Paleocrat_etc's Xanga

BIG ANNOUNCEMENT

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:47:22 GMT

Visit http://thepaleocrat.com to find out.

VAN TIL: CONCLUSION: SOLA SCRIPTURA

Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:57:34 GMT

Not unlike many of my other promises, I have been quite slack in making good on my vow to finish this series on Van Til and his belief that presuppositionalism was philosophically and theologically at enmity with Catholicism. Thus far we have seen that he was wrong on a number of counts. In some areas he appears to be ignorant, in others disingenuous. In any case, my final contribution to this matter concerns authority, and I will be particularly dealing with his contention that Sola Scriptura is an essential component of presuppositionalism.

In Defense of the Faith, Van Til states:

“Rome knows of no absolute authority such as Protestantism has in its doctrine of Scripture.”

This doctrine he is speaking of would, of course, be none other than Sola Scriptura.

In Christian Apologetics he says much the same:

“Rome simply has not the materials with which to build a really Christian concept of authority. A truly Christian concept of authority presupposes that in all he does man is face to face with the requirements of God.”

While I have other entries dealing with the general concept of authority, God’s determinative will, and His control over the affairs of man, I will confine myself to the passages pertaining to his steadfast contention that Sola Scriptura is a necessary precondition for the presuppositional method, as it alone can provide for a truly Christian concept of authority.

The novel doctrine of Sola Scriptura, born at the time of the Protestant Revolution, has shown itself to be riddled with problems, all of which have serious ramifications on the Protestant (if I may speak of them as a single body) notion of authority. Listing them off would do us well.

1. The canon. On the one hand, Protestant scholars cannot declare with any force that the canon is infallible. In fact, in the book entitled Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, a collection of essays from notables such as R.C. Sproul, James White, John Armstrong, Sinclair Ferguson, and Joel Beeke, the concession was made that the canon was fallible! Yet on the other hand they wish to say that this admittedly fallible collection of no more and no less than the 66 books is the ultimate authority for all faith and practice, and that it is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to question it, much less add or subtract from it. That is, in essence, paramount to saying that one cannot cross a boundary marker that may or may not be wrongfully drawn up.

Consequently, the Protestant is unable to explain how his or her view of the canon is in any way binding on the conscience of another. A good friend recently reminded me of a remark I used to make in regards to this dilemma. I would say that Protestants are fallible men fallibly interpreting a fallible collection of what they hope and pray are infallible books. This is true to a fault.

At issue here is whether or not a Protestant can impose the canon of 66 upon the conscience of another. They admit that it is a fallible collection, their having already ripped out a number of books from its binding seems indicative of the idea that men have within themselves the ability and right to disregard those books they believe to be short of inspired or contradictory to their understanding of various doctrines. But as with many other things, Luther and Co. were able to invoke privileges no other Protestant has been permitted to invoke ever since. Any attempt at such insubordination is reason for expulsion.

2. The MSS. When dealing with manuscripts, searching for the most ancient and reliable, one cannot but laugh at the irony. While Protestants may love to lambast Catholics for hatred of the Scripture, and most of them believe it abandoned the faith a few hundred years after the death of St. John (and I am being generous here), the MSS they rely upon were written, by and large, during the period where apostasy ran rampant. On what grounds does the Protestant believe that the priests, monks, and hermits handling the transmission of the texts didn’t tamper with them? Protestants are forced to rely on the honest scholarship of “Bible hating, Pope honoring, Mary adoring” apostates.

3. Interpretation. Aside from the canon and the manuscripts, interpretation causes a serious problem for both the Protestant and the presuppositionalist. While their may generally recognize the authority of Scripture Alone, they lack any internal mechanism by which to interpret its contents in any universally binding fashion. They may, and do, come to what they believe are accurate conclusions. They believe they are staying true to the intent of the author. They would, by necessity, believe what they believe to be not only true, but the main or only way any given issue can or should be believed. The problem is that every Protestant with a differing view on any given matter believes the same thing. While these would be too numerous to count, their being as numerous as the sands of the sea, a simple look in a Church directory would give us a sound indicator as to how far the ecclesiological pluralism and hermeneutical relativism has spread. Suffice it to say that such a query is disheartening even for the most starry-eyed ecumenist.

4. Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up? There has been much debate over the years as to what exactly Sola Scriptura is, what role (if any) the ecclesial body plays, the role of catechisms and creeds, etc. We have also seen the advent of the term Solo Scriptura to distinguish one school of thought from another. Either way, confusion runs wild. Some go as far as to deny that they have ever properly understood Sola Scriptura, and only recently are they beginning to really grasp the true meaning of this doctrine. Worse yet, one is at a loss as to how, once Sola Scriptura is given a satisfactory definition, any Protestant will then declare his understanding to be the one and only (or even best) understanding over against rival positions. For to treat Protestantism as a single entity would be absurd.

Let us return again to the issue of whether or not Sola Scriptura is an essential component of presuppositionalism. Let us also ignore but for a moment the difficulties posed by the above reflections. For the sake of the argument, let us concede that this is what they believe and that they shall not budge. Now let’s play the part of the devil’s advocate.

The Protestant presuppositionalist presses the atheist against the intellectual ropes. He asks time and again whether or not the atheist can account for X, Y, or Z from their espoused worldview. They prove effectually that the atheist cannot. Then what? They insist that the Christian worldview and it alone can account for X, Y, and Z. The atheist could, and should, ask on what authority that Protestant’s take on “the Christian worldview” in binding. The reason being that “the Christian worldview” as defined by the Protestant presuppositionalist is derived, by and large, from his interpretation of the Scripture. As such, it faces the difficulties mentioned above. In the end, the Protestant presuppositionalist is forced to say that it is his understanding of the Christian worldview is based upon a fallible man’s fallible interpretation of an admittedly fallible collection of what he hopes and prays are infallible books.

The burning question is whether or not the Catholic is in the same leaky boat. I dare to answer in the negative. Catholicism has within itself the means by which to resolve these difficulties. Thanks to our position on the infallibility of the Church, we can rest assured that the canon is as infallible as the text is inerrant. Our knowledge of how meticulous the priests, monks, and hermits were in translation and transmitting the manuscripts, coupled with our belief in the divine providence of God, leads us to trust in the integrity of the documents. And our dogmatic appeals court along with the doctrine of the Church's infallibility provides us with a knowledge of what can authoritatively and universally be said to be the Christian worldview. In short, Catholicism, not Protestantism, has the preconditions necessary for answering the every powerful "By what standard?"

In conclusion, Van Til was wrong. He was wrong on many counts. His understanding of the Catholic faith was shoddy, and the scholarship in his printed material is evidence of this. But worst of all is that he had a mistaken understanding of the very school of apologetic thought he is espoused to have championed. His not being able to see the achilles heel of Sola Scriptura and the way that doctrine would (and does) paralyze his entire method is remarkable.

Do I believe that presuppositionalists will buy my arguments hook, line, and sinker? No, not at all. In fact, I readily accept that many of them have chosen, for one reason or another, to ignore this matter altogether. But it is my prayer that some of them will see that, as Sarah Hodges righfully pointed out, presuppositionalism finds its home in the Holy Catholic Church, and that outside of her walls the method is unable to account for the necessary preconditions of its own utility.

VAN TIL: PART FOUR: CREATOR-CREATURE

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:17:56 GMT

Before moving on to Van Til’s treatment of Scripture and Authority, I think it wise to briefly discuss his remarks pertaining to Catholicism’s understanding of the Creator-Creature distinction. I say briefly for a few reasons. First, his remarks are few in so far as they relate to how Catholics do or do not understand the concept. And secondly, his few remarks were nothing short of bare assertions, lacking any kind of substantiation, much less a single citation. For these two reasons this post should be much shorter than the others in this series.

I will only here deal with one remark. It sums up, in a beautifully simple fashion, his (mis)understanding of the Catholic position. He says this in Christian Apologetics:

“It [Catholicism] does not make the Creator-Creature distinction basic in its thought.”

There are very few things that could be further from the truth, and I am in no mood to seek them out. A familiarization of the Missal, the Liturgy, and the role of the Mass in Catholic thought would have done wonders here. The distinction is the underlying assumption of the Mass. It is, from the Judica Me to the Last Gospel, calling to mind the vast chasm between the Creator and the creature, as well as the Victim whose sacrifice brings these things together. Even the gestures we make towards the Altar and the Tabernacle display a deep-rooted understanding of this fundamental distinction. Once again, familiarization with the Mass would have done wonders.

Note that I said that Van Til would have benefited from familiarizing himself with the role the Mass plays in Catholic thought. This was quite intentional. The Mass is remarkably different from Protestant gatherings in that we see it as more than a retreat into the schoolroom or reservation, but a microcosm of Catholic piety and thought. It contains and dictates how we view God, man, reality, authority, knowledge, and ethics. In short, we may find in the Mass a great summation of the Catholic worldview. Consequently, it doesn’t permit of any way of thinking which contradicts or is not in harmony with the Mass. It is for this reason, as I have already noted that he would have done well to familiarize himself with both the Mass and the role it plays in Catholic thought.

Lastly, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is quite clear about the distinction between the Creator and the Creature and the role it plays in Catholic thought. In #199 we are told that the affirmation “I believe in one God” is:

“… most fundamental. The whole Creed speaks of God, and when it also speaks of man and of the world it does so in relation to God.”

Here we have the Creator-Creature distinction as “most fundamental” when understanding God, man, and the world. In fact, this is of such great importance that there is an entire section, worth quoting at length, entitled “Catechesis on Creation.”

“[282] Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life; for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic questions that men of all times have asked themselves: ‘Where do we come from?’ ‘Where are we going?’ ‘What is our origin?’ ‘What is our end?’ ‘Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?’ These two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.”

In all fairness, Van Til may have had in mind the fact that Catholicism “blurs,” or so Protestants say, the functions of God with those of man and operations of God with those of the Church. But this should hardly be seen as problematic in light of our position of secondary causes. Certainly the Protestant should agree! God has dominion, and yet most all grant that we participate in that dominion. God is King of Kings, yet he anointed and appointed Kings. Christ is called the foundation of the Church in I Corinthians 3:11, yet the apostles are referenced as the foundation in Ephesians 2:20. The same could be said of Christ called Shepherd of the Flock in I Peter 2:25 while Acts 20:28 refers to the apostles as shepherds of the flock. Prophet, Priest, King, and everything in between, we see cooperation and incorporation of secondary causes. These things wrongfully diminish the Creator-Creature distinction only in so far as one holds to a heretical position concerning God and his use of secondary causes. For those who hold an orthodox position, such so-called “blurring” is a non-issue.

One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate how Van Til understood the religion he so viciously attacked. His writings show him to be as presumptuous in his pronouncements as he was harsh in his criticisms, and this is saying quite a bit. But when all is said and done, what is there to prove? That he was a heretic and an enemy of the Church? Is it to demonstrate how he, all hype aside, was rather shoddy in his scholarship when coming to the Catholic controversy? No, these aren’t ends in and of themselves. The point of this is to demonstrate that presuppositionalism is not only harmonious with Catholicism, but that Catholicism, and it alone, can provide the necessary preconditions wherein presuppositionalism is possible. This will, I hope, be demonstrated in my next post; for it is my position that the Protestant’s defense of the method stands or falls on the matters of Scripture and Authority, and that their positions fall on their own claims.

VAN TIL: PART THREE: NATURAL MAN & KNOWLEDGE

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:01:13 GMT

“[Romanism] grants the essential truthfulness of the non-Christian theory of man and his method.”

So said Dr. Van Til. To a certainly degree he was correct. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #36 would declare:

“Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.”

It would appear that the Church teaches that man, without the assistance of grace, can come to a full knowledge of creature, the created order he lives in, and the Creator who brought all into existence. Fortunately, as with most other things, this is not left without an accompanying context.

For starters, let us not forget what was already said about the role of God’s grace in our earthly existence. It is foundational and prior to all things, including our knowledge of Him. In like manner, we must look at the qualifying factors trailing this assertion.

Number 37 under "The Knowledge of God according to the Church" says that:

“… man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone.”

A Protestant may scoff at the word “alone.” To their dismay, the Church would qualify this as a matter of “strictly speaking,” going on to say that this is only possibly given the fact that we are:

“[41] All creatures bear[ing] a certain resemblance to God… [being] created in his image and his likeness.”

Furthermore, we live in created order overseen by a:

“[37] … personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence and the natural law written in our hearts…”

In recognizing the various obstacles between reason and a complete knowledge of God, the Church insists that:

“[37] … The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the sense and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequence of original sin.”

So here we have man, created in the image of God, being born into original sin, to such a degree that it impacts how he sees himself, the world around him, and the Creator. What, then, is needed? The answer should be rather obvious: grace. We read in CCC 38:

“This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also ‘about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.’”

Still, one may insist that this does not satisfy the difficulty. What of those so-called “secular” matters? Does the Church grant intellectual autonomy over those areas?

Van Til summed up the Catholic position this way:

“[Romanism doesn’t believe infidels] need the light of Christianity to enable them to understand the world and himself aright. He does not need the revelation of Scripture or the illumination of the Holy Spirit in order that by means of them he may learn what his true nature is.”

Is this so? Yes and no, and each to a degree.

If by “the light of Christianity” he means the idea that someone has a personal and conscious knowledge of the institutional religion known as Christianity, then he is quite correct. To deny as much would be to run headfirst into Romans 1:15-32 as well as Romans 2:13-16. The former says that they knew this from the “creation of the world” and the “things that have been made,” where the latter says that they “do by nature what the law requires” while not having the codified law within Scripture.

On the other hand, if he assumes that Catholics believe humanity can have a complete knowledge of both man and the world without seeing man and the world as God sees them, then he is incorrect. Man relies upon the faculties God endowed him with. Man, being able to do nothing apart from grace, sees himself and the world around him aright only in so far as it corresponds to how God sees them.To the degree it differs from how God's sees them, man sees them incorrectly. It is all a matter of degree.

A Protestant must look no further than our encyclicals for proof of this. In these great works of the Roman Pontiffs, we have numerous declarations that would, if we would have them to be sensible, presuppose the notion that man is duty-bound to see himself and the world around him in the manner that God would see them.While these are taken from encyclicals specifically dealing with social theory, one would be blind not to see the ramifications they have on man, the world, and knowledge.

In Pope John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra, we have him saying”

“[215] Separated from God a man is but a monster, in himself and towards others; for the right ordering of human society presupposes the right ordering of man’s conscience with God, who is Himself the source of all justice, truth, and love.”

The Blessed Pope goes on to say:

“[217] The most perniciously typical aspect of the modern era consists in the absurd attempt to reconstruct a solid and fruitful temporal order divorced from God, who in, in fact, the only foundation on which it can endure.”

Once again, Catholic Social Theory (CST) concerns man, the world, his purpose, vocation, knowledge, and authority. In fact, one could say that it deals with all things, from the least to the greatest. Having said as much, they are quite relevant.

Pope St. Pius X wrote this in E Supremi written in 1903:

“[8] … it follows that to restore all things in Christ and to lead men back to submission to God is one and the same aim. To this, then, it behoves Us to devote Our care – to lead back manking under the dominion of Christ.”

In Quadragesimo Anno, Pope Pius XI proudly insisted:

“[138] We are confident there will come that longed-for and full restoration of human society in Christ.”

Lastly, while not an encyclical, Pope Pius XII's 1942 Christmas message concerning the Internal Order of States and People is worth noting:

“The origin and the primary scope of social life is the conservation, development, and perfection of the human person, helping him to realize accurately the demands and values of religion and culture set by the Creator for every man and for all mankind, both as a whole and in its natural ramifications… A social teaching or a social reconstruction program which denied or prescinds from this internal essential relation to God of everything that regards men, is on a false course.”

The consensus above should be clear. God is the center of all things, he is the beginning and end of all things. We must, to see things aright, live and think in such a way that reflects the knowledge he has of us and the purpose he has for us. Anything short of this "is on a false course."

In the final analysis, it appears that Van Til is all bark and no bite. Contrary to his claims (being read by Protestant presuppositionalists with as little scrutiny as he put into writing them), Catholics believe that man relies upon God’s grace for his knowledge of the truth and that man’s knowledge of the truth is only true in so far as it corresponds to God knowledge of any given matter. Simply put:

1. We are creatures in a created world that reflects the Creator in all things.

2. Our purpose is to bring all things back into restoration with Christ

3. This is done through the working of the Holy Ghost and our seeing the all things as God sees them.

What many claim to sound Van Tilian is starting to sound awfully Romish! Ah, it’s been Romish all along…

THOMAS WOOD'S ANTI-CATHOLIC SOCIAL THEORY

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:02:09 GMT

While engaged in a discussion over Catholic Social Theory (CST) with a certain Protestant blogger, I was directed to the works of a certain Catholic libertarian by the name of Thomas Woods, Jr. The issue under contention was whether or not capitalism and unbridled free trade was compatible with the declarations of the Church. It was the position of my acquaintance that Dr. Woods had demonstrated with great clarity that free trade and capitalism were in fact compatible with Catholicism, and that he had even written a book on the matter.

Upon searching for the daring doctor I found a handful of oddities. On the one hand, Woods is the associate editor for Latin Mass Magazine. On the other hand, he is a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. It is rare to find a Catholic worth his salt advocating capitalism and free trade, but a Traditional Catholic?

I soon stumbled upon a document entitled Catholic Social Theory and Economic Law: An Unresolved Tension. It was within the first paragraph that I knew I was in for a rather uncomfortable ride. The author’s preface began by assuring the reader that he has the most profound respect for the popes of the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Authors tend to do this when they are about to embark upon a crusade against those they claim to so profoundly respect. This trend turned out to hold no less true here than elsewhere.

