In an effort to show that OldLife is not unaware of developments in the Roman Catholic world and to help Called to Communion folks shed their own romantic understandings of Rome, I offer a few reflections from John W. O’Malley on differences between Vatican II and the Council of Trent. I had the privilege of taking a class from O’Malley, a leading Roman Catholic historian, during my days at Harvard Divinity School when he was teaching at Weston School of Theology. The quotations to follow come from “Trent and Vatican II: Two Styles of Church,” From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and Theological Investigations (OUP, 2006):
Trent and Vatican II dealt not only with different issues in quite dissimilar historical circumstances, or deal with and/or avoided the same issues in the same or different ways. They were different cultural entities. In this regard, Vatican II was not only unlike Trent but unlike any council that preceded it.
We are dealing, in other words, with two significanlty different modles of council. True, within Catholicism the continuities almost always outweigh the discontinuities. But Trent and Vatican II, when viewed in the large, are emblematic of two fundamental, interrelated, but notably different traditions of the Western Church. Those traditions are the juridical or legislative-judicial and the poetic-rhetorical. They both have their origins in the Greco-Roman world of antiquity and antedate the advent of Christianity.
O’Malley is here playing off the different ways in which each council communicated. Trent issued anathemas and called for crusades. It asserted church authority and hierarchy in response to the dangers posed by both Protestants and Ottomans. It echoed the precision and order of Thomism and scholasticism where the church had neat and definite beliefs that needed to be affirmed, or else. In contrast, Vatican II avoided condemnations for engagement with the modern world. Instead of issuing condemnations, Vatican II spoke in terms of praise and congratulations. Rather than pounding the table, the 1960s bishops wanted to engage in persuasion. And instead of invoking the precise formulations of scholasticism, Vatican II followed the Ressourcement movement of trying to recover the early church fathers as an alternative to Thomism.
He continues:
In adopting a new style of discourse for its enactments, the Council thus effected a shift of momentous import. . . . It is perhaps fitting to conclude with one of the most radical of those ramifications. Vatican II was, indeed, unlike any council that preceded it. In fact, by adopting the style of discourse that it did, the Council in effect redefined what a council is. Vatican II did not take the Roman Senate as its implicit model. I find it difficult to pinpoint just what the implicit model was, but it was much closer to guide, partner, and friend than it was to lawmaker and judge.
If O’Malley is right, and I dare someone to question his historical insights, this puts CTC in a pickle. Those called and calling like the authority of Trent and Vatican I, when Rome assumed an authoritarian posture, the one that supposedly answers the diversity and confusion of Protestantism. At the same time, CTCers often invoke the early church fathers which Rome appropriated through de Lubac’s Ressourcement efforts. But as O’Malley suggests, these two phases of twentieth-century Roman Catholicism two exist uneasily side by side. It is hard to be judicial, laying down the law, and rhetorical, trying to persuade. This may explain why Protestants are unsure of their status. We thought we were condemned, but now were only separated brothers.
Either way, the folks at CTC do not seem to acknowledge these different sides of Rome. Maybe Called to Communion should be renamed Called to Confusion.
Old Life 
Called to Confusion… That may be a fitting name, due to the fact that a lot of these guys seem to be approaching Roman Catholicism with a Reformed kind of framework. Whether looking at the early church fathers, the councils, Trent, or V2 – they exegete all of that as if its part of a seamless Roman whole. We know Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. They appear to have the burden of showing how all the above doesn’t contradict!
LikeLike
They’re gonna get around this by referring to Vat II as pastoral instead of binding. Plus, the traditionalists, like CTC, are desperate to roll back the progressive theological developments from Vat II as well as the more radical social elements(i.e. feminism((sister simone)), homosexual clergy, liberation theology as it’s practiced in Latin America and Afrika, etc.) But most of all they’re gonna say that this sort of development is to be expected as the ‘deposit’ matures and the church continues to reflect on what God has said not only in sacred tradition but as He moves within the ‘community of faith’. But hey, have I ever mentioned they have the Mass? Thanks for the article Darryl. CTC live in Narnia, on the internet. It’s their own virtual Wardrobe with a virtual trophy case to go along with it.
LikeLike
“Called to Confusion”? Gee, i don’t know. They don’t seem confused to me. Gravely mistaken – yes, and infusedly so.
But thus far (and you have to admit) they do a good job of calling people out of reformed seminaries and from OPC pulpits to swim the Tiber in pretty fast order.
Let’s ask instead, where are the RCC men calling out thinking converts from evangelly land? That, to me anyway, seems more likely than any appeal CTC should have to the the Reformed. After all, what Old-Lifer wouldn’t want Christians from evangelly land populating the pews in confessional churches, and want to do so through a web site?
Could it be that reformed men and women are turning their heads only to discover the sirens they hear are just beyond the bluff, and they are discovering the trip to Rome from where they live is much shorter than it is for others in the world of evangelicalism?
If that’s true, I doubt arguing paradigms will reverse the current, and may rather add to it. Neither Trent’s anathematizers or V-II “separated” friendlies are stopping convinced Presby men from making the trip. Without a question, they haven’t found Prot paradigms convincing or RCC paradigms confusing.
Add to that ad hominems like “confused” and you’ll surely drive up their web stats and conversion ratios.
LikeLike
Ted,
The confusion amongst CTC’ers is not surrounding what they believe and why. They have careved out a rather idiosychratic conclave in the Catholic world that still holds on to certain aspects of Protestantism – namely in their efforts to justify their beliefs theologically, historically, and biblically without automatic appeals to papal authority (which for most of the RCC settles all debate). The confusion is where they try to present Rome as the “church Jesus founded”, possessing continuity straight from the apostles to this modern age; when in fact Rome has been an institution that has undergone significant changes – especially with Vatican II, and in many ways does not resemble the iron gauntlet Catholicism of Trent (and prior). It seems to many of us that they are, at best confused (I’d opt for obtuse) over the incongruities in their own communion – which in itself wouldn’t be as fatal if the head of said communion didn’t arrogate to himself infallibility. It’s kind of hard, from this Protestant’s perspective, to comprehend how they can assert this given Rome’s checkered history with a straight face – but they do, and believe every word of it.
LikeLike
Ted,
My point, and possibly Darryl’s, is not so much that various individuals ala CTC are confused. Or that there aren’t aspects of Rome that are, apparently, appealing to certain Reformed Christians. Rather, it’s that the paradigm itself is flawed or confused. All of church history gets viewed through a foregone-conclusive-lens that automatically adjusts any out-of-focus data, and photo shops it helpfully into a pristine picture. There is no evidence to be supplied that can distort the CTC vision because you, oh Reformed Christian, are operating from the wrong paradigm. It’s like a parallel universe.
I do have a hunch that the draw to Rome may have as much to do with weak and faulty practice in too many Reformed and Presbyterian churches, i.e. in preaching and worship, as the claims and arguments themselves of CTC.
LikeLike
Ted,
Theologically, look to monocovenantalism birthing theonomy and fv (covenantal nomism) and to a lesser degree analytical theology as culprits in the reformed camp for the bridge. And then if that doesn’t work, look to the ‘union’ debate and the proposal to rework the ordo to supposedly better reflect the historia and the ‘organic’ nature of union as guilty parties opening the door to a focus on the ontological, and abra cadabra you have CTC.
LikeLike
Ted, I think you may be falling for a spotlight fallacy.
CTC specifically targets Reformed teachers and seminarians, and it parades its conquests. The spotlight shines.
But a larger look reveals that the Tiber is a two way stream. See pp. 40 – 41.
ex-Baptist spotlights can also be found.
Importantly, you have focused on beliefs as the gateway to a different denomination. What about socioeconomic factors?
LikeLike
Ted, I think the idea isn’t so much that CtC is confused as their calling causes confusion in Geneva. If the deposit has developed to the point of saying we’re brethren (V2 is very warm to the point that “separated” is negligible), then what gives with all the calling? My guess is that you’re still trying to suggest that the road isn’t very long from Geneva to Rome, but I’d say that Westminster has an even higher view of the church than V2 lets on, as in there is ordinarily no salvation outside of her. As far as I know, Westminster hasn’t been revised the way V2 does Trent. P&R aren’t so eager to extend the even the left foot hand of fellowship to those who still oppose what we affirm as the vitals of true religion.
LikeLike
Sean,
The only issue I see with what you are saying, is while an over-emphasis on any of the issues you list might lead one to lean toward Rome, Stellman was one of us. He was a 2k confessionalist through and through. It seems to me, in watching the debates here and over at GB that have raged since June when Stellman made the leap, that we are only dealing with part of the picture. After reading through several of these Reformed conversion stories, for Stellman, Stewart, and the others, there seems to be a universal breakdown at the most fundamental doctrines underpinning the Reformed system: namely Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide. To me it looks like these guys, to a man started as some form of evangelical (like a lot of us), and the pendulum swung to Geneva, but they never truly settled here, and moved on to Rome. Each of these guys seem to be craving the certainty and stability that Rome claims, and I am not convinced that the rational, theological evaluative process is all that was in play for these guys – something deeply personal was happening for each of them not owing to their school(s) of thought. I am no psychologist, so I won’t venture to say what those internal drivers were, but I think the personal issues that lead to these conversions are as influential as the doctrinal ones.
LikeLike
Jed,
Good thoughts. I was almost thinking of describing Lim and Stellman as exceptions that prove the rule. But, if you read Stellman over the years and look at where he seems to be headed with destiny of the species, it makes me suspicious of the ‘union’ debate and how that might have made inroads into Stellman’s view of sola fide. And then the whole philosophical certainty card of CTC smacks of the analytic influence to my small mind. It’s tough to discern the toll and disillusionment a trial like Leithart’s could’ve played in all of it, particularly as it pertains to the ‘on paper’ definitiveness of Papal infallibility in contrast. But, like you, I’m no psychologist. I do know having grown up in Rome, as I watched buddies go theonomy or fv, I remembered thinking; ‘ Wow, they’ll be in Rome soon, or at least they should be’. All their points of tension; whether patriarchy, birth control, full quiver, politics, private schooling, now social justice with the Kellerites, all gets done better and has been done longer in Rome. Plus, if you’re gonna jettison sola fide, or deteriorate it with organic ‘union’ emphasis, I want a sacramental system so I can be a somewhat normal human being. I want at least a continuous system of starting over and plugging on and somebody outside of me giving me that comfort and consoling of conscience. Cuz, I’ve done the prayer closet earnestness and quite frankly it ‘sucks’, and it produces neurotic human beings. I tell you what, it got me back into Kline’s structure of biblical authority, which has been all good. Not sure how you navigate reformed waters without Kline.
LikeLike
@Jed —
It’s kind of hard, from this Protestant’s perspective, to comprehend how they can assert this given Rome’s checkered history with a straight face – but they do, and believe every word of it.
I’m not so sure. They have bunch of preprogrammed responses, about adhoc reasoning… They have a real problem if those don’t work out. If you look at CTC you’ll notice the structure is:
Article presents position of straw man reformed guy
Article refutes position and points out contradiction
Real reformed guys frequently fall into the trap in this article or other articles.
But if:
Reformed guy refuses to go along with the assumption and presents a real counter case they then freak out. For example Charles Freeman seems to be getting popular in Reformed circles. He’s an atheist of the Gibbons sort. But his books also provide a strong defense for the theory that an effectual papacy was an invention of a few Roman Emperors and that papal authority came from the emperor. That the Bishop of Rome was important because he was the emperor’s single point of contact (to use a modern term) with the church. As Freeman basically presents an apologetic which allows for a Christianity without a hierarchy the appeal is obvious. I’ve seen his stuff come up several times and the argument simply isn’t tolerated.
In real life though original Gibbon was hugely popular with Protestants 225 years ago and his condemnation of the theology of the Middle Ages (Catholocism) was fundamental to the Whig party both in England and in America. Looking at the history of the church, as proceeding from the same sorts of process as other history is part of Reformed thought.
I think the fear on Freeman comes from the fact that they have no response to Freeman.
I made a joke a few days ago on Greenbaggins: There was a unique type of Christian church as long as you exclude all the other ones. This church taught a unique theology, as long as you exclude all but one of the theologies it taught. The leaders within it were subject to a binding leadership, as long as they didn’t suffer from “personal failings” and do something this leadership didn’t approve. And the fact that they are all acting as if this binding structure teaching a unique theology to a unified church doesn’t exist, and in fact frequently indicate the opposite shouldn’t be counted as any evidence against this position because in context there is some good reason.
LikeLike
Jed, I agree more or less. But unless I’ve missed it, I have yet to hear JJS say what Cross and the rest do, namely to conclude that the RCC is the church that Christ founded. His seems still more Protestant: the Catholic construal of the gospel is the biblical one. In other words, where most CtC conversions are driven by ecclesia, his is driven by scriptura. This only adds to the vibe that CtC is a Protestant Catholicism.
LikeLike
Jed:
“They have careved out a rather idiosychratic conclave in the Catholic world that still holds on to certain aspects of Protestantism – namely in their efforts to justify their beliefs theologically, historically, and biblically without automatic appeals to papal authority.”
Really? How much Catholic theology, written by RCC theologians, have you read? I recommend Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott and perhaps you’ll be surprised. They’re not as biblically ignorant as you might wish.
Jack MIller:
“Rather, it’s that the paradigm itself is flawed or confused”…. “weak and faulty practice in too many Reformed and Presbyterian churches”
So then, if the Catholic paradigm is exposed for the sham it is, and the Reformed pardigm is honored for the biblical consistency it “is,” then we could reasonably expect Stellman and Stewart to come back to the OPC?
Sean, I’m gonna have to meditate on that one, but it seems to me if all that internecine theological struggle was the reason for reformed men swimming the Tiber, we would expect Boise to be a hop, skip, and a jump to Rome. But I haven’t seen that, and I suspect there would be no small amount of clucking tongues if there were.
Zrim,
“their calling causes confusion in Geneva”
I though the post was saying the CtC men were confused. Now you’re saying the reformed are confused. Confused by what? Catholic theology presented in a protestant manner?
If so, what does that say about Prot theology presented in a catholic manner?
LikeLike
Ted, confused as to why anyone would call a brother to communion. If there is no ordinarily no possibility of salvation outside of her, and he’s separated himself, shouldn’t is be a call to repentance?
LikeLike
Ted,
Boise? You mean Moscow, right. As far as Moscow goes, I think a lot of them do swim the Tiber, I actually know a few. I think the only reason Moscow itself doesn’t is because they already have a pope, and he doesn’t strike me as the type to give up the throne.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: I am no psychologist, so I won’t venture to say what those internal drivers were, but I think the personal issues that lead to these conversions are as influential as the doctrinal ones.
RS: Zrim, are you taking note? Do you believe a psychologist can figure out what the internal drivers are while denying that ministers should not do begin to look for internal drivers that are spiritual? Apart from true conversion, people are driven by pride, self-love, and the desire for honor or attention. This is not to say that these things operate with each thought of the person. Look at how much attention Stellman has received? Most likely he has too much pride not to go the whole route at the moment. Those who don’t have the imputed righteousness of Christ beyond a theory will not find a lot of true comfort in that theory for a lifetime. Those who have not been regenerated will not be satisfied with the theory of regeneration. Those without Christ as their life who dwells in His people head toward systems that give them a certainty of having Christ if they go through certain steps. As you say, there are many internal drivers. If we don’t have a true love for Christ dwelling in us, then we are driven by the self factors.
LikeLike
Ted,
So then, if the Catholic paradigm is exposed for the sham it is, and the Reformed pardigm is honored for the biblical consistency it “is,” then we could reasonably expect Stellman and Stewart to come back to the OPC?”
The CTC paradigm-beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why I said it is like debating someone in a parallel universe. As to individual motivations of S or S, who can say? That’s really not the question. Individually they most likely vary. And motivations aren’t something anyone can know for sure anyway, or needs to be known in order to critique CTC.
I do think the Reformed paradigm (if you must use that word) is Biblically consistent. But as I said, I think weak or faulty theology and church practice can possibly lead one to conclude that P & R are flawed and there must be something more certain, more fixed, more dependable when it comes to the church. And once on the church-search-trail, one tends to look for that which has a longer history, and… just happens to claim to be the true church.
LikeLike
Richard, what I believe is that Jed is exactly right–because creatures are complicated, there is more to megashifts than the strictly doctrinal. I also agree that speculation is inappropriate (I think that was actually the point of Jed’s psychologist remark). All we can really go on is what a man says. So your speculation about JJS’s pride level is more emphasis on invisibility. What I know is that he has denied the faith we confess, and, unlike some, has had enough integrity to separate himself accordingly. That doesn’t at all diminish a call to repentance, but certainly isn’t license to speculate.
LikeLike
Sean – “As far as Moscow goes, I think a lot of them do swim the Tiber, I actually know a few”
Now that’s a paradigm swim even I get (FV to Rome). Sorry, Boise… meant Moscow.
Zrim – “shouldn’t is be a call to repentance?”
for CtC its the difference between schism (“come into a fuller light”) and heresy (“come in out of darkness”). Its something Bryan Cross and Catholic writers invest a lot in and beat up the reformed over – an inadequate distinction between the 2. And they are right – they define those things better due to their definition of the visible church. You can live in Geneva as long as your visible unity is centered in Rome. You and I are schismatics; you are just lower hanging fruit than I.
Jack – “And once on the church-search-trail, one tends to look for that which has a longer history, and… just happens to claim to be the true church.”
You are so right. Where do you suppose those Tiber-swimmers got that “longer history = truer theology” from?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, what I believe is that Jed is exactly right–because creatures are complicated, there is more to megashifts than the strictly doctrinal. I also agree that speculation is inappropriate (I think that was actually the point of Jed’s psychologist remark). All we can really go on is what a man says. So your speculation about JJS’s pride level is more emphasis on invisibility. What I know is that he has denied the faith we confess, and, unlike some, has had enough integrity to separate himself accordingly. That doesn’t at all diminish a call to repentance, but certainly isn’t license to speculate.
RS: What was speculation? It was based on what drives fallen human beings in a general view and that without any real specifics.
LikeLike
Ted,
I didn’t realize that this was a reading contest, but, yes I have read plenty of RCC theologians and exegetes. More often than not modern RCC exegetes are stuck walking a tightrope between official church dogma and their prefered methods of critical scholarship. But your objection here has nothing to do with what I was driving at, which is the confusion over the Rome of CTC construction, and the Rome of history. The Rome that CTC is so vociferous in touting seems to exist only in their minds. Jeez, look at what you’ve done, you got me waxing on like a Kantian. But to stay in that construct, the noumenal Rome that is, is separated by the impassible phenomenal Rome of the CTC immagination. Hence “Called to Confusion”. Now would you like to interact with this, or should I submit my RCC reading list?
LikeLike
Ted,
You are so right. Where do you suppose those Tiber-swimmers got that “longer history = truer theology” from?
Hmm, why don’t you tell me…
The problem is that the church-search, in this case, is a search for the absolute, the church that is the visible guaranteed representation of the heavenly church. One is looking for that assurance that “I have arrived! No longer a sojourner, I am in the one true church on earth.” Who needs sola scriptura and sola fide if, in fact, I’m home!
The only problem is that, with the EO in the background, there are Two One True Churches on earth!
LikeLike
Ted,
You ask why Baptists, etc. don’t go to Rome (like the Reformed, anyway). Easy – they become Mormon instead. Easy (though tragic) jump given the “shorter history = truer theology” mojo.
PGR
LikeLike
Ted, my point was that “separated” demands the language of repentance, and “brethren” is the language of communion. A call to repentance in order that one may have communion makes sense, but a simultaneous call to repentance and communion makes for more confusion.
LikeLike
Jed – ” the confusion over the Rome of CTC construction, and the Rome of history. The Rome that CTC is so vociferous in touting seems to exist only in their minds”
Do you see the ad hominem in this…. and who’s history are you speaking of? If the reformed men who went to Rome did it because they lost touch with reality, what were they working with when they led Prot churches?
So Jack – here’s a question regarding what is a true church- is Laodicea a church, yet without any regenerate people in it (Rev. 3:14-21)?
Pat – if “longer history = truer theology” is false, then why would you counter with its opposite: “shorter history = truer theology?” Wouldn’t I be better off rigorously rejecting church as my home-boy hermeneutic altogether? And wouldn’t that be a stronger inoculation for myself and those I teach against the seductions of Rome than ad hominem?
LikeLike
The only problem is that, with the EO in the background, there are Two One True Churches on earth!
That’s more of a theoretical internet problem than a practical problem. When debating on the internet the EO and the RCC have equally valid claims. When actually picking a church, depending on your ethnicity you have 0-2 Orthodox options. With a lot of the converts we are talking about falling on the 0 side of line. They may believe Orthodox claims but when it comes to the cultural issues from being able to speak or at least understand the native language, to sour cream in their soup, they just aren’t going to get past the cultural issues.
LikeLike
Pat – correction – s/b “rejecting church history as my”
LikeLike
Ted, I understand you like buzzing around here, somehow thinking that you’re landing on an arm is an annoyance, but what is exactly your point? For all the Reformed folks who go to Rome, have you considered all the Puritans that turned Unitarian or all the Baptists that love Joel Osteen? There are plenty of errors all around and avoiding them is a life-long balancing act. If you think you have the silver bullet, go have a beer (maybe two). But if you see the arguments at OldLife that lead to Rome, try to make the connection rather than simply being that annoying insect that inhibits enjoyment of your favorite adult beverage.
LikeLike
CD-H,
You’ve heard of Frankie Schaeffer? There’s an entire EO plant, growing and thriving in the U.S., that is indigenous and has its roots in evangelical Christianity. It’s goes back to the seventies having begun under a number of former Campus Crusade men in southern CA.
LikeLike
I know a lot of folks have put forward a lot of valid ideas as to why these individuals see the call to Rome as a positive thing. I think Jed has touched on the common thread when he says “Each of these guys seem to be craving the certainty and stability that Rome claims”.
In my own trip, from cradle Catholic, out from Rome, back to Rome, and then back out, the reason I went back was because of infighting Protestants — almost all good friends of mine who couldn’t figure out how to start a church. Who was to be in authority: the church council (which controlled the purse strings), or the pastor. Or in what proportion.
I went back, thinking, “the early church has worked through all of this”. But what I missed was, “did they get it right?”. I think that is the fundamental question. No, Rome is not “the Church that Christ founded (TM)”. But they’ve been able to back-fill the story with an excuse for everything.
In that respect, I think the “authority” issue among Reformed churches was a stepping stone toward Rome. Reformed churches promise some form of authority, but they don’t have the rock-firm authority and stability that Rome promises.
But again, an investigation into Roman Catholic history will show all of the flaws (and then some) of that “unbroken succession” that they claim to have. Merely how they maintain the illusion of “unbroken succession” has changed radically over the centuries.
In the end, as Jack says, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, but in reality, with respect to Roman Catholicism, it’s just an illusion. There is some “prettiness” affixed to it, but it’s a pornographic kind of prettiness. These men who have gone over toward Rome have fallen for an ecclesiastical pornography.
The one true church that we all know exists will continue to have problems. There are some things we’ll all be discussing — and not agreeing on — till Jesus comes and sets us all straight.
But the attraction of Rome is very much akin to the attraction to pornography. Rome is a parasite on the church. Calvin was straight about the papacy having sullied every good gift that God has given to us.
LikeLike
Ted- less word and more spirit- isn’t that the jist of your argument? Avoiding hermeneutical homeboys and just flowing with the spirit will keep the romanists away?
LikeLike
Ted,
Forget it dude, if you can’t distinguish between criticism and ad hominem, then I don’t have much to say. But, props to you for being the Baby Ruth to the OldLife swimming pool on this post, it is a high honor.
LikeLike
It’s almost enough to make one doubt the assertion that Rome is one unified, consistent, apostolic church going all the way back to Peter…
LikeLike
I’m going with the Jed analysis here. Paul, Jeff, and CD, you can call it the J1 Hypothesis. A conversion is as complex as human beings are since, you know, these are human beings. Personal history, micro-culture, relationships, emotional vacuums, etc., are all possible influences on why a person might convert one way rather than another. But we aren’t privy to all that and it’s a labyrinth anyway, so we can only deal with arguments. And that’s fine, as long as we recognize the limitations of arguments.
LikeLike
John Bugay: In my own trip, from cradle Catholic, out from Rome, back to Rome, and then back out, the reason I went back was because of infighting Protestants — almost all good friends of mine who couldn’t figure out how to start a church. Who was to be in authority: the church council (which controlled the purse strings), or the pastor. Or in what proportion.
RS: I think you nailed one aspect of the problem, infighting Protestants. It does sound so good to find peace in the arms of Rome at times, but that is not the same thing as peace with God in the arms of the Prince of Peace. Despite all the Protestant infighting, it is not all a bad sign. At least Protestants (okay, some version of historical) think of Christ Himself as the authority rather than Rome. The infighting, at least some of it, can be a sign of people who fight and struggle wanting to know Christ and submit to His authority. Rome just gives authority.
John Bugay: In that respect, I think the “authority” issue among Reformed churches was a stepping stone toward Rome. Reformed churches promise some form of authority, but they don’t have the rock-firm authority and stability that Rome promises.
RS: Good point.
John Bugay: In the end, as Jack says, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, but in reality, with respect to Roman Catholicism, it’s just an illusion. There is some “prettiness” affixed to it, but it’s a pornographic kind of prettiness. These men who have gone over toward Rome have fallen for an ecclesiastical pornography.
RS: A rather graphic picture.
John Bugay: But the attraction of Rome is very much akin to the attraction to pornography. Rome is a parasite on the church. Calvin was straight about the papacy having sullied every good gift that God has given to us.
RS: John, this was and is good. Thanks.
LikeLike
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The reason you find Reformed guys going to Rome (as opposed to going to Waco or Dallas or Wheaton or wherever the current current center of the evangelical/baptist/dispensationaist world is) is because they read. Like it or not being Catholic is intellectually respectable. There’s a reason that Newman, Chesterton, Brownson, Graham Greene, Evelyn Waugh, Thomas Merton, Mortimer Adler et. al. converted to Catholicism and not evangelicalism. This isn’t to say Catholicism is correct, but it is more appealing to people of an intellectual bent than is evangelicalism. In general I would say Reformed Christians are also better readers than evangelicals, too, so you’ve got a base of readers in Reformed Churches who keep on reading and draw different (and in my opinion, wrong) conclusions than they had as Reformed people. It’s not that they were Reformed that is the problem. It’s that they were readers who drew the wrong conclusions.
LikeLike
John Piper loves Chesterton almost as he loves CS Lewis. In part four of his essay, Education: Or the Mistake About the Child, Chesterton wrote, “The difference between Puritanism and Catholicism
is not about whether some priestly word or gesture is significant and sacred. It is about whether any word or gesture is significant or sacred. To the Catholic every other daily act is dramatic dedication to the service of good or evil. To the Calvinist no act can have that sort of solemnity, because the person
doing it has been dedicated from eternity, and is merely filling up his time until the crack of doom.”
LikeLike
Erik: “This isn’t to say Catholicism is correct, but it is more appealing to people of an intellectual bent than is evangelicalism.”
And we can point out the error of conveting to Catholicism while recognizing some valid complaints about evangelicialism. A thoughtful person perusing the evangelical scene might see giddy worship, disregard of historical context, shallow preaching,an impoverished culture, and an individualism that thinks little of the church as an institution.
I don’t think any of that flows from the reformed confessions. Moreover, I think they are inconsistent with the reformed confessions. Sure, we have our warts, inconsistencies, etc., but so did all the New Testament churches that the apostle Paul was compelled to address through his epistles. But I would rather defend NAPARC than defend evangelicalism as whole hence the previous postings here about whether the Reformed should identify themselves as evangelicals or if there should be a self-concious narrowing of how we see ourselves.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m not as bad a speller as my comments might lead you to believe. Typing, well that’s another thing.
LikeLike
Jack: The only problem is that, with the EO in the background, there are Two One True Churches on earth!
CD-Host: That’s more of a theoretical internet problem than a practical problem.
Not to my mind. The RCC claim is, “We are the one true church, and have always been acknowledged as such even by the east, and the primacy of Rome has always been acknowledged by the east.” In this way, they lay claim not only to Augustine but to Basil and Athanasius as well.
The existence of the EO demonstrates that Rome’s claim is circular: the only portion of the church that accepts papal supremacy is that portion that self-selects for papal supremacy.
This forces Rome to make one of three easily refuted claims:
(1) The EO is not a part of the true church because it does not accept papal supremacy (circular).
(2) The EO deviated from the apostolic faith (filioque)
(3) The EO is a part of the true church, but is estranged (putting the lie to the claim that there is not an invisible church outside of the RCC boundaries).
LikeLike
Jeff: The EO is “the other lung”.
LikeLike
@Jack —
You’ve heard of Frankie Schaeffer?
I read the father’s books a quarter century ago. But prior to you asking, just as a guy who came on MSNBC to discuss the religious right. I didn’t know about him becoming EO.
There’s an entire EO plant, growing and thriving in the U.S., that is indigenous and has its roots in evangelical Christianity. It’s goes back to the seventies having begun under a number of former Campus Crusade men in southern CA.
You mean the OCA? I’ve heard of it, but it is not what I think of when I think of Orthodoxy. You wanna go to an Orthodox church you better be able to get Brezhnev jokes told in Ringlish while eating herring. I would imagine the OCA is probably more aimed at ethnically intermarried couples: i.e. husband is Greek wife’s is beyond 2nd generation; wife is Russian husband is Polish and doesn’t want to face racism at church for the rest of his life. Is it really successfully reaching out to people with no meaningful ethnic ties to the Orthodox Church?
One of the whole points of Orthodoxy in America seems to be able to take a few hours away from Americans. The evangelical movement exploded in immigrant communities with Moody’s “Christ command us to make converts to Christianity not Anglo-Saxonism,” and thus creation of ethnic outreach. It’s pretty cool if the Orthodox Church is able to do the same thing. But no, I don’t know anything about it.
LikeLike
This internal driver concept is interesting. When the focus is taken off Christ, the Gospel, the atonement, what Christ did for us,ie., the double imputation, then numerous internal drivers begin to flow back into our fallen consciousness and fill the void of what Christ accomplished. We then begin focusing back on our own internal righteousness and the internal righteousness of others, stability, certainty, etc., etc. Our internal righteousness is still filthy rags but we don’t really want to believe that. That is a huge internal driver that has to be put to death. Our only hope is Christ and the righteousness he provided for us. We want to suppress Christ’s righteousness and glory in our own righteousness. And that is a very subtle process.
LikeLike
Erik: “John Piper loves Chesterton almost as he loves CS Lewis.”
I wish folks like Piper, who ought to know what Roman Catholicism is, would not be doing this, or at least, would qualify the daylights out of it if he’s going to quote Chesterton. I’ve commented on Carl Trueman’s flippant or not-so-flippant comment to the effect that “we need good solid reasons for not being Catholic”, and there is, of course, a historical context to that statement, and we do have many good solid reasons for not being Roman Catholic.
But many people seem to keep the “beautiful” things about Roman Catholicism in mind, while somehow forgetting the absolutely brutal tyrant that Rome is, too. A while ago there were “Reformed Catholicism” movements, which found out in a very difficult way, that Rome was not going to give up its authority for them. There was also the Roman Catholic “invitation” to Anglicans, which took a number of Anglicans by surprise, too, about just how truly “Rome-centric” it all was. Check this out at the Anglican Continuum if you are interested. Some well-meaning Anglicans quickly found out that, in moving to Rome, they were going to have to give up all things Anglican.
Some things don’t change.
LikeLike
“Is it really successfully reaching out to people with no meaningful ethnic ties to the Orthodox Church?”
I have had contact with some in an academic setting who found it quite alluring for pretty much the same reasons why RCC might have an allure: historical rootedness, grandiosity, tradition, etc. And, broadly speaking, aesthetics. There was at least one conversion in that group, while the others considered and moved on.
LikeLike
CD-H, you need to update your historical research. There has been an indigenous Orthodox movement in this country since the seventies. I was there. I’m very familiar with these folks. The leaders came out of Campus Crusade. Their common ethnicity is “American evangelical.”
http://www.antiochian.org/
http://www.stathanasius.org/about/our-history/
And Jeff underscores the point I was making about the “Two One True Churches” Rome’s claim only makes sense from inside of the Rome’s paradigm. Outside of that paradigm their claims have more holes than a hunk of Swiss cheese that Frankie S. use to snack on.
LikeLike
@Jeff —
I’m sorry. I’m not following where you think we are disagreeing. If you don’t mind let me try a hypothetical…
Assume that Islam, the Western Catholic crusaders and the Mongols had won completely and Eastern Christianity, as anything like a mainstream faith, had been entirely annihilated. We still have the same records for the first say 10 centuries of the Orthodox church. But from say 1054 (we get the schism) to 1300 we have rapid decline with the church all but disappearing. In that alternative universe what changes about the apologetic with respect to the Catholic church today?
I completely agree with you their argument is completely circular. I said as much myself above. But it is circular though all of Christian history. Orthodoxy is just a still existent set of churches that broke hard from the Catholic church earlier than Protestants did. Islam which came from Collyridian Christianity is earlier still, the population larger and the schism much deeper.
In the high middle ages the state wanted Catholic unity and Catholicism experienced unity in so far as state terror advanced its cause. In the Reformation northern states wanted national churches and in the absence of state terror it fell to national churches. In the United States the state wants a diverse marketplace of religions and there is a diverse marketplace of religions. What history shows if the forms of religious expression match pretty closely with the state’s desires. EO IMHO is just a very good example but without it not much changes there are far too many other examples.
LikeLike
DGH, evidently Bryan Cross has been keeping score with you.
LikeLike
I have had contact with some in an academic setting who found it quite alluring for pretty much the same reasons why RCC might have an allure: historical rootedness, grandiosity, tradition, etc. And, broadly speaking, aesthetics. There was at least one conversion in that group, while the others considered and moved on.
Fair enough. Any idea about the big numbers though? The average mainstream non academic convert? The membership, not the leadership. What’s drawing them in?
LikeLike
I posted this a while ago with two links, still waiting on comment moderation. Here it is with one link, hopefully getting through the filters:
CD-H, you need to update your historical research. There has been an indigenous Orthodox movement in this country since the seventies. I was there. I’m very familiar with these folks. The leaders came out of Campus Crusade. Their common ethnicity is “American evangelical.”
http://www.antiochian.org/
also google St. Athanasius in Goleta, CA and check out the history…
And Jeff underscores the point I was making about the “Two One True Churches.” Rome’s claim only makes sense from inside of the Rome’s paradigm. Outside of that paradigm their claims have more holes than a hunk of Swiss cheese that Frankie S. used to snack on.
LikeLike
mikelmann:
As an interesting (to me anyway) sidenote, I was speaking to a Muslim student yesterday and he was trying to use this same sort of argument of historical rootedness (as you said, an aesthetic/argument according to things seen). Though their claims are fairly easily annihilated by Scriptures (in their view our Scriptures were “not properly preserved”), they like to claim this primacy of tradition and try to claim the idea of political conspiracy at the Council of Nicea that rejected “the earliest traditions” since Muslims are essentially a Christian heresy that denies the Triunity of God (I think they are tied to the Ebionites). They, of course, claim that theirs is the true tradition and that they have the proper way of viewing Christ, which has Christ as being merely the first-born of all God’s creatures who indeed ascended and is currently in heaven with God, but hasn’t died just yet (though they say Jesus will die at the end of time). They are hard to argue with due to their insistent denial of historical proofs and due to their view of “improperly preserved” (I think it has to do with not being written in Arabic) Scripture references. Nonetheless, I found it fascinating that they were also concerned with this idea of having a certain level of authority rooted in historical tradition. I may learn more and find my observation to be made of little import, but at least for now, it seems to be a relevant side-note.
LikeLike
CD, I don’t actually disagree with your overall assessment. The group with which I interacted were undergraduate students, an age and environment that lends itself to considering such things. Consider it and FWIW anecdote.
The local Greek Orthodox Church has an annual event at which they set up tents and booths and sell some wonderful Greek food of all kinds. If I were to convert, that would be my draw. But I did sneak in to the building itself and I have to say I had no idea how ornate it would be, with all kinds of interesting details and history right there in the sanctuary.
LikeLike
MM, Was it mostly a naked history?
Reminds me of Calvin on false worship in the institutes talking about RC churches ( though I imagine GO churches would be similar) decorated with art that made brothels look like examples of modesty.
LikeLike
John B., Thanks for the link. I can’t believe I failed again in Bryan’s logic course — NOT! But it is a handy index to OldLife resources against CTC. If Bryan were a better historian, he’d know that you shouldn’t dispute the other side because you wind up publicizing their arguments. Thomas More unwittingly broadcast William Tyndale’s arguments by “refuting” them.
LikeLike
John Yeazel: This internal driver concept is interesting. When the focus is taken off Christ, the Gospel, the atonement, what Christ did for us,ie., the double imputation, then numerous internal drivers begin to flow back into our fallen consciousness and fill the void of what Christ accomplished.
RS: How does an internal driver take the focus off of Christ? I tend to think of it as focusing more on Christ and getting to the inner things rather than just the external behaviors. Genesis 6:5 “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
If we begin to see the real sin of the heart along with the thought and then even every intent of the thoughts, but then that all those are only evil continually, we see the need for a Savior from all that sin as well. These things should drive us to think of Christ. This is also why we need a new heart so that we can have a new internal driver. Instead of the life of self being reflected in love of self and nothing but motives for self, the believer has Christ working in him or her and giving them a new love and new motives. After all, as Paul said in I Cor 4:5, judgment day will bring about a time when the motives of our hearts will be brought to light.
John Yeazel: We then begin focusing back on our own internal righteousness and the internal righteousness of others, stability, certainty, etc., etc. Our internal righteousness is still filthy rags but we don’t really want to believe that. That is a huge internal driver that has to be put to death. Our only hope is Christ and the righteousness he provided for us. We want to suppress Christ’s righteousness and glory in our own righteousness. And that is a very subtle process.
RS: But the other side of the issue is that it is by seeing our own internal unrighteousness that we see the real nature of sin and that is to break us from all hope in self and see the righteousness of Christ alone as our only hope.
LikeLike
Cross – “Initially I offered some comments in the comment boxes at Hart’s site, but after further reflection, I decided no longer to interact with Hart on his site”. Translation: After addressing no one but Hart and avoiding everyone else’s questions I eventually realized I was convincing no one of anything and took my ball and went home.
LikeLike
John, I’m still trying to understand the Trent-V2 harmonizing. Cross provides links to help, but in the end we ordinary Protestants seem to have no reason to think we’re under anathema—that’s for the likes of Luther and anybody born into the RCC who then rejects her (the likes of you). So, why are the likes of me being called to communion? Maybe we’re not?
LikeLike
No, B, there wasn’t an abundance of flesh tones. One quirk was that they bought the building from Presbyerians and they left the Presbyterian stained glass in place. As a result there is some stained glass adorned with thistles,hearkening back to the Scots. But there were so many other things to look at that I didn’t notice that at the time.
LikeLike
Hi Zrim — You are not one of the reformers who got anathematized … you are, through no fault of your own, merely one of their unthinking and therefore un-responsible descendants. I think T-Fan posted some anathemas from some pope, however, condemning folks like you who even read the works of the reformers.
LikeLike
Hi CD,
Just one point of disagreement. I don’t think that the existence of the EO is so much a “theoretical internet problem” as it is an “elephant in the room” problem. In your hypothetical scenario in which the EO failed to persist, the RCC claims become more “truthy.” In our universe, its existence and persistence makes the Roman apologetic obviously false.
In other words, without the EO, we have a theoretical complaint about Rome. With the EO, we have a bird in hand.
LikeLike
John, so what happens when I start thinking and remain opposed to the RCC? Or is my opposition proof that I don’t think, which puts me back in the safety zone? But I thought thinking was proof of autonomy. Maybe it’s only autonomy if I conclude with Protestantism, but if I conclude with Rome it’s kosher? Maybe you could design a flow chart for me?
LikeLike
Zrim, now that Bryan has made his “call”, you understand a bunch more than you used to. You are baptized, but that baptism is all the “safety zone” you get. Now, you’ve committed mortal sins and thus have no recourse to the sacrament of penance. Maybe you can follow Bryan’s advice and, every time you do a mortal sin, say an “Act of Contrition”. That can hold you over until you do get to confession, or until such time as a priest administers you “last rites”, should the Lord bless you with that kindness. But only the RCC sacraments work after baptism.
LikeLike
Zrim, don’t take my word for it. I may have stated some things improperly. For your actual status at the moment, perhaps you should consult Bryan directly.
LikeLike
Zrim,
This is actually a good experiment. Check with Cross on the status of your soul and I’ll try to get Fr. Morrell’s OST email and you can compare answers. My guess is it’ll track along the Vat II-Trent dissonance.
LikeLike
Sean, LOL
LikeLike
Jeff —
OK gotcha. Why doesn’t Syriac Christianity, Islam or Sufism work equally well?
LikeLike
EO has a unique feature: On one point of doctrine, the filioque, they have a legitimate historical claim to be sticking to the tradition.
To establish the same for Syriac (coptic?) Christianity would require serious argument concerning monophysitism (IIRC), and Islam and Sufism … no chance.
LikeLike