Links: oldies but goodies

Here are a couple of “oldies but goodies” from my series on “the nonexistent early papacy”:

The Nonexistent Early Papacy: An introduction to the series, it highlights several of the actual contradictions to be found in Roman doctrine concerning the papacy.

As a “Key” to Understand Peter, See Reuben: Biblical, Old Testament “prophecy” that Peter was not ever destined to be “pope”.

Emperor Worship and the Ancient Roman Mindset: Here’s where Jason Stellman’s early church found its urge to be authoritative.

House Churches in Ancient Rome: It’s not enough simply to “tear down” something like the papacy. It’s important to “build” the history of what it was actually like during that time period. This series on “House Churches in Ancient Rome” discusses some of the leaders, and leadership structures, where we have solid information about that time period.

The Papacy’s Missing Link: “The Shepherd of Hermas” wrote in Rome in the years 135-150. He gives a fairly extensive first-hand account of what the church leadership in Rome was like. I’ll give you a hint, he uses these words: “sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart”.

Rome is all about aggrandizing Rome: The “rise of the papacy” corresponds with a burying of Paul’s letters and theology in Rome.

Newman, “The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic”, and Rome’s Foundational Assumption: The “fallback position” on the nonexistent early papacy.

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.

The Roman Catholic “System”

I’ve wanted to get into the topic of “Roman Catholic ecclesiology” for some time now, but it is a massive topic, and there are always other things to be concerned with.

But just recently, a commenter at Green Baggins recommended a work by Dr. Leonardo De Chirico, who is now a commentator for Reformation21, entitled Evangelical Theological Perspectives on post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism (Religions and Discourse, V. 19).

Here are some selections from a review of that work:

Dr. de Chirico has recently completed his PhD studies at King's College, London. His thesis was published last year by Peter Lang and is entitled Evangelical Theological Perspectives on post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism.

In our present-day context of increased doctrinal confusion, the blurring of historic formulations of faith and an apparently inexorable advancement in the Protestant-Catholic project of ecumenism, Dr. de Chirico persuasively presents the need for evangelicals to engage with Roman Catholicism in a more theologically-integrative way. This is evermore pressing in the light of varied developments within Catholicism since Vatican II (1962-5), which have prompted something of an international change in the way many evangelicals perceive the Catholic Church….

The work explores the way six evangelical theologians (Gerrit Berkouwer, Cornelius Van Til, David Wells, Donald Bloesch, Herbert Carson and John Stott), have grappled with and responded to developments within Roman Catholicism post-Vatican II, as well as summarising the ongoing international dialogue and debate between evangelicals and Catholics since 1965.

The author suggests that evangelicalism's appraisal of Roman Catholicism has lacked systematic awareness, tending instead towards more episodic aphoristic criticism of Roman doctrine, which for all its truth lacks integrated analysis. With this in mind, Dr. de Chirico proposes a critique which (i) applies the category of 'system' or 'worldview' to Roman Catholicism, and (ii) perceives two foundational theological foci in Roman theology - the relationship between nature and grace, and the self-understanding of the Church….

I have tried to suggest something like this “integrated analysis” with blog posts here …

So you, my friend, according to Rome, are saved because “the Roman Catholic Church” is the “universal sacrament of salvation,” because “all grace of salvation is not only ordered toward [the Roman Catholic Church], but in some way comes fromand through the [Roman Catholic] Church. As a sign and instrument of all salvation, the church is not merely the goal toward which grace is directed, it is the channel or medium through which grace is given. You are in a “certain, though imperfect communion” already with the Roman Catholic Church.

… and here, for example.

In fact, in the Roman Catholic conception of “church”, all Protestants really are really just Roman Catholics who have become “separated” (as in “separated brethren”) – still under the visible headship of the pope and visible hierarchy [which is an integral, ontological part of the one body of Christ], yet “institutionally separate from the one Church”…

That’s why Rome can never give up. It’s own conception of itself is just too important in [its own] scheme of things. Rome has defined itself in as the most important element in the body of Christ. This is why I say, Rome is all about aggrandizing Rome.

And in comments over there, I said:

Vatican II ecclesiology has its roots in the writings of Johan Adam Mohler, who brought up the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the “ongoing incarnation of Christ”. This is one source for the notions about panentheism. I’ve responded to Roman Catholics who tell me “the Church is Christ”. It is said to be a Christological rather than a pneumatological view of the Church.

This Vatican II ecclesiology has its roots in The Tübingen School, home of Ferdinand Christian Baur, in the works of Johann Adam Möhler (6 May 1796 – 12 April 1838), and particularly his 1825 work Unity in the church or the principle of Catholicism: presented in the spirit of the Church Fathers of the first three centuries (Die Einheit in der Kirche oder das Princip des Katholicismus, dargestellt im Geiste der Kirchenväter der drew ersten Jahrhunderte (Tübingen, 1825). English translation (1995): Unity in the Church or the Principle of Catholicism: Presented in the Spirit of the Church Fathers of the First Three Centuries, Peter C. Erb, trans., Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C.).

My hope is to begin to look at this work, and its setting in Tübingen, heavily influenced by names like Baur, Hegel, and Schleiermacher. Being primarily liberal, this work of Möhler’s was not widely accepted at first, although after Pius X’s dealings with modernism, he became very influential for other Roman Catholic theologians in the first part of the 20th century: Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, and perhaps even Herr Ratzinger.

David Wells, in his 1972 work “Revolution in Rome”, had noted this association between Vatican II and the liberal Protestants:

Present-day Catholicism, on its progressive side, is teaching many of the ideas which the liberal Protestants espoused in the last [19th] century. Though progressive Catholics are largely unaware of their liberal Protestant stepbrothers, the family resemblance is nevertheless there. Since these ideas have only come into vogue in Catholicism in the last two decades, they appear brilliantly fresh and innovative. To a Protestant, whether he approves or disapproves of them, they are old hat (pg. 8).

In the coming weeks and months, I’ll hope, Lord willing, to provide more background and details on this.

“Talking past one another”? Or is it being evasive?

If you look pained, and close your eyes more
tightly, are you any closer to knowing what the
early church was like?

I’ve responded to Andrew Preslar at some length about the early church and “arguments from silence”.

Andrew –

First off, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on your blog. Thank you

If you are truly grateful, I would appreciate it if you would make some attempt to honestly respond to my questions below.

Regarding arguments from silence, I think that we might be talking past one another. You are referring to times when the extant record is silent on points which you believe would have been explicitly mentioned in those records at those times, if the papacy were something willed by Christ. Responding to such arguments from silence, as Catholics have often done, does not constitute arguing from silence.

Of course we are talking past each other. I am not just referring to something that “may have been willed by Christ”. Or let me ask you, how can you know what is “willed by Christ”?

Rome is all about aggrandizing Rome

I want to take a minute to comment on a David Anders article that’s currently on the front page of the Called to Confusion website. If your inclination is to think, off the bat, that I’m not being “charitable” in this appellation, then consider the misrepresentations that Anders is making. In his article on Tradition I and Sola Fide, there is plenty to disagree with throughout, but I want to focus on the closing section Protestants and the Problem of the First Four Centuries, where Anders misrepresents both the essence and the importance of what “leading Protestant historians” are saying about the early church. Anders cites three Protestant historians: Torrance, McGrath, and Harnack, and he misuses all three.

Let’s look first at what Anders has to say:

Whatever else the “definition of the word church” contains, it must be purged of Roman conceptions of Rome

For as long as I’ve been involved in Roman Catholic vs Protestant discussions (both those within myself at various points in my life, and with others, in person, and more recently, online), I’ve been trying to understand and characterize the struggle. To put it into words. To boil it down into understandable terms.

And many of you who have been involved in these discussions will have found out, the question always (or often) seems to hinge on one question: “what is the definition of the word ‘church’?”

In the history of the Christian church – the 2000 or so years since the time when Christ said, “I will build my church”, the answer to that question has taken many forms. There have been literally thousands of clerics or scholars or theologians and even “church bodies” who have tried to say precisely what that means. I don’t doubt that most of them have been sincere. But huge numbers of them, too, have been quite wrong-headed about it.