From the get-go he displays nothing but hostility towards the declarations made by the popes he claims to profoundly respect. He insists, contrary to all papal teaching on the matter, that the “just wage is the market wage.” He insists, contrary to John Paul II in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, that CST is a “third way” rather than constituting a “category all its own” belonging “to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology.” Woods accuses the popes of advocating “fateful” ideas and goes so far as to arrogantly insist that “if the Church is going to presume to establish moral principles on the basis of the consequences that follow from this assumption, then some demonstration of its truth must be attempted.” To make matters worse – if this is at all possible – he sides time and again with a cherry-picked number of scholastics and atheist/agnostic economists over against the declarations of the Magisterium.

The tone of the entire piece echoes the kind of anti-Catholic drivel that dripped off the pen of Ayn Rand more than what would be expected in a humble criticisms from a faithful son. Woods wasn’t wishing, as my Protestant companion insisted, to reconcile CST with capitalism and free trade; he was wishing to denounce the teachings of the popes and her faithful sons in hope of justifying his adherence to ideas that are so evidently opposed to CST.

My concern, though, is not so much with the tone as with a certain claim he makes towards the end of the paper. The header of this section read: The Magisterium Has No Competence Here. Aside from the fact that he is trampling where archangels fear to tip-toe, he is horribly wrong in saying as much.

Woods states that “by any definition, it lay well beyond the competence of the Magisterium to presume to describe the workings of economic relationships.” He goes on to say that while one “hesitates to describe Catholic social teaching as an abuse of papal and ecclesial power,” it “seems dubious” that popes would “attempt to impose, as moral doctrine binding on the entire Catholic world, principles that derive” from their “intrinsically fallible reasoning within a secular discipline like economics.” To add insult to injury, he thunders, “at the very least, it appears to constitute an indefensible extension of the prerogatives of the Church’s legitimate teaching office into areas which it possesses no inherent competence or divine protection from error.” Dr. Woods gives bold and brash a brand new meaning.

But do his claims hold true? He would have done well to substantiate his remarks rather than to leave them as bare assertions of personal prejudice. In fact, he would have done best were he to have dealt with this at the outset of his endeavor. In any case, we will see beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Magisterium considers the teachings within the encyclicals to be fully authoritative and binding on the faithful.

Woods references four encyclicals: Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII; Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI; Pacem In Terris, John XXIII; and Laborem Exercens, John Paul II. The question, then, is what authority these documents claimed to possess.

Rerum Novarum, the Magna Carta of CST, is not so outspoken in regards to the authority of the Church in matters of economic affairs as are later encyclicals (particularly those commemorating the groundbreaking encyclical), but it is not without a witness. In section 16 we read, “We approach the subject [economic and social theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” While Pope Leo XIII wouldn’t presume a monopoly on the putting together of a comprehensive program applicable to any and all people in any and all places, he would certainly declare that the Church is at the forefront among various authorities concerned with the putting together remedies for various ills.

Pope Pius XI was far more outspoken in regards to papal authority over matters of social and economic significance. In Quadragesimo Anno he said that Rerum Novarum was written in the “virtue of the Divine Teaching office entrusted to him [Leo XIII].” The pontiff goes on to say in section 11 that “the Pope clearly exercised his right” and that he declared “confidently and as one having authority” those things that “the Church, heads of States and the people themselves directly concerned ought to do.” He reiterates this in section 31 when saying that “the rules” which Leo XIII issues were “in virtue of his [papal] authority.”

It is here, though, that Dr. Woods will find himself in great trouble. There are two sections in particular that ought to cause him an extraordinary level of discomfort.

Section 39 declares that “those who would seem to hold in little esteem this Papal Encyclical and its commemoration either blaspheme what they know not, or understand nothing of what they are only superficially acquainted with, or if they do understand convict themselves formally of injustice and ingratitude.”

In like manner, section 41 says that “principle which Leo XIII so clearly established must be laid down at the outset here, namely, that there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.” The pope continues by saying that this would “bring under the subject of Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.”

Conveniently, Dr. Woods was not inclined to deal with, much less reference, passages of this nature.

Pacem In Terris, written by John XXIII, followed on the heels of another encyclical by the same pontiff entitled Mater et Magistra. The claims of authority and jurisdiction in Mater Et Magistra were foundational for any and all declarations that would follow, whether in that encyclical or in any other.

John XXIII says in section 16 that “We approach the subject [social and economic theory] with confidence, and in the exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us.” The pope goes on to say in section 218 that “the permanent validity of the Catholic Church’s social teaching admits of no doubt.” From here he spends the larger portion of the end declaring directives that he considers to be binding on all, especially the faithful children of the Church. He insists that CST “is an integral part of the Christian conception of life” (222); that it should be taught in all seminaries, schools, religious instruction programs, and spread through all mass media (223); that beloved sons should put it into practice and strive to have others understand it (224); that they should be “convinced that the best way of demonstrating the truth and efficacy of this teaching is to show that it can provide the solution to present-day difficulties” (225); and that these principles must be put into effect (240).

Here, too, we see strong warnings for those, like Dr. Woods, who would fail to embrace papal instruction on social and economic matters. Section 241 insists that “their attitude must be one of loyal trust and filial obedience to ecclesial authority.” He was concerned that “if in the transactions of their temporal affairs they take no account of those social principles which the Church teaches… then they fail in their obligations… [and] may even go so far as to bring discredit on the Church’s teaching, lending substance to the opinion that, in spite of its intrinsic value, it is in fact powerless to direct men’s lives.” These words, possibly above all others, should cause men like Dr. Woods a great deal of fear and trembling. Instead, as with similar warnings in other encyclicals of this nature, he chose to allow them to go without even a subtle reference.

As for the final encyclical referenced by Woods, it had little to say of its own authority. Pope John Paul II, in Laborem Exercens, had little to no reason to reiterate what had been said so many times over concerning the authority of the Magisterium in regards to social and economic matters. Still, in article III section 14, the pope states that “the many proposals put forward by experts in Catholic social teaching and by the highest Magisterium of the Church” are of “special significance.”

It should be obvious, then, that Dr. Woods is in grave error concerning the issue of the Magisterium's jurisdiction over both social and economic concerns. Consequently, he has chosen to side with a mongrel horde of atheists, agnostics, and a cherry-picked remnant of scholastics over against the Bishops of Rome and the overwhelming majority of the Church's faithful sons who worked long and hard towards the reconstructing of a Catholic social order. He gives aid and comfort to those enemies of the faith by boldly criticizing the Church and calling into question the very right to jurisdiction the pontiffs claimed for themselves and their decrees. Furthermore, he advocates those very social and economic dogmas that the sovereign pontiffs condemn. But, worst of all, his actions place him in the frightening position of an obstinate son as described, particularly, in Quadragesimo Anno and Mater Et Magistra.

It is my hope that Mr. Woods would reconsider his position, and that he would do so with a sense of great urgency. With this being done, I pray that he would put as much effort into educating others about the majesty and wisdom of CST as he has into deconstructing it in hope of salvaging his commitment to theories the Church has repeatedly denounced since Rerum Novarum.

VAN TIL: PART TWO: SOVEREIGNTY

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:10:28 GMT

I have had a number of people, both on and offline, who were upset with the tone of my previous post. They thought I was being unfair towards Cornelius Van Til and B.B. Warfield by insisting that they were either grossly ignorant or intentionally misleading when writing about Catholicism. In Catholic charity I gave the two theologians the benefit of the doubt as being ignorant, as this is certainly preferable to being outright deceptive. Still, this did not satisfy the critics.

They went on to insist that while they may have been wrong on this one topic, this hardly warranted the claim that they would misunderstand the entirety of our system. But listen to what Van Til had to say about the interconnectivity of doctrine and how a misunderstanding or wrong position of one doctrine inevitably impacts the rest:

“Romanism should be regarded as a deformation of Christianity, in fact its lowest deformation. And this deformation expresses itself not merely at some but at every point of doctrine… The difference [between Romanism and Protestantism] is that Protestantism is more consistently and Rome is less consistently Christian at every point of doctrine. It could not well be otherwise. Having inconsistency at one point of doctrine is bound to result in inconsistency at all points of doctrine.”

So could one safely say that if Van Til was wrong about one of our doctrines then he would, if consistent, misunderstand the entirety of our doctrines, to a degree greater or less? I would answer in the affirmative.

Having said as much, let us look at the next doctrine misrepresented by Cornelius Van Til: God’s sovereignty. It was his contention, as shall be demonstrated below, that unlike Calvinism, Catholicism holds to a position that denies God’s rule over all things in history. This position apparently grants autonomous man authority over God’s sovereignty and in no way requires humans to be wholly subject to his will. This was his position in a nutshell.

In Christian Apologetics we find Van Til saying:

“The God of Roman Catholicism does not control whatsoever comes to pass.”

He goes on to accuse the Church of denying God’s sovereignty because:

“Rome’s theology does not want a God whose counsel controls whatsoever comes to pass.”

So the Church doesn’t maintain this doctrine because it doesn’t want this doctrine? One may think it awfully suspicious how the Church plays pick-and-choose with Her doctrine on the whimsical basis of what She desires at any given moment. All the more curious is why She would then choose to retain the doctrines of Original Sin and Hell. These emotionally charged doctrines should have been the first on the cutting-block, but yet they remain.

But does the Church deny God’s sovereignty as Van Til claims it does? Of course not. We see in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) that such remarks are without any merit whatsoever. In CCC 301,C the Church lays out her position concerning God’s sovereignty in relation to the created order:

“He did not leave His creation to themselves. He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, enables them to act and brings them to their final end.”

The same section goes even further in stating that the relation between the creature and the sovereignty of the Creator is that of an “utter dependence”

The CCC is also very clear as to the sovereignty of God in relation to events in history. CCC 303 says:

“The witness of Scripture is unanimous tht the solicitude of divine providence is concrete and immediate; God cares for all, from the least things to the great events of the world and it’s history. The sacred books powerfully affirm God’s absolute sovereignty over the course of events.”

If this isn’t clear enough, let the naysayer note CCC 314:

“We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history.”

Even in regards to the problem of evil, that area wherein most critics predict the Church would waver, we see the Church take the Augustinian view! CCC 311 quotes Augustine in saying:

“For Almighty God… because He is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in His works if He were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.”

Dr. Van Til went on to compound the original error by insisting that the Church doesn’t require that men be entirely subject to God. The Dr. says:

“There is no place anywhere in the whole of Roman Catholic thought for the idea that any human being should be wholly subject to God. On the contrary, the position of Rome requires the rejection of the counsel of God as all-determinative.”

This is absurd. Not only do we have biblical witness for such a need of abandonment and subjection, but one would have to be blind to have overlooked the myriad of examples given to us in the writings (especially ascetic!) and lives of such saints as Augustine, Alphonsus, Francis de Sales, Louis de Montfort, St. Benedict, and others. What about encyclicals concerning the restoration of all things in Christ? What of the encyclicals regarding the proper order of states and people? Did Van Til never pick up a guide for examination of conscience? The list could go on and on, and all to Van Til's greater shame.

In final analysis, Van Til was horribly wrong about the Church’s understanding of God’s sovereignty and the need for Catholics to be totally subject to His will in their personal and social lives. Like his other errors concerning the Church’s teachings, his remarks came without citation. It is to be concluded, then, that he was either ignorant or intentionally deceptive. Once again, in Christian charity, we should chalk this up as another unfortunate example of an outspoken enemy of the Church not having adequately researched the subject he was discussing or the institution he was attacking.

VAN TIL: PART ONE: GRACE & SALVATION

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:00:26 GMT

This is Part One of a series focusing on Van Til’s misunderstanding of Roman Catholic theology and his belief that presuppositionalism is at fundamental odds with Roman Catholicism as an apologetic method.

One would be hard-pressed to defend Van Til and Warfield from the accusation of having publicly displayed some of the most horrific examples of prejudicial conjecture against Catholicism in the 20^th century, granting the obvious exceptions of Boettner, Swaggart, and a handful of anti-Catholic goons. In Van Til’s material, one can find but a smattering of direct quotes from Catholic writers. Few of these are authoritative, much less accurately interpreted. The vast majority of his citation comes from Protestant theologians writing about what they insist Catholics believe, with his primary pundit being B.B. Warfield. To say that this falls short of the bar in regards to noteworthy scholarship would be an understatement.

As much as I would enjoy beginning this series with a critique of Van Til's absurd notion of authority and his impotent arguments against the Church’s position on the matter, I will save that for another time. Here I wish only to deal with Van Til’s critique of the Church's doctrines of grace and salvation, most of which involve the claims made by Warfield, in his works entitled "Defense of the Faith" and "Christian Apologetics."

While Van Til's understanding of the Catholic religion was far from competent, some of his most grevious errors are prominently displayed in his perverse remarks pertaining to the Church's doctrines of grace and salvation. In "Christian Apologetics" the Dutchman starts off on the wrong foot by making a small, yet important, error in wording the position of the Church in regards to salvation. He states:

“[According to Rome] Man is saved partially by grace, and partially by works.”

Were he to have said that salvation includes faith and works, and both of these are made possibly by the purely gracious action of God, then he would have been correct. Unfortunately, he didn’t. He either accidentally used grace in place of faith, or he believes that Catholics do not teach that God’s grace is required for even our most simple of good works. For the sake of author and editorial integrity, let us presume he meant what he wrote.

The testimony of the Church would show this statement to be pure malarkey. St. Alphonsus says that God has given all men the grace to pray, and that prayer for further grace is necessary to do any good work. He goes so far as to say that nobody can make an act of sorrow for sin, such as what is required to come to repentance, without grace. St. Jerome said as much in declaring that “Man can do no good work without God.” St. Thomas of Aquin and St. Augustine say as much, especially in regards to repentance and the connection between prayer, good works, and the means of perfection.

To add insult to injury, the Dr. goes on to quote Warfield as having this remark:

“The Church of Rome, holding the sacerdotal point of view, teaches that ‘grace is communicated by and through the ministration of the Church, otherwise not.’”

Van Til provides us in "Defense of the Faith" with another of Warfield's blunders:

“Evangelicalism… sweeps away every intermediary between the soul and its God, and leave the soul dependent for its salvation on God alone, operating upon it by his immediate grace.”

While it is quite evident that windbaggery isn’t lacking, a citation for the first remark most certainly is! Mr. Warfield spoke, Van Til quoted, end of story.

Let me comment first on the outlandish remark lacking any citation. As we have already seen, God grants a certain amount of grace to all. We’ve also seen that God often deals immediately with those whom he impresses with godly sorrow leading to repentance. Furthermore, any level of faith is gracious through-and-through., and this apportionment of faith is not confined to the sacraments. Sacramental grace, as described in CCC 2002, is “special grace.” The very designation of "Sacramental Grace" shows just how little Warfield actually knew about Catholic sacramentology and grace! And while we would admit that “for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (1129), this is a far cry from declaring that they are the only means by which the believer receives grace.

As for the latter quote, this is just silly. Does Warfield or Van Til believe that the Church is absolutely insignificant as an intermediary? If so, then why insist upon a need for Scripture? What of the need for one to preach the gospel? What of those dandy Confessions that keep the saved soul from gross heresy? Taken to its logical end, Warfield and Van Til would live in an atomistic world where the no one or no thing could get between a soul and its beliefs pertaining to God and salvation. Surely they didn’t have this in mind! Too bad it’s the logic end.

Any way one wishes to go about it, Van Til and Warfield were either ignorant of what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have taught, or they intentionally misled the readers as to the Catholic understanding of grace in relation to works and salvation. In Christian charity, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and presume they were just downright ignorant.

Part Two: The Sovereignty of God (Coming Soon)

I'M PART OF A CATHOLIC CONSPIRACY?

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:57:44 GMT

I guess so. Here is the rundown:

1. My parents were confronted by the Catholic Church when I was young.

2. They were paid to send me to Protestant school from 4th grade through college.

3. The Catholic Church planted me in various Protestant ministries.

4. My hatred for Catholicism was a sham. In fact, my year long debate with Catholics was a sham!

5. This was to make my fake conversion to Catholicism appear impressive to those who are ignorant or this extraordinary conspiracy.

On a side note, I guess there is a "playbook" that those of us in "the know" go by. The person accusing me of this nonsense can't tell me what it is called or provide me with a link to verify its existence, but she "knows" it is real.

CATHOLICISM WITHOUT A SOCIAL COMPASS

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:03:07 GMT

Long gone is the day and age when encyclicals held a prominent place in the patrimony of Catholic doctrine as another expression of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium. This is especially true in regards to Catholic social teaching, something which popes of yesteryear thought to be of the type of permanent validity that was without any doubt. Ageless truths meant to be studied by priest and layperson alike, to be taught in Catholic schools of every kind, and to be spread by all mediums of mass communication, are now either ignored or left for those nostalgic souls commonly condemned as “Rad-Trads.” Principles and declarations thought to be binding on the mind of the faithful are now abandoned to the realm of opinions where one is as good as the other. They have become, as Blessed Pope John XXIII feared, perceived by worldlings and Christians alike as powerless to direct the lives of men, having no intrinsic value or authority. Long gone is that day and age... long gone.

O, tempora! O, mores!

WHEN NEIGHBORHOODS WERE NEIGHBORHOODS

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:11:47 GMT

Neighbors and I working on tree line.

When neighborhoods were neighborhoods, neighbors acted as caretakers of their surroundings. They would pick up trash, even if it wasn’t technically on their property. They would often rake and burn leaves with one another. They would also make sure that the overhang from trees within the neighborhood wouldn’t cut across the walkway or limit the visibility of a driver heading out. Most of these are now projects of the local government, with the exception of those neighborhoods that take pride in their continuing to be neighborhoods.