what is meant by “grace” – after all, we talk about things like “salvation by grace” and the “doctrines of grace”.

But the word “grace” in the context of all of church history has a long and convoluted history and meaning, and we do need to be careful of context if we are to understand what is meant by “grace” in any given instance. For example:

What is Roman Catholicism? Part 3: Epistemology

I’ve spent some time walking through how the Reformation concepts of “general revelation” and “special revelation” form the foundation of the Protestant practice of religion. These two principles are among the first things that Herman Bavinck writes up as part of his “Prolegomena” – what the foundation of the practice of the Christian religion is.

Rome holds to “one common source, two distinct modes of transmission”, the Roman Catholic view of Special Revelation, (those being “Scripture” and “Tradition”), with the high-card up its sleeve, the thumb on the scales, being that “an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone”.

(Here, where Roman authority is involved, is the only place where they use the word “sola”).

Allison describes this phenomenon:

Another key element of this Catholic system is its epistemology, or method of knowing. Catholic theology is characterized by the integration of divergent elements: it takes an “and-and” approach, rather than an “either-or” approach. [Or a “sola” approach].

What is Roman Catholicism? Part 2: “The System”

The “catholicity” of Rome

What is Roman Catholicism in our day?

One of the key terms is “catholicity”, which is defined as “universal” but in multiple directions. It does not simply now mean “geographically” universal, as it did in the Gospels (“from every nation under heaven” Acts 2:5). That is certainly still one dimension, but it has since taken on other meanings.

The late Avery Cardinal Dulles, for example, saw “catholicity” encompassing what is “above” (“The Fullness of God in Christ”), “from below” (“The Aspirations of Nature”), in terms of “Tradition and Development”, “Sacramental and Hierarchical”, and also, not to be missed, with “Roman Primacy” at the center (“The Catholicity of the Church”, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985).

This is one of the reasons why De Chirico looked at the systematic nature of Roman Catholicism:

This systemic approach, necessary because Catholic theology is a coherent, all-encompassing system, owes much to the original and insightful conviction of Leonard De Chirico. His modified doctoral dissertation, entitled “Evangelical Theological Perspectives on Post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism”, evaluates several evangelical theologians and evangelical-Catholic dialogues and underscores that their appraisals of Catholicism suffer from an exclusively or nearly exclusively atomistic approach to Catholicism—an evaluation of individual doctrines and practices viewed as discrete issues.

He considers the advantages of a systemic approach to be the following:

What Is Roman Catholicism? Part 1

What is Roman Catholicism in our day? According to Leonard De Chirico, no evangelical theologian has had a good handle on answering this question in the post Vatican II years.

(Although to be fair to evangelicals, Roman Catholics don’t seem to have a handle on it either. As the AP recently quoted “Pope Francis”, “What are we waiting for? For the theologians to reach agreement? That day will never come, I assure you”).

One should note that even (maybe especially) among the core group among the Roman Catholic laity, “large chunks of Mass-going traditional Catholics don’t believe in basic doctrines of the Church” – that’s not “lapsed” Roman Catholics – it’s a group of people who attend Mass regularly and at least feign some kind of devotion to “the Church”. Maybe it has always been that way, since “Christianity” was made the “official” religion the Roman empire. Rome was careful to figure out “Rome is first”, but it kind of left the rest of “ecclesiology” an open question.

(Evidence: I’ve recently had the book “Figuring Out the Church” recommended to me. This is a work by a major Roman Catholic theologian, examining the writings of other Vatican II theologians. Whereas the Vatican II doctrine is “infallibly correct”, no one as yet can definitively figure out what it means).

Nevertheless, De Chirico tries, and Allison very much affirms what De Chirico concludes: that Roman Catholicism does have a “core” and it is identifiable.

General Revelation and Special Revelation, Nature and Grace, and how and why Roman Catholicism Minimizes the Effects of Sin

Sorry for the very snappy title there. But this is foundational material to understanding the differences between Rome and the Reformation, both as they existed at the time of the Reformation, and as they exist today (in a much more subtle form).

In recent weeks, I’ve put together several short blog posts from Bavinck on the role of “General Revelation” generally, and how that ties in with the concept of “nature and grace”. Gregg Allison touches on the topic, but before we get into his explanations, I’d like to provide a bit of context from Bavinck, whom I would consider to be an unimpeachable Reformed source.

The first three installments are:

Herman Bavinck on “General Revelation and Christian Discipleship”. The payoff here is: “dogmaticians do not first divest themselves of their Christian faith in order to construct a rational doctrine of God and humanity … in order later to supplement it with the revelation in Christ. But they draw their knowledge solely and alone from special revelation, i.e., from Scripture. This is their unique principle.”

When Bavinck speaks of “the Christian faith”, he is considering it in the area of what he calls “religion”, which is roughly “the human practice of things”. That is, it falls on the “ectypal” side of things – and not on the “archetypal” side (God as God knows it). More ....

Gregg Allison on Roman Catholicism: “An Evangelical Perspective”

I have spent three blog posts now anticipating the objections to Gregg Allison’s definition of “what is evangelical”. These include:

The big Roman Catholic apologetic thumb on the scales.

On Gregg Allison’s “Roman Catholicism: An Evangelical Assessment”: Responding to Objections on “Exactly What is Evangelicalism?”

These Nonsensical Objections from Bryan Cross are Not to be Trusted.