I have become convinced that the Roman Catholic Church today is the largest and the most wrong-headed about the whole understanding of what “the church” is. But beyond that, its mission is defined as perpetuating its own wrong-headedness, and sucking the whole world into its vortex.

* * *

Before I get into more of Campenhausen’s account of “where apostolic succession comes from”, I want to make a clarification. One friend commented:

The word “visible” seems to me to be problematic. I would say that the Church is visible in the sense that it is made up of many local congregations which have a visible presence in the communities in which they are found. It is invisible, of course, in the sense that we cannot know in this life, ultimately and for certain, who the elect are. It is my view, however, that it was NOT Christ’s intention to found a religious/political INSTITUTION called the Church.

That says some things pretty well. Of course we can “see” “the church” at various times and places. The WCF and the LCBF make these clarifying statements:

WCF — Chapter XXV: Of the Church:
1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.

LBCF — Chapter XXVI: Of the Church:
1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

(I knew this comparative chart existed but I wasn’t aware until just now that it resided at James Anderson’s site .)

And yes, I believe, with both of these confessions, that “the Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be head thereof” in that he “exalteth himself in the Church against Christ”. You can turn to the pope, or you can turn to Christ. I’m sure Roman Catholics would argue, “you turn to Christ through the pope” or maybe to soften that, “the pope helps you to get to Christ”. But in either case, the pope is an obstacle. We are able to get to Christ without a pope. For we Christians are promised, “we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16). If you, as a Christian may go directly to “the throne of grace”, why ever is there a reason to submit yourself to the slavish system that Rome has concocted over the centuries?

That, of course, is the big question.

* * *

And the answer that is most frequently given to that big question is, “The constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that Christ founded a visible Church with an essentially unified visible hierarchy.” In more “official” terms, that statement officially works out this way:

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 [see the definition of Chalcedon] 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.

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

The phrase “subsists in” is a definite change from the word “is” from earlier Roman dogmas about the church. The earlier dogmas are unequivocal:

“This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, is the [Roman] Catholic Church”

The Vatican II characterization leaves some room for discussion:

“This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church”

As a cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger is on record as saying, essentially, “there is no difference between the two statements”. Dulles puts it this way:

Some have interpreted it as an admission that the Church of Christ is found in many denominational churches, none of which can claim to be the one true Church [though the Roman Catholic church sees itself to be the “gravitas” or the larger portion of it]. Ratzinger asserts the opposite. For him, “subsists” implies integral existence as a complete, self-contained subject. Thus the Catholic Church truly is the Church of Christ. But the term “subsists” is not exclusive; it allows for the possibility of ecclesial entities that are institutionally separate from the one Church. This dividedness, however, is not a desirable mutual complementarity of incomplete realizations but a deficiency that calls for healing.

* * *

In fact, in the Roman Catholic conception of “church”, all Protestants really are really just Roman Catholics who have become “separated” (as in “separated brethren”) – still under the visible headship of the pope and visible hierarchy [which is an integral, ontological part of the one body of Christ], yet “institutionally separate from the one Church”.

Yes, note especially that there is an ontological element implicit in this statement: 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 … governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him …. The doctrine of the papacy is wrapped up in the Roman definition of “church” and under the “successor of Peter”, we’re all just one big “living organ of salvation”.

That’s why Rome can never give up. It’s own conception of itself is just too important in the scheme of things. Rome has defined itself in as the most important element in the body of Christ. This is why I say, Rome is all about aggrandizing Rome.


* * *

This is what the Reformation is up against. This, I believe, is the greatest danger that the Reformation faces. Among all the other problems that the one church of Christ faces, this is the greatest one, even today. This is what lies “in, with, and under” every Roman Catholic overture of “peace and safety”, from every smiling Roman Catholic cleric. “We are all, after all, citizens of the Roman Empire”.

Even committed Protestants seem unaware of this dimension of, this danger from, the Roman Catholic Church. Those who look for “lines of continuity” between Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism especially risk being swallowed up in it.

So when the pope makes a seemingly sensible and ecumenical statement, even one that sensible Protestants like Paul McCain feel compelled to pass along without comment, we must always keep in mind what’s lying behind that apparent “good will”. Even “The Gospel Coalition”, in inviting the not-quite-converted Chris Castaldo to be a part of its blogging team, seems to miss this dogmatically defined danger from Rome.

Very few modern evangelicals realize the insidious nature of the way that Vatican II Roman Catholicism has positioned itself – the devouring and all-embracing nature of what Roman Catholicism is at its very heart.

However else Protestants want to understand the word “church”, the one thing that we must not allow ourselves to do is to become swallowed up by the behemoth of Rome. We must resist it with all our hearts. This is why I do what I do.

A Look at Roman Catholic Ecclesiology

Over the coming weeks, Lord willing, I hope to discuss a topic that’s come up in response to a work by Leonardo de Chirico, who argues that Evangelicals need “to engage with Roman Catholicism in a more theologically-integrative way”. Here is his contention:

The author suggests that evangelicalism's appraisal of Roman Catholicism has lacked systematic awareness, tending instead towards more episodic aphoristic criticism of Roman doctrine, which for all its truth lacks integrated analysis. With this in mind, Dr. de Chirico proposes a critique which (i) applies the category of 'system' or 'worldview' to Roman Catholicism, and (ii) perceives two foundational theological foci in Roman theology - the relationship between nature and grace, and the self-understanding of the Church.

“Nature and Grace” is a huge topic all its own. I’ve written on the topic of “the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church” in the past, and my hope in this upcoming series is to respond more systematically to the issue of “the self-understanding of the [Roman Catholic] Church”.

Meanwhile, here are some links that can serve as a place to review some of the issues for anyone who’s hoping to look more closely at this topic:

The Roman Church Thinks Highly of Itself

The Pillar and Ground of the Truth

The Real Body of Christ

The Church that Roman Catholics Believe In Today

Rome is all about aggrandizing Rome

Newman, “The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic”, and Rome’s Foundational Assumption

Whatever else the “definition of the word church” contains, it must be purged of Roman conceptions of Rome

I’ll be placing these blog posts into the category “Roman Catholic Ecclesiology”. If you click on that link at the bottom of any of these blog posts, it will bring up all the Triablogue posts on that topic.

Roman Catholicism distorts the Biblical message about God’s work in time

Leonardo De Chirico has revised and re-posted an article of his that demonstrates how the Roman Catholic distortion of time plays a major role in its current ecclesiology (which is, as I’ve mentioned, its major selling point in the post Vatican II era). He focuses on two words, two biblical measures of time, “hapax” (“once for all”) and “mallon” (“for evermore”)

As Protestants, we believe the following:

1. The incarnation of Christ was “once for all”
2. Christ’s death and resurrection and our redemption were “once for all”
3. “Revelation” was “once for all delivered to the saints”.

Roman Catholicism flips these precisely on their head:

1. The Roman Catholic Church is the “ongoing incarnation of Christ” (“for evermore”)
2. “The Eucharist” (“the sacrifice of the Mass”) is a “re-presentation” of the one sacrifice of Christ, providing redemption on an ongoing basis (“for evermore”) throughout time.
3. The “once for all” sense of biblical revelation is opened up to being integrated with “living Tradition” that is mediated by the Magisterium, creating a dialectic between the biblical message and the process of tradition.

De Chirico’s original Themelios (2004) article is here.

In it, he suggests “Roman Catholicism is not intentionally driven by the desire to confuse the time periods of God. It would be uncharitable and prejudiced to think so,” he says.

However, Roman Catholicism IS driven to exalt itself: “Rome IS all about aggrandizing Rome”. And if it means distorting the Biblical message about God’s work in time, it has no hesitation to do so. This is not at all “uncharitable and prejudiced to think so”, because it is true.

Judicial hegemony

I'll comment on this post:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2015/09/distinguishing-reality-from-fantasy.html

Departmentalism is a pipe dream. It's not the way America actually works. In practice, in America, the Supreme Court has a final say. 

Several problems with a that objection:

i) As I already noted, TFan careens between opposing principles. His initial post appealed to the English common law tradition. He said the founding fathers accepted the principle that judicial precedent can have the force of law.

a) Now that appeal is problematic on its own grounds, for as I pointed out, having a written constitution represents a significant modification of the common law tradition. A written constitution restricts judicial discretion compared to common law jurisprudence.

b) But in addition, TFan's argument is an appeal to what he takes to be the original vision of the founding fathers. They (allegedly) intended judicial precedent to be the rule of law. 

But then he reverses himself by appealing to the modern status quo as determinative. All that matters is not what the founders intended, but how the current system works. If so, then he's withdrawn his initial argument, and replaced it with another argument that appeals to a principle diametrically opposed to the initial argument.

In other words, Whelan's position is a minority position that reflects the way he thinks the system should be not the way the system actually is.

i) Unfortunately for him, TFan's objection is self-refuting. TFan isn't simply describing the status quo. Rather, he's treating the status quo as normative. For instance, he says:

They are free to think the Court decided wrongly. However, even if they disagree with the ruling, they have to obey the ruling until it is overturned. 

One doesn't have to agree with the Court, but one does have to obey the Court.

Notice the implication: we are supposed to comply with the status quo–because it's the status quo. He's not merely describing how things are, but saying we (whether private citizens, or the president, or Congress) ought to defer to the status quo. He confers normative force to the status quo. After all, if he doesn't think that's the case, then why not challenge the status quo?

ii) In addition, TFan's attempted critique of Whelan is vitiated by equivocation. Whelan is exegeting Marbury v. Madison. Whelan is discussing the original scope of that ruling. What did Marshall mean? 

By contrast, TFan appeals to how the Supreme Court has been behaving at later stages of American history. But that changes the subject from what Whelan is talking about. 

As I read it, Marbury isn't asserting that the judiciary has the authority to dictate to Congress or the Executive; rather, it's claiming that Congress and the Executive lacks the authority to dictate to the judiciary. It's an argument for judicial independence. But that doesn't entail that the other two branches of gov't are subordinate to the judiciary. Rather, we have three independent power centers. Each one is authoritative within its proper sphere of governance.

Of course, they are meant to work together. The system falls apart if they fail to cooperate. But that doesn't mean one branch has the right to impose itself on the other two branches by threatening to go on strike unless it always gets its way. 

iii) Furthermore, even if Marbury taught judicial supremacy, why should anyone take that claim seriously? When the Supreme Court makes a self-serving claim, that hardly makes the claim true. The appeal is viciously circular. The Supreme Court must have the authority it claims for its claim to be authoritative. Unless it had that authority in the first place, its claim to authority...lacks authority. 

It's like Catholic apologists who quote early bishops of Rome on Roman primacy. Well, we'd expect bishops of Rome to magnify their authority. 

The fact that the Supreme Court makes self-aggrandizing statements hardly proves it to be what it claims to be. The authority of the judiciary is something to be determined by the Constitution, founding fathers, and ratification debates. 

iv) Then there's TFan's persistent failure to distinguish between judicial review and judicial supremacy. The question at issue is not whether the judiciary has the authority to disregard laws it considers unconstitutional, but whether the other two branches of gov't are subordinate to judicial rulings. 

What would be the point of having a judiciary that no one had to obey? The idea that the Supreme Court's decisions on constitutional matters are just advisory is just nuts.

i) What's funny about this objection is TFan's blindspot to the obvious counterexample:

What's the point of having elective branches of gov't if no judge has to disobey them? The idea that the executive and legislative interpretations of the Constitution are just advisory is just nuts. 

Why is TFan unable to see the nuttiness of his alternative? If it all comes down to to judicial hegemony, then the people's elected representatives are merely figureheads. 

ii) In addition, the way he frames the argument is very slack:

Who said "no one" has to obey the judiciary? Private citizens are in a different position than, say, governors. Keep in mind that even at the state level, there is such a thing as states rights (9th-10th amendments). 

In addition, both private citizens and state officials are in a different position than the US president or members of Congress.  

Why is it "nutty" to say the judiciary lacks the authority to command the people's elected representatives? 

vi) Finally, there's TFan's circular appeal to the status quo. But that's just a tautology. How does the status quo obligate anyone to maintain the status quo?  The status quo is simply how things currently operate. But that's no reason to think the status quo cannot or should not change. The way things are as of now is descriptive, not prescriptive.