Jason and the Callers to the Rescue

Published on by D. G. Hart

The Pertinacious Papist worries that devout conservative Roman Catholics cannot receive support from Pope Francis. He quotes from a recent John Allen piece on the pope:

… many on the Catholic right can’t help but suspect that the recent preponderance of conservatives who’ve found themselves under the gun isn’t an accident. Some perceive a through-the-looking-glass situation, in which upholding Catholic tradition is now perceived as a greater offense than rejecting it.

How to explain these disciplinary acts?

One possibility is that Francis genuinely wants to hobble the traditionalist constituency, and is using every chance to accomplish it. If so, then Francis doesn’t owe anyone an explanation, because his moves would be having precisely the intended effect.

Another, however, is that the pontiff’s motives aren’t ideological…. The speech Francis delivered at the end of the recent Synod of Bishops would seem to lean in the second direction, as he tried to signal sympathy for both the progressive and traditionalists camps….

If that’s the case, Francis might need to find an occasion to explain in his own voice why he’s going after the people and groups that find themselves in his sights. Otherwise, the risk is that a good chunk of the Church may conclude that if the pope sees them as the enemy, there’s no good reason they shouldn’t see him the same way.

But why worry about a particular pontiff when you have such air-tight ecclesiological theory? Why should reality get in the way?

86 thoughts on “Jason and the Callers to the Rescue”

  1. Let me get this straight

    Dreher is a bitter ex-Romanist and/or triumphalist EO, so his opinion doesn’t matter.

    And Haworth is struggling with the implications of the Roman Catholic faith so HIS opinion and concerns don’t matter and should be disregarded.

    And the liberal Bishops are just an anomaly so their opinion doesn’t matter.

    And Cardinal Burke was just an angry old man who doesn’t like Jesuits so the fact that he clashed with Francis doesn’t matter and the fact that he was ousted doesn’t imply anything about the Roman Church and doesn’t matter.

    And the Traditionalists are just drinking the Liberal-Media Kool-Aid, and are alarmists, and they never got on board with Vatican II, anyway, so their concerns don’t matter.

    And Francis is always being misinterpreted by the press so the fact that he is rarely clear (to the detriment of Roman Catholics everywhere) and seems like he holds heterodox views doesn’t matter, either.

    I’m beginning to wonder: who really runs the show? Do Jason, the Callers, and the Neo-Caths have an answer? Because all I hear is them spouting what they think is the party line, but it seems like the party left them behind a long time ago.

    Whose opinions do matter? Who is allowed to hold a legitimate concern?

    Like

  2. Seth,

    Whose opinions do matter? Who is allowed to hold a legitimate concern?

    Easy—whoever the gang at CTC says, and then only what they approve from that individual. It’s a big joke.

    Like

  3. as Philip Seymour Hoffman explained in the movie I saw on Friday, propo is short for propoganda.

    thehungergames[dot]wikia[dot]com/wiki/Propo

    That’s what they are, propoganda. And whatev, it’s cool and all. Why should reality get in the way, yo?

    Like

  4. One thing’s clear from reading the comments between Eric and Bryan on the CtC thread is that the only acceptable and proper way to have a coversation with Bryan is: He teacher. You pupil.
    I know, nothing new…

    Like

  6. this was the moment (all about) I gave up over there. You see David’s But how did your presbytery come down on the essentials vs. non-essentials? a few comments up? I am 99.99% sure he added that question after I had already responded. Hey, I could be wrong (not an infallible church officer over here, after all). And no big deal really. Just that’s when I quit. The JATC channel at OLTS is a permanent feature, hopefully Cletus and his ilk get it someday.

    Like

  7. Seth,

    Good analysis.

    “It Just Doesn’t Matter”

    It just doesn’t matter because even if we win all the really good looking girls will still go out with Callers because they want to have nine babies.

    Like

  11. I like how Bryan considers reconciling to his(the Church’s?) position as; good faith dialogue and any ‘critical’ stance as ostensibly NOT good faith dialogue. At least you always know the score at CtC. Now, if only the Pope gave a holy shite what Bryan thought, he’d have something. I also wonder if Bryan has started putting ‘Malta charity’ in the memo of his tithing check. I’m fascinated by a guy who is so protestantly roman catholic, that he is completely out of step with the pope in Rome. He’s the anti-Kung-Kung, except that Ratzinger knew of and dialogued with Kung. Francis is quite unaware of Bryan. Bryan actually calls people to fidelity to Rome based on the idea of the ‘audacity of the pope'(an appeal to authority of person and office-supernatural gifting through the laying on of hands) yet he’s ready to dissent if the pope is audacious enough to either pastorally or doctrinally interpret or develop Rome’s position on marriage in such a way that is contrary to how Bryan currently understands(interprets) the position. So, Bryan’s lay charism trumps the pope’s priestly charism. How very protestant and audacious of him(Bryan). I also appreciate that Francis and I share the same catechetical training, such that neither one of us recognize Bryan’s rad trad platoon as legitimate. Well, Francis calls them frauds, and a ‘house of cards’. I also appreciate that Francis, in prescribing penance, forbids obnoxious trads from practicing the extraordinary form. That’s really funny. ‘How you like them apples!’

    Prot convert to Rome: “What do you mean he’s a liberation theologian?! No, he’s not”

    Cradle: “Ummm, he’s a latin american Jesuit. He was pen pals with Che and he wears a t-shirt under his vestments that has a picture of a guy with a really weak beard and a beret”

    Prot convert to Rome: “How would you know”

    Cradle: “Umm, he’s a latin american Jesuit………………..

    Like

  12. CtC is at war with the new heretic. The good faith dialogue lusts against the self-willed monologue.

    We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in a’ll of them vanity is a common element. – Fourth Lateran

    Let’s bury the myth that Bryan or Pope Francis lacks continuity with the RCC.

    Like

  13. Sean, and then you have David Anders (who has his own show on Mother Teresa radio) blabbering on like this (thanks Andrew):

    My concern is not so much to say that Protestants draw the line between essential/non-essential in such and such a place, but rather to point out that the line shifts over time and for different reasons. Calvin thought of the essentials one way, Westminster in another, Puritanism in another, evangelical PCA types in still another. At each stage of development, the reasons for drawing the lines also changes. Calvin was deeply concerned about liturgical and ecclesial order, Puritans with being able to reliably identify “the saints,” evangelicals with finding that element of common spiritual experience that could unite disparate theological positions.

    The result, I contend, is radically different constructions of what it means even to be a Christian or to be saved.

    Where did this guy learn Protestant history? As if Calvin, Westminster, and the Puritans are as far apart as Boniface VIII and John XXIII, or as if Robert Orsi‘s Harlem Roman Catholics ever read First Things or watch EWTN. At the end of the day, these guys are either deluded or duplicitous. Either way, you can’t talk to them.

    Like

  15. Sean,

    If only you weren’t a victim of the crisis you could perform a similar deconstruction of Kenneth being married to his sister.

    Like

  16. Kenneth (on his blog) – In other words, Dr. Hart imagines that the Church established by Christ would be not only infallible on matters of faith and morals, but impeccable too. Flawless in every conceivable way. The Pope should be infallible in every utterance. Every interview, speech, and conversation, should be God breathed greatness. Never mind that the Catholic Church happily admits that she is, and always has been, made up of sinners. Never mind that the Church has never claimed for itself ecclesiastical impeccability. Never mind that none of these arguments have any impact on the Catholic apologetic. For Dr. Hart and his friends at the old-life-mentally-insane-society, their imagination sets the standard. A standard that, unfortunately, has very little to do with reality.

    The Motives of Credbility – These testimonies are unanimous; they all point in one direction, they are of every age, they are clear and simple, and are within the grasp of the humblest intelligence. And, as the Vatican Council has said, “the Church herself, is, by her marvellous propagation, her wondrous sanctity, her inexhaustible fruitfulness in good works, her Catholic unity, and her enduring stability, a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable witness to her Divine commission” (Const. Dei Filius)

    Erik – I have a right to expect “wondrous sanctity” and “inexhaustable fruitfulness in good works”, Kenneth. The Church itself says so.

    Like

  18. Eric W, huh?

    It’s no accident that CtC demands “good faith” in their dialogues. They get to judge when this faith becomes heresy or bad. New heresy produces new heretics, so Bryan gets to be the principled means to discern between them. We know all post-VII Popes are Masters of the grand dialogue and Bryan imitates them (obeying must become imitation). Why do they try to reduce sola to solo ? The bedfellow of solo is the monological heretic.

    Like

  19. Eric W.,

    Let’s bury the myth that Bryan or Pope Francis lacks continuity with the RCC.

    I think the point is that Bryan and the whole CtC project is almost entirely out of step with modern Roman Catholicism post-V2. IOW, some of what CtC does may have analogues with pre-V2 RCism, but since the Roman Church officially adopted modernism at V2, the CtC project is essentially nonsensical. It’s why you don’t see very many cradle RCs calling us to communion. They understand that the Vatican now sees us as true Christians, having in practice renounced the anathemas of Trent even while still nominally claiming them. The religion that Bryan and CtC promote is very heady and not at all in touch with the average RC in the pew.

    Certain RCs such as Kenneth recognize that the church basically renounced its earlier doctrines and practices at V2, he’s just too given over to Rome to admit it. That’s why he can comfort himself by saying that the council was just pastoral and didn’t issue any new doctrines even as he often rails against it. Bryan et al don’t see it at all, which is why we get 10,000 word tomes trying to make the square peg of Tridentine Romanism fit the round hole of post-V2 RCism.

    The blindness of CTC is seen in their refusal to admit that if Francis and any nineteenth century pope sat down together, neither one of them would recognize each other as a true RC.

    Like

  21. Darryl, (re: blabbing CTCers),

    Yep. My blog limits people to 140 characters.

    And in response as I told Cletus last year, the essentials non essentials was addressed this way for (all about) me:

    QUESTION: Yes, I’d like to know can you at least answer the second part of that question? What IS foundational that can’t be touched in the future as far as new light on the subject?

    DR. STRANGE: Well, I think a whole host of things are. I think we can go back and just trace through – think about church history. The doctrine of Scripture, the doctrine of God, which creation is a part – but does everything within that have the same standing? The doctrine of man, the doctrine of Christ. As you particularly think of those first four councils of the church, as that gets expressed in the Nicene Creed and in some of the other formulary, but we came to understand, particularly coming out of the middle ages, that while the Nicene Creed is necessary it’s not sufficient. That’s why we had a reformation. If the Nicene Creed were sufficient, we wouldn’t need a reformation. And, I happen to know Jim Jordan argues that the Nicene Creed is sufficient, but he argues as a part of that the absolutely necessity of six 24-hour days. Well, that baffles me, that he thinks that that has a kind of standing that things that happened in the reformation don’t – and that is just baffling to me. It’s baffling to me to hear protestants talking about what is clearly key to Protestantism and what makes you’re a protestant and what makes you a reformed protestant. Talking about that in ways that things are up for grabs- I could list you a whole host of names of people who are 6-24 hour folks who do that, and that baffles me. And, so to be frank with you – you asked the question. I think that people have gotten their priorities wrong. I think they have been influenced- in those cases I say they have to have been influenced by other things than the reformed faith to come to their 6-24 hour conclusions. Now, I am 6-24 and I see the part of that in the reformed faith, but I think you have to come to the conclusion that some people have been influenced by other traditions outside of the reformed faith to see that 6-24 or to affirm that 6-24 is so vital that the faith is lost without it, and they themselves don’t affirm other things that historically reformed people have said are vital to the reformed faith. So, if that’s not clear – I mean there is a whole lot of writing on this. So, that’s my answer to that.

    Until next year.

    Like

  22. EC, CW —

    How much of those articles would you attribute to a heavy reading of Jonathan Edwards? I’ve never read anything by Dr. J, but it always seems to be a common denominator.

    Like

  24. Truly, to explain Vatican II, you have to revert to Clinton-isms like “It depends on what your definition os ‘Is’ is…” And yet we hear all the hype about the glory of the Magisterium. ROFLOL. Robert nails it with a single pound:

    I think the point is that Bryan and the whole CtC project is almost entirely out of step with modern Roman Catholicism post-V2. IOW, some of what CtC does may have analogues with pre-V2 RCism, but since the Roman Church officially adopted modernism at V2, the CtC project is essentially nonsensical. It’s why you don’t see very many cradle RCs calling us to communion. They understand that the Vatican now sees us as true Christians, having in practice renounced the anathemas of Trent even while still nominally claiming them. The religion that Bryan and CtC promote is very heady and not at all in touch with the average RC in the pew.

    ”…[T]he church basically renounced its earlier doctrines and practices at V2… Bryan et al don’t see it at all, which is why we get 10,000 word tomes trying to make the square peg of Tridentine Romanism fit the round hole of post-V2 RCism. The blindness of CTC is seen in their refusal to admit that if Francis and any nineteenth century pope sat down together, neither one of them would recognize each other as a true RC.

    Like

  25. Darryl,

    But why worry about a particular pontiff when you have such air-tight ecclesiological theory?

    Indeed.

    Why should reality get in the way?

    You would first need to show how reality does not fit with this ecclesiology. Otherwise, you’re presupposing precisely what is in question, and thus begging the question.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  27. “How much of those articles would you attribute to a heavy reading of Jonathan Edwards? I’ve never read anything by Dr. J, but it always seems to be a common denominator.”

    If you start, tell me if you find anything remotely invoking the Reformed faith that most of us Old Lifers hold. You can quit after 250 pages and nothing…

    Like

  28. Kent — I suspected as much.

    Outing (all about) myself, but saying you’ve never read Edwards to some is like saying you’ve never watched Pulp Fiction.

    Guilty on both counts.

    Like

  29. JAS, his sermons are helpful, his diary and other writings not so much. Each can have their own main reasons for wondering why this is considered Reformed.

    Freedom of the Will was one of the most painful reads I told myself was worth persevering through, it wasn’t.

    The biggest trap is a large two volume set of Edwards that passes off as his life works, when the Yale Edition is at least 26 volumes last time I looked.

    Like

  30. Darryl,

    Bryan, perhaps you read about the Synod of 2014.

    If you think the 2014 Synod does not fit with Catholic ecclesiology, you’ll need to make an argument showing that to be the case. Anything can be asserted, just as anything (including falsehoods) can be suggested.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  32. Bryan is apparently unconcerned that the bishops couldn’t figure out whether or not homosexuality is a sin. Maybe next year they’ll get it right.

    Like

  33. Bryan’s just a propagandist. He’s got the discipline of Billy Graham and Dick Morris-coaching Dubya, to stay on message. And like Billy, he largely hopes and even trades on his ‘integrity’ of person typified by his wooden consistency regardless of it’s relevance to the context to ‘win the war’ and impress disaffected women and susceptible RTS students and even some West West. Yawn. How very evangelical of him.

    Like

  34. Francis’s latest head scratcher was lauding the Koran as a “prophetic book of peace” while in Turkey. Yeah, that and a book on how to blow s**t up, apparently.

    Hef absolutely needs to invite him to the Mansion. The quotes would be priceless.

    Like

  35. Bryan, listen to the assertions of Cardinal Francis George:

    To begin, George said he’d like to ask Francis if he fully grasps that in some quarters, he’s created the impression Catholic doctrine is up for grabs.

    Does Francis realize, for example, “what has happened just by that phrase, ‘Who am I to judge?’ ”

    Francis’ signature sound-bite, George said, “has been very misused … because he was talking about someone who has already asked for mercy and been given absolution, whom he knows well,” George said.

    (Francis uttered the line in 2013, in response to a question about a Vatican cleric accused of gay relationships earlier in his career.)

    “That’s entirely different than talking to somebody who demands acceptance rather than asking for forgiveness,” George said.

    “Does he not realize the repercussions? Perhaps he doesn’t,” George said. “I don’t know whether he’s conscious of all the consequences of some of the things he’s said and done that raise doubts in people’s minds.”

    “The question is why he doesn’t he clarify” these ambiguous statements, George said. “Why is it necessary that apologists have to bear the burden of trying to put the best possible face on it?”

    He said he also wonders if Francis realizes how his rhetoric has created expectations “he can’t possibly meet.”

    “That’s what worries me,” George said. “At a certain moment, people who have painted him as a player in their own scenarios about changes in the Church will discover that’s not who he is.”

    At that stage, George warned, “He’ll get not only disillusionment, but opposition, which could be harmful to his effectiveness.”

    In the confusion of audacity,
    dgh

    Like

  36. George – “Why is it necessary that apologists have to bear the burden of trying to put the best possible face on it?”

    Erik – No worries. Bryan’s up to the challenge.

    George – At a certain moment, people who have painted him as a player in their own scenarios about changes in the Church will discover that’s not who he is.”

    Erik – Not being a “player” is going to cut down on those “Man of the Year” awards.

    Like

  38. James White weighs in on Jason:

    Madrid and Stellman: A Parable of Falsehood

    I was just scanning through the overnight materials on FB and Twitter (well, overnight here in Ukraine anyway), and came across Patrick Madrid’s announcement of a new book against sola scriptura, based on Yves Congar’s materials on “Tradition.” For those not familiar with the debate, it is the old “material/formal sufficiency” distinction that *some* Roman Catholics have depended on over the past half century or so. I say some because, obviously, Madrid isn’t the Pope, and his opinions are just that…opinions, private interpretations, and carry no magisterial weight. Congar’s take is just one of many, and again, is not “infallible.” Hence the never-ending task of responding to this new subtle twist, or that one. At times you just want to throw up your hands.

    But I am likewise reminded of my discovering Jason Stellman’s participation in a relatively new podcast called “Drunk Ex-Pastors” where he and an agnostic, both former ministers, drink alcohol while blathering on about snobbish topics as if the onset of inebriation gives you some special insight that no one else has. Stellman’s spectacular plummet into the abyss is a spectacle, to be sure, and one that should warn any others of the true results of CalledtoConfusion disease. But what is the relationship to Madrid’s book? It’s pretty clear: Madrid’s thesis has always been “sola scriptura is the blueprint for anarchy,” but the reality is exactly the opposite. Rome offers certainty for the cost of your mind and soul—and then reneges on the offer once you really find out what it is like on that side of the Tiber. No non-inebriated mind will miss the reality of the plurality of views that exist in Rome (which may explain Stellman’s stunts). In fact, it is highly ironic that Madrid is putting out a book critical of sola scriptura right at the same time the wider world is recognizing just how malleable and changeable Rome’s doctrinal expression really is. Everyone with common sense can see how vastly different Francis’ views are than even his immediate (and still living) predecessor, let alone any of the Popes of only a century past. The myth of the unchanging church, infallibility, etc., are so painfully clear today, and yet the Madrids of the world soldier on despite the obvious contradiction. And the result is seen in the ruined lives and ministries of men like Jason Stellman.

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2014/12/02/madrid-and-stallman-a-parable-of-falsehood/

    Like

  41. Jason, good catch:

    If some (including many Catholics) were surprised, it is understandable: most people still don’t know how Pope Francis thinks. After he made what some took to be easygoing remarks about sexuality, people have assumed that he is just another liberal in the western mould. This is a big mistake. Jorge Mario Bergoglio may be, as I argue in my new biography, a ‘great reformer’ in the tradition of St Francis of Assisi — a gospel radical who recalls the church to its dependence on Christ and the Holy Spirit rather than power and status. But in western cultural and political terms, he is a conservative who has spent his life in opposition to the abstract ideologies of the Enlightenment. His background is firmly within the nationalist Catholic culture of Argentina that looks back to the Hapsburgs rather than the French revolution, and which flowered above all in the 1940s and 1950s, when Bergoglio was growing up in Buenos Aires. It was the age of Colonel Perón and his wife Evita. Articulating the ‘national’ and ‘popular’ and Catholic values of the immigrant classes, they inflicted a humiliating defeat on Argentina’s liberal establishment.

    Like

  42. Darryl,

    If you think something Cardinal George referred to is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology, you’ll need to make an argument showing the incompatibility between the two. Again, anything can be asserted, just as anything (including falsehoods) can be suggested. You have yet to show that something in “reality” is incompatible with Catholic ecclesiology.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  44. Whatever Bryan happens to think at the moment is the 100% guiding truth. If he completely changes his mind a minute later both his prior and his current thoughts are 100% guiding truth.

    And he gives this leeway to those he deems worthy of it.

    Very easy to understand this type of person.

    Whether you want to have them in your life except to feel sorry for or laugh at is another matter.

    Like

  45. Darryl,

    Bryan, you’re not real good at gestures or implications are you?

    Ad hominems (i.e. criticisms of my person) likewise don’t show any incompatibility between something in “reality” and Catholic ecclesiology. If there is some incompatibility between the two, it shouldn’t be too hard to point it out.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  46. Bryan, do you see any difference between the National Catholic Reporter and The Wanderer? Do I need to point that out (or are you – sorry for the observation – clueless)?

    Like

  48. George is kind of confused and concerned, Bryan is not. They need to sort that out, not us.

    Hopefully for the sake of honesty when Bryan issues The Call to our people he admits that George is kind of confused and concerned. Things like this never seem to be part of the sales pitch, though.

    Like

  49. One of these days Bryan will admit that most things taken on faith can not really be proven true or false. That’s why we have to take them on faith.

    Once he admits it, hopefully it doesn’t rock his world too badly. I’d hate to see him living under a bridge, incoherently spouting truisms in the peace of Charles Manson.

    Like

  50. Darryl,

    Bryan, do you see any difference between the National Catholic Reporter and The Wanderer?

    A difference between the NCR and The Wanderer is not a difference between Catholic ecclesiology and “reality.” Again, if, as you claimed above, Catholic ecclesiology does not square with “reality,” it shouldn’t be difficult to point out the incompatibility.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  51. Bryan, you’re playing games (is that an ad hominem?). This doesn’t make you look good.

    I didn’t use “reality” in the piece if you want to go all exact.

    The piece did quote a prominent reporter on the Vatican who can understand why conservatives are worried about Pope Francis. And then I referred those worried conservatives to Jason (now drunk) and the Callers.

    What exactly did I not get right. Do you fight with your wife this way?

    Like

  52. Darryl,

    I didn’t use “reality” in the piece if you want to go all exact.

    Here are the last two sentences in your post:

    But why worry about a particular pontiff when you have such air-tight ecclesiological theory? Why should reality get in the way?

    If you’re not actually claiming that Catholic ecclesiology doesn’t square with “reality,” that’s fine with me.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  58. Hi Andrew,

    How are you and family? You know, I didn’t end up watching it after all. Can’t remember what I did watch, or if I ended up watching anything. When I have a free minute, I usually read. My 13 year old daughter wants me to hurry and finish reading The Hobbit since part three is about to come out in the theatre, and I’m only half way through it.
    I love A Man for All Seasons though; I’m a fan of John Hurt who plays a really nasty character. I was always impressed by Sir Thomas More’s faith,fortitude, and cheery disposition. Amiable man, it sounds like he was; a personality to admire and love. No wonder he’s a saint 🙂

    My 19 year old son loves Star Wars, but I have never really gotten into it. Did you know my last name is Vader? I’ve gotten lots of comments about it over my 31 years of marriage. Once just after I was newly married, I picked up the phone and a heavy breather on the other end said, “May the force be with you.”. I quickly hung it up but I knew right then that that was the sort of thing I would be getting from then on out.

    btw, I am very much interested in your occupation as a geologist. Did you ever get anymore help concerning a Christian answer that harmonizes with science in regards to the earth’s age?

    Like

  61. I submitted a comment at CTC on the article:

    “Jason’s latest online venture can be found here”:

    http://www.drunkexpastors.com/

    Let’s see if that one sees the light of day.

    I like the podcast. The odds of The Callers removing the sticks up their butts long enough to admit that they like it is around 1 in 1000.

    Like

  62. The whole Jason episode in relation to the Callers, as well as EWTN’s “Coming Home” schtick just reeks of the whole evangelical world of the testimonial. If I want all that I’ll watch the 700 Club. It’s a really odd mix for the Callers though, because on one hand we have logic, the superior paradigm, and religion as geometry, and on the other hand we have, “Hey, this guy from your church became a Catholic so you should, too!”. If it’s logical, why should it matter who or who hasn’t embraced it? And if everyone’s embracing it, why does it really matter whether or not it’s logical?

    In short, these guys bring a lot of baggage to this project that they picked up BEFORE they ever became Reformed.

    Like

  65. Susan (re: Science),

    Click on my initials above if you want some articles that help me understand the relationship between Science and Xtianity. I posted some stuff, since you got me thinking about it. Check out these words from the famous 20th century physicist Richard Feynman (emphasis mine):

    Turning to the third aspect of religion – the inspirational aspect – brings me to the central question that I would like to present to this imaginary panel. The source of inspiration today – for strength and for comfort – in any religion is very closely knit with the metaphysical aspect; that is, the inspiration comes from working for God, for obeying his will, feeling one with God. Emotional ties to the moral code – based in this manner – begin to be severely weakened when doubt, even a small amount of doubt, is expressed as to the existence of God; so when the belief in God becomes uncertain, this particular method of obtaining inspiration fails.

    I don’t know the answer to this central problem – the problem of maintaining the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical aspects.

    The heritages of Western civilization

    Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure – the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it – the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics – the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual – the humility of the spirit.

    These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all (AB Comment – Bryan, are you there?, it’s Andrew B here, yet again..); one needs one’s heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God‑more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time?

    I put it up to the panel for discussion.

    Anyway, it’s an interesting topic. I lounge around the OldLife bar, so I’m sure I’ll find another time to spout off about (all about) my favorite pet projects (i.e. Science) here amongst my reformed brethren, and you and your Catholic guests who enjoy Darryl’s blog too.

    I’m trying to comment less here (Kosmo as my inspiraton), so I’ll leave you with however you wish to respond to this here. Oh, and I wanted to clarify one thing. I am an accountant, not a geologist. You have me confused for my wife (she’ll get a kick out of that when I tell her 😆 ).

    Ciao.

    Like

  69. Bryan Cross
    Posted December 4, 2014 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
    Darryl,

    I didn’t use “reality” in the piece if you want to go all exact.

    Here are the last two sentences in your post:

    But why worry about a particular pontiff when you have such air-tight ecclesiological theory? Why should reality get in the way?

    If you’re not actually claiming that Catholic ecclesiology doesn’t square with “reality,” that’s fine with me.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Just stopped in to see what anti-Catholic mischief Darryl’s up to this week.

    Fail. Again. Darryloses.

    D. G. Hart
    Posted December 4, 2014 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
    Susan, I am doing to Bryan what he does to Protestantism.

    No. If you did, you wouldn’t lose all the time.

    Like

  71. susan,

    ps,

    for sure finish the hobbit for your daughter before you come back to OL. life is to short for this kind of stuff, yo.

    hope you and yours are well. peace.

    Like

  72. AB,
    Have you read Bas van Fraassen’s _The_Empirical_Stance_? I find his epistemology really quite compelling. His discussion of religious belief in light of modern science and attendant secularism is great, but it needs to be fleshed out further. I do see some parallels between his work as it relates to religion and secularism and Darryl’s case for 2k theology.

    van Fraassen is an RC convert, but unlike certain other converts, he is an A-list scholar who’s ideas are worth taking seriously.

    Like

  73. friend sdb (scientist, if I recall? you introduced me to what an “h-index is? greetings) of OL (which I can say, per Calvin, because of the below)

    Then by a diligent examination of our faults let us keep ourselves humble. Thus while nothing will remain to swell our pride, there will be much to subdue it. Again, we are enjoined, whenever we behold the gifts of God in others, so to reverence and respect the gifts, as also to honour those in whom they reside. God having been pleased to bestow honour upon them, it would ill become us to deprive them of it. Then we are told to overlook their faults, not, indeed, to encourage by flattering them, but not because of them to insult those whom we ought to regard with honour and good will.392 In this way, with regard to all with whom we have intercourse, our behaviour will be not only moderate and modest, but courteous and friendly. The only way by which you can ever attain to true meekness, is to have your heart imbued with a humble opinion of yourself and respect for others.

    Indeed, I have not read it, friend. I will read the review as soon as I am able. My son got me up aroudn 5:15 here on the west coast, and I should be attending to him. There’s much I could say due to my fascination in matters scientific. For me it is a hobby, others it is their job/profession. Kind of like how Bryan Cross, religion and philiosophy is his job. For me, these are just interests. Which is why I need to bow out more, and listen instead of speak. As Pascal said, I apologist, this missive would have been shorter, had I had the time. Good day, sir.

    Who’s next?

    Like

  74. Who I ask? Me is.

    SDB, I went on one of my bull in a China shop smart phone combox blog barages at RSC’s blog earlier this year. Hopefully I’ve grown up some, but you can see what (all about ) I think. RSC did a few follow up podcasts on science after that, which I thought were good.

    Richard Rhodes’ The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Bill Bryson’s The Short History of Nearly Everything are some books adorning my shelf 10 ft away from where I sit, along with books on Warfield and Machen (shorter writings anthology by our host). I haven’t read all of Rhodes, but that book had great sections, that I should tweet someday. I’m done for now, that’s me though. Thanks again, good review, I’ll read it again later.

    Like

  75. As far as demonstrating a break in continuity, all anyone needs to point to is James Larson’s unan sewable series “The War Against Being,” which pretty much shreds any Let’s Pretend games of the Callers that the current popes are as Catholic as All Get Out.

    http://www.waragainstbeing.com

    Doctrines have not *officially* changed, since they don’t need too when you can pontificate using the same terminology and mitre (ferula had to be updated) but mean substantially different things. Hey, It’s All Good!

    Like

  76. Erik Charter
    Posted December 5, 2014 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
    Tom,

    Stalk much?

    Who’s stalking whom? You mouth off whenever Bryan Cross kicks Darryl’s sophistic ass [again].

    Like

  78. Tom, Darryl’s ass again? Really?

    You know whose Calvinism it is, where is that TVD that started out so well here?

    If you are good, I’ll post my YouTube video telling Bob Barker to give me some preparation H in the grocery game when I had clearly lost the trip for two to Rio.

    Is it loneliness is that is it? Will you at least try your local OPC and tweet me your thoughts? Say what you want to say, yo. I’m out, gonna take up a Sunday night drink. Too commenting provokes such things. I’m out.

    Like

  79. Anyone else notice that Tom finds Bryan’s case for Rome so compelling that Tom continues to refuse to go to mass?

    Like

  81. Robert
    Posted December 7, 2014 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
    Anyone else notice that Tom finds Bryan’s case for Rome so compelling that Tom continues to refuse to go to mass?

    Actually, I just find Darryl’s attacks on Bryan and Catholicism dishonest and therefore inept. Jason and the Callers put on a much better show than Darryl and the Sophists. And his attack chihuahua, “Erik.”
    ____________

    ab
    Posted December 7, 2014 at 10:09 pm | Permalink
    Tom, Darryl’s ass again? Really?

    You know whose Calvinism it is, where is that TVD that started out so well here?

    Whose Calvinism is it anyway, Tom Van Dyke?

    Why it’s Darryl Hart’s, silly. He wrote the book on it, you know.

    Heh. Still true, Andrew. I’m flattered you remembered that one. A scathing bon mot, the best kind. While he tries to exploit rhetorical differences and debate in Catholicism, Reformed theology in America is splintering to atoms.

    Like

  83. Tom, I remember nothing, but know how to use Google, and know that at many times you praise our host. It was hit number 2 or 3 using your name and oldlife dot org. Try it.

    You’d get that YouTube video of me if you somehow figure out how to post with my Calvin and Hobbes avatar, and it has to be the real deal.

    You really don’t get Reformed theology, sorry, and I won’t take your seriously until you actually visit us live. Until then, this is all just a game show, fun as it is.

    Fore.

    Like

  84. Actually, I just find Darryl’s attacks on Bryan and Catholicism dishonest and therefore inept. Jason and the Callers put on a much better show than Darryl and the Sophists

    The Disciple of Vernon is allowing his bitterness slip to show.

    Meanwhile we’re left wondering when Bry is gonna start a Catholic CarSalesman Celebrities Called to Sobriety website.

    Perhaps TVD when he isn’t nursing his drink and grousing could let us know.

    Like

  85. Don’t the faithful know about Jason and the Callers?

    For many years, the faithful have been confused, bewildered, scandalized and have even lost their faith on account of the verbal bombs and trendy verbiage emanating from various members of the magisterium, even and including the Pope himself irrespective of whether they identify as Traditional Catholics or Conservative Catholics. This has been even more so under the current Pontificate, where absurd statements are made almost for their shock value. The difficulty is, that many people attempting to come to grips with the implications of odd statements of members of the magisterium, often lack the theological training and seriousness to do so. Everyone thinks they are a theologian, and begin misapplying theological arguments, or even argue themselves headlong over the edge, into sedevacantism. The solution to this state of affairs, however, is not to lob the equivalent of bombs with respect to theological arguments, but rather to do theology properly. In his many years of writing, the greatest assistance to the Traditionalist argument along solid theological—rather than polemical—grounds has been given by Fr. Chad Ripperger, Ph. D.

    Like

  86. Pingback: Quiz Am I Depressed

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.