I don’t want to say too much more about these objections, except that Allison’s description of himself as writing as “an evangelical systematic theologian of the Reformed Baptist variety” and his description of “evangelicalism” as:

not a church or a denomination but a massive broad-tent movement that encompasses thousands of churches and ministries from many different theological persuasions: Reformed, Lutheran, and Arminian; covenantal and dispensational; Pentecostal/ charismatic and non-Pentecostal/ non-charismatic; proponents of infant baptism and supporters of believer’s baptism; complementarians and egalitarians; and much more. Given this amazing theological spectrum, it is not possible to define and present one evangelical theology; evangelical theologies—plural—are the reality.

… does not strike me as dishonest in any way about “where he’s coming from”. He includes himself within this grouping, and he describes his position as “a typical expression of evangelical theology” which he calls “an evangelical vision of life with God and human flourishing”. To which he attributes the following summary characteristics:

These Nonsensical Objections from Bryan Cross are Not to be Trusted

In addition to Bryan’s “begging the question” objection, he placed several other predictable objections to Gregg Allison’s work,“Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment”.

Bryan’s objections begin here.

At one point, discussing an interview in conjunction with the release of the book, Bryan is kind enough to note, “In the next part of the interview, as Allison lays out the Catholic system, he does so quite fairly and accurately.” A few lines down, however, we see this:

So Allison starts his interview affirming the importance of approaching the question systematically and evaluating the Catholic paradigm on its own terms, but already here he is (a) making use of a consumerism approach as a way of critiquing the Catholic paradigm, which rejects the consumerism paradigm, and (b) making use of his biblicist assumption (“not biblical”) to critique the Catholic paradigm. So instead of evaluating the Catholic paradigm on its own terms, he is evaluating it on Evangelical terms, and thus begging the question.

In the book, which Bryan appears not to have read so far, there is clearly an effort to present both sides in an objective way; that is, the Catholic viewpoint “fairly and honestly”, and also, the “Evangelical” assessment, “fairly and honestly”. That is a hallmark of the book.

But in his critique, Bryan makes some assumptions of his own here. I’ve extended these from two to three (breaking the “consumerism” objection into two parts):

A. Allison makes use of a “consumerism approach”
B. The “Catholic paradigm” rejects the “consumerism paradigm”
C. Allison works with “Biblicist” assumptions (not “biblical” assumptions)

Let’s look at Bryan’s objections here one at a time:

On Gregg Allison’s “Roman Catholicism: An Evangelical Assessment”: Responding to Objections on “Exactly What is Evangelicalism?”

I’m continuing my walk through Gregg Allison’s work,“Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment”. Throughout, Allison’s method is to show side-by side, the Roman Catholic beliefs, along with what an “Evangelical Assessment” of those beliefs might say. And he does it in the light of a methodology that he clearly articulates at the beginning.

Several individuals have taken issue with one aspect of his treatment: the fact that he identifies “Evangelical Theology” as the interlocutor in his discussion of Roman Catholicism. I’ll admit, I find this to be somewhat unusual at one level. There might be better ways of identifying himself (I won’t speculate).

But on the other hand, he is following the method first articulated by Leonard De Chirico in his work “Evangelical Theological Perspectives on Post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism”.

Before I get to De Chirico’s and Allison’s overviews of “Evangelical Theology”, I’d like to look first at a couple of specific objections.

One writer (Ted Bigelow on an earlier Facebook post of mine) suggested that Allison was being “dishonest”: “He just isn't being honest as to its source. The source of his doctrine, or his ‘pou sto’ isn't evangelicalism.”

The big Roman Catholic apologetic thumb on the scales

“See? We win. We have ‘the authority’”

This is going to be the most important thing I have ever said on this topic.

It is of course well known that there is an imbalance between the supposed “unity” that Rome offers, vs the seeming disarray that Protestants are in. However, the “unity” that Rome offers is merely an illusion, (and that illusion is not based on any truth or historical evidence), while Protestant “disunity”, while frayed around the edges, is truly based upon doctrinal unity, and as Steve Hays describes this process:

But what if catholicity is something we should achieve indirectly? Instead of aiming at catholicity, what if catholicity is the effect or end-result of something else? For instance, Christians have a duty to understand God's word, believe God's word, and live obey God's word. The more that more Christians live according to God's word, the more they converge.

Keep this in mind as we discuss how “unity” works. The unity of Rome is a false unity. As Francis Turretin described it, it is based on one large, but false, and unprovable claim:

Gregg Allison on Scripture and Its Interpretation

I’m working my way slowly (I apologize) through Gregg Allison’s work,“Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment”.

Throughout, Allison’s method is to show side-by side, the Roman Catholic beliefs, along with what an “Evangelical Assesment” of those beliefs might say. And he does it in the light of a methodology that he clearly articulates at the beginning.

This is necessarily a broad-brush treatment. Other than his role of the explication of Scripture, which describes in the briefest terms the “grammatical historical hermeneutic” by which most Evangelical Protestants understand Scripture, he fails, at the outset, I think, to show how Roman Catholics understand Scripture (in his text here, he makes a brief allusion to the Medieval “fourfold sense of Scripture”. But that is no longer an official methodology.)

Here is one place where he states what Evangelicals believe, without going into much detail of how Roman Catholics understand Scripture. I’ll give Allison’s overview of an Evangelical understanding of Scripture, then I’ll clarify “actual Catholic beliefs” about Scripture below: