Catholicism: 28 Weeks Later

Luis Dizon has penned a first-year retrospective on his reversion to Catholicism:

https://eacanada.wordpress.com/2019/10/31/looking-back-at-the-reformed-tradition-one-year-later/

1. Before commenting on specific passages, I'll venture some preliminary remarks:

Human beings aren't logic boxes, so there can be personal pressures and incentives that figure in our political and religions affiliations. For instance, Luis said on Twitter (pined tweet): 

- During my Protestant days, I considered becoming a minister. I've since dropped this idea

- Not considering the priesthood. Permanent diaconate after marriage is still on the table, however

This drift of this seems to be that he wants to have a normal family life, something he'd be free to do as a Protestant minister but not as a Catholic priest. With that in mind, I wonder if the pool of marital prospects isn't a whole lot deeper for a Filipino-Canadian Catholic than a Filipino-Canadian Reformed Baptist. 

Who missed the memo?

I'll comment on some statements today by revert to Catholicism Luis Dizon:

@LuisDizon

However, I read enough of the Reformers' writings to know that Protestantism was birthed in polemics and acerbic reactions against Rome. To the extent that you emphasize your confessional standards, you partake of those polemics (including the whole Pope-as-Antichrist bit). . .

I know you're embarrassed when the more populist members of your own tradition make absurd claims about Church History, and condemning all of Christendom pre-Reformation. However, as a former Reformed apologist who argued against Catholics, I understand why they do it. . . .

Basically, as a Protestant, you have to justify the existence of your confessions. You have to justify your founders' anti-Catholic polemics. Most of all, you have to justify why you're not part of the Catholic Church. These populists are attempting that justification . . .

In other words, you have to claim that the Church as a whole apostatized to justify your very existence. You have to claim a hermeneutic of discontinuity, rupture and reconstruction in your reading of church history. The alternative is to admit that the Reformation was a mistake.

Ultimately, Protestantism exists because of "reconstructionism" (the idea that the Church was ruined and needed to be rebuilt).

And yet somehow everyone from Iberia to Mesopotamia missed the memo for 1500 years. Imagine being Copt and keeping the faith for thousands of years in the face of Muslim oppression, only for some new sect tell you you're not Xian bc of some new idea you never heard of before.

1. Why should modern-day Protestants be embarrassed to own up to the fact that "Protestantism was birthed in polemics and acerbic reactions against Rome"? Given the state of Catholicism at the time, that was justified.

2. If you're a strict subscriptionist, then you must profess every jot and tittle of your confessional standards, including the pope as the Antichrist. However, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition. For instance, a Protestant can take the position that as Rome has mutated, the objections to Rome change. Many of the original objections may remain intact. But Catholicism is a moving target. Indeed, that's one of the problems with Catholicism. It's quite possible, even necessary, for modern-day Protestants to have some objections to modern-day Catholicism that our 16-17C forebears didn't have, because Catholicism is so fluid and unstable. It's not a case of just refighting all the same old battles, although some of those continue up to our own time.

3. Yes, Protestants have a burden of proof. We must justify our confessions, we must justify not belonging to the Roman Catholic sect. But we don't shoulder a unilateral burden of proof. Both sides have a burden of proof to justify their respective positions. The onus lies on Luis just as much as us. 

4. Actually, we don't have to have a theory about church history. We can just compare biblical teaching to Roman Catholicism, to see how little they have in common, and conclude that something went terribly wrong with Roman Catholicism. That doesn't require us to postulate that "the whole church apostatized". For one thing, we don't think the church apostatized. Roman Catholicism never was "the Church". From our standpoint, "the church" never apostatized.

5. In addition, it isn't necessary to have an alternative interpretation of church history to know that something went wrong. For instance, Newtonian physics was consistent with all the observational data at the time it was formulated. But as instrumentation improved, discrepancies emerged between Newtonian predictions and the observational data. At that juncture it become evident that something was off with Newtonian physics. You could know that just by comparing the theory to the observational data. You didn't have to have the theory of Relativity to explain why it went awry to know it needed to be replaced. 

Likewise, it's not incumbent on Protestants to explain how the discrepancy between biblical revelation and Roman Catholicism came about to recognize irreconcilable discrepancies. It's not incumbent on us to propose a reading of church history to account for that development. The historical explanation is separate from what it's designed to explain. 

6. Furthermore, there have always been divisions. Which side was right in the dispute between Cyprian and the pope? Who missed the memo? Which side was right in the dispute between Novatian, Donatus, and Rome? Who missed the memo? What about Tertullian? Did he miss the memo, too? Or consider the traditional post-schism view of Eastern Orthodoxy by Catholic representatives:

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm

Including the axiom that submission to the pope is necessary for salvation. Hence, the Eastern Orthodox are damned. I guess they missed the memo:

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38

If Luis is going to cast the issue in terms of apostasy, then there have been many "apostasies" in the course of church history, starting with the ancient church. Pick a side. Which side was apostate? Luis operates with a traditional Catholic hermeneutic of discontinuity. He has his own list of "apostate" movements. A hermeneutic of discontinuity runs through the length and breadth of Catholic history. There was no 1500 year-old memo. That's a historical fantasy. 

7. His appeal to the Copts is counterproductive to his aims. According to traditional Catholicism, the Copts are heretics. 

8. The ironic thing about his Catholicism is how conflicted it is. On the one hand, he's very hardline. It's very retrograde. Like he's trapped in the wrong century. A throwback to Counter-Reformation apologists. On the other hand, he's cool with Pope Francis. He's a team-player. He's not a RadTrad. So he suffers from split-personalty Catholicism. 

The Catholic lectionary

I don't get this trope about Catholics not knowing the Bible. You get 3 scripture readings every Sunday mass, and almost every prayer is a direct quote from or allusion to a Bible verse. It's even more baffling in the case of those who go to daily masses in addition to Sundays.

— Miles Christi (@LuisDizon) June 17, 2019

To my knowledge, the contemporary Catholic lectionary is highly selective, excerpting the inspirational passages of Scripture while censuring offensive or disturbing passages. For instance:

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-omission-of-difficult-psalms-and.html

https://taylormarshall.com/2015/10/catholic-mass-lectionary-omits-anti-homosexual-verses-from-romans-1.html

So Catholics at Mass are getting a bowdlerized, sanitized, Hallmark card edition of the Bible. 

Catholic convert syndrome

Steve Hays and I have talked these points already. Dragging his blog out of the sewers isn't going to help your case.

— Azrael / עזראל / عزرائيل (@LuisDizon) April 27, 2019

That's an odd statement on more than one level: if he thinks Triablogue is a sewer, why did he invite me to join his Tiber Crossing Guards discussion group? And why did he send me a Facebook friendship request two months ago? 

Luis and I have had almost no direct exchanges about the pros and cons of Catholicism v. evangelicalism. Certainly nothing in-depth. Indeed, he's avoided discussing that with me. I did cover some of that ground at his old discussion group, but that was with other Catholics, while Luis generally sat on the sidelines. 

They'll be permanently inconvenienced once they're in the Lake of Fire. https://t.co/cfetMyBe66

— Azrael / עזראל / عزرائيل (@LuisDizon) April 27, 2019

So Luis now thinks Protestants (all Protestants? Most Protestants?) are destined for the Lake of Fire? How does that cohere with post-Vatican II theology?

I've come a long way towards purging my Twitter feed of the old undesirables. Glad to be around better company now.

— Azrael / עזראל / عزرائيل (@LuisDizon) April 26, 2019

Does that mean his Protestant friends, back when he was Protestant? Like, just a few months ago?

Time travel back to 1517 and assassinate Luther and Calvin.

— Azrael / עזראל / عزرائيل (@LuisDizon) April 27, 2019

Although that's tongue-in-cheek, the attitude is revealing. 

I pray that you would be set free from your spiritual blindness.

— Azrael / עזראל / عزرائيل (@LuisDizon) April 27, 2019

So Protestants are spiritually blind? How does that cohere with post-Vatican II theology? 

Does he think his classmate Wesley Huff is spiritually blind and destined for the Lake of Fire?

@geoffrobinson I don't know why scummy individuals like yourself insist on inserting yourselves into conversations where you're not wanted to begin with. Everybody outside of your little Reformed ghetto thinks you're a joke and doesn't take your arguments seriously.

— Azrael / עזראל / عزرائيل (@LuisDizon) April 27, 2019

So Geoff Robinson is "trashy" and "scummy?" Is his confessor/priest aware of how Luis characterizes evangelical believers in social media?

I can't help noticing that conversion from Calvinism or evangelicalism to Catholicism never does anything for the convert's sanctity. So often, their conversion is just a pretext to feel superior. It's so much easier to be spiteful than to cultivate personal holiness. 

Where will Luis be 20 years from now if the Catholic church becomes increasingly indistinguishable from the Episcopal church? Having burned all his bridges with his former faith, does Luis have a fallback option? 

Conversion continuum

I'd like to make a general observation about conversions to Catholicism. Conversions range along a continuum. Theological identities are packages. Some packages have far more in common than others. 

Some conversions involve a minor adjustment in the convert's theology. Suppose a paedobaptist becomes a credobaptist or vice versa. That changes one variable, leaving pretty much the rest of his theology intact. 

Suppose a Baptist becomes a Lutheran. He has to make many more adjustments to his overall theology. 

But depending on the theological package, some variables are more central than others. The prophethood of Muhammad and Joseph Smith are cornerstones of Islam and Mormonism. If they were false prophets, then that falsifies the whole package. For the contents of the package depend on the authority of Muhammad or Joseph Smith.

A further consideration is that conversion often involves, not merely changing one or more of your theological positions, but changing your supporting arguments for or against the positions in question. 

Take the case of Luis Dizon, who recently switched back to Roman Catholicism. I believe he was a Reformed Baptist. Moreover, he's a Christian apologist, so I assume he was used to arguing for his Reformed Baptist beliefs and arguing against Roman Catholicism. Let's compare some of the contents of each package. 

I. Reformed Baptist

1. Sola Scriptura

2. The Protestant canon

3. Absolute predestination, unconditional election, reprobation

4. Definite atonement

5. Spiritual inability

6. Monergistic regeneration

7. Sola fide

8. Imputing Adam's demerit to his posterity, imputing the demerit of the elect to Christ, imputing the merit of Christ to the elect

9. Perseverance of the saints

10. Penal substitution

11. Believer's baptism

12. Exclusivism

II. Roman Catholicism

1. Apostolic succession

2. The pope as Christ's vicar on earth

3. The Magisterium as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture

4. The Catholic canon

5. Infused merit, congruent merit, supererogatory merit.

6. The priesthood

7. Seven sacraments

8. Baptismal regeneration/justification

9. Transubstantiation

10. Penace, auricular confession, absolution, indulgences

11. Indissolubility of marriage

12. Purgatory

13. Intercession and veneration of saints

14. Immaculate Conception

15. Assumption of Mary

16. Perpetual virginity of Mary (including in partu virginity)

17. Mary as Queen of Heaven, Mother of the Church, and Mediatrix

18. The Rosary

19. Renuciation of capital punishment

20. Inclusivism (Vatican II)

In each case, that's a sample. Compare the two packages. To convert from one to the other, he most now repudiate all the positions he use to believe and defend as a Reformed Baptist. Conversely, he must now believe and defend all the positions he used to repudiate. 

What is more, he must now renounce all the arguments he used to deploy in defending the Reformed Baptist position and opposing Roman Catholicism. Conversely, he must now adopt most-all of the Catholic arguments he used to view as bogus. 

Consider how artificial that is. Has he really vacated all the former arguments at one stroke? Did he eliminate them one by one? Did all the arguments he used to find convincing become unconvincing while most-all of the arguments he used to find unconvincing become convincing? Is it like reversing the domino effect, where all the dominos used to fall in one direction but now they all fall in the opposite direction? 

Surely it must feel schizophrenic to change sides so that you find yourself arguing with your mirror image. You're now resorting the same arguments whose weaknesses you used to recognize. Has your perception really undergone a complete gestalt shift? 

BTW, these aren't symmetrical alternatives. An intellectual conversion from Catholicism to evangelicalism is a lot simpler because there was no direct evidence for many Catholic dogmas. Rather, that was contingent on the authority of the Magisterium to promulgate dogma. All it takes to drop out of Catholicism is to lose your conviction in the authority of the Magisterium. Pull that one cornerstone and the entire edifice crumbles in a heap of dust. 

The less and the lightest

Luis Dizon has reverted to Catholicism:

https://eacanada.wordpress.com/2018/10/31/ive-changed-my-mind/

Luis was an up-n-coming evangelical apologist with a knack for foreign languages. 

Regarding the contemporary landscape, there aren't any converts to Catholicism. Rather, there are converts to multiple choice Catholicisms. They convert to Thomism. Or they convert to an idealized abstraction. Or they convert to a museum piece. Then you have the modernist Catholicism of Pope Francis, most of the hierarchy, most of the Bible scholars. 

I wonder if Luis will still be Catholic 10-15-20 years from now if his denomination continues to liberalize. Does he have a fallback? 

By contrast, Protestant converts to Catholicism tend to come from the best and the brightest–pastors, professional theologians, and graduates from top Protestant seminaries such as Westminster Theological Seminary, Reformed Theological Seminary, Geneva College, and (in my case) Wycliffe College.

i) Even assuming that these are the best and the brightest, we have to examine the arguments. Aren't conversion stories to Catholicism pretty much interchangeable? The same canned arguments for Catholicism. The same canned arguments against the Protestant faith. Like a form letter. 

ii) To my knowledge, Reformed seminaries don't generally have courses on how to respond to Catholic apologetics.

iii) What I find striking is the reverse situation. In my experience, the best and brightest minds in modern Catholicism don't make a case for Catholicism. They don't become Catholic apologists, or write extensively in defense of Catholicism. That task is demoted to the less and the lightest. 

For instance, Peter Geach and Elizabeth Anscombe were two of the very brightest converts, but I don't think either one ever made a sustained case for Roman Catholicism. Alexander Pruss is arguably the smartest Catholic philosopher of his generation, but while he sometimes toys with ingenuous defenses of Transubstantion, I haven't seen him defend Catholicism in general. Bas van Fraassen is a brilliant philosopher of science who takes some inept potshots at sola Scriptura in one of his books, but that's about it. Copleston debated Ayer and Russell on God's existence, but despite his prolific outlook I don't recall his writing a book or essay in defense of Roman Catholicism. Indeed, towards the end of his life he was quite skeptical. 

Has Michael Dummett or Nicholas Rescher made a case for Roman Catholicism? 

Cardinal Dulles was the product of a nominal Protestant upbringing. The retro Catholicism he converted to is different from post-Vatican II Catholicism, and he documents the backpedaling in Catholic theology. 

While not in the same league as Pruss, Ed Feser is a very smart convert. But to my knowledge, Feser spends most of his time defending Thomism. Moreover, he's currently at war with his adopted denomination over the death penalty.

Karl Rahner was the great Catholic theologian of the 20C. A superior mind. But he takes the truth of Catholicism for granted. His output is devoted to revising Catholicism in response to the challenges of modernity. 

The brightest Catholic Bible scholars like Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Meier, and John Collins subvert traditional Catholic positions. 

iv) Newman is an exception, but an ironic exception. Newman didn't really convert to Roman Catholicism. Rather, Newman converted (or subverted) Roman Catholicism to himself. He redefined tradition to bend Catholicism to his own predilections. He changed the thing he converted to, so that Newman's Catholicism is Newman's face in the mirror. 

v) Here's another reverse situation. Alvin Plantinga and Peter van Inwagen are certainly two of the best and the brightest. They have precious few intellectual rivals. Plantinga taught at Notre Dame from 1982-2010 while Inwagen has been there since 1995. Don't you suppose they've heard all the best arguments for Catholicism from their Catholic colleagues and gifted students? Yet that hasn't swayed them to become Roman Catholic. 

In fact, my intention from here on out is to continue to focus my efforts on combating and converting the adherents of these non-Christian ideologies and religions. 

Given the creeping universalism in the Catholic hierarchy, what's the point? Vatican II already implied that you don't even have to be Christian, much less Catholic, to be saved. If these are different paths to the same God, why convert them to your pathway? 

Jordan Peterson: Christianity and common grace

https://nimcanada.org/2018/01/22/jordan-peterson-and-christianity-2/

Is there physical healing in the atonement?

http://aristophrenium.com/fisher/is-there-physical-healing-in-the-atonement/