tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post7722582324479222743..comments2023-12-25T09:58:54.563-06:00Comments on The Christian Freethinker: Letter Regarding Conversion to Catholicism, etc.Mark Hausamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-60972396171943039332016-05-21T10:25:16.337-05:002016-05-21T10:25:16.337-05:00And see this as well: http://freethoughtforchrist....And see this as well: http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-necessity-of-unconditional.html<br /><br />"I talk about the Jesuit position above and the Church's views on efficacious grace and predestination. My understanding of the Church's position has changed since I wrote this, as I have come to see that the Church takes a much more specific and explicit stance in favor of Augustinian predestination and grace than I had previously thought."Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-9937991369917824202016-04-07T17:17:21.568-05:002016-04-07T17:17:21.568-05:00But see this - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspo...But see this - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2016/02/was-molina-actually-wrong.htmlMark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-67174057909735860332015-10-30T15:56:59.164-05:002015-10-30T15:56:59.164-05:00The question of whether Rome has been cowardly, or...The question of whether Rome has been cowardly, or more broadly the claim that Rome ought to have condemned the Jesuit position by now, is another matter. I can certainly see that argument, and it has plausibility, I think. But I don't think it is quite so obvious as it may seem. Here we are in more subjective territory, as there are often lots of different ways within the bounds of reasonableness regarding to how to resolve certain problems or balance certain concerns. Let's say that Rome has intentionally refrained from condemning the Jesuit position out of strategic reasons (which I doubt is actually the case--see further below). Let's say she has done so in order to more gently work on the Molinists until it can bring them to see that the Augustinian position is better. Is this necessarily obviously wrong? I don't think I can say that. Remember, the Catholic Church has fully affirmed salvation by grace alone and the sovereignty of God. These are the core concerns at the heart of the Augustinian view. It could be argued that the Church has made a reasonable move in affirming the core ideas while refraining from getting into the deeper logical implications of these in some areas because she feels that it would better overall for the truth and for souls to move more gently and slowly in bringing people along.<br /><br />But, in fact, I don't think the Church has refrained from condemning the Jesuit position for any particular motive, because I doubt that this has been done intentionally, both in the past and certainly not now. The more likely explanation is simply that the Catholic Church as a whole or as a body simply has not come to a clear enough common sense of how to articulate these matters to produce a consensus opinion. Doctrinal development often takes long periods of time. The Church has made many other things to think about over the past few centuries. The Molinist/Thomist controversy really has hardly been on the radar screen since the 1700s at latest. This does not mean the Church has not cared about the gospel. Remember, she has clearly affirmed the gospel itself. We are talking about logical implications of the gospel in certain areas. Logically, of course, these are very important, but as a practical matter they are not as important as the core of the gospel itself.<br /><br />We could even say that the Catholic Church has indeed been wrong not to go ahead and deal with this more definitively. That would be perfectly consistent with Catholic teaching. The Church does not claim to do everything right all the time. This would be like complaining that some Calvinists have not been as hard on Arminians as they should have been--it doesn't necessarily mean that one is neglecting the gospel, but simply that one is too soft on those who hold an error in one area. But I don't think there is sufficient warrant to make this criticism all things considered.<br /><br />OK, so now you've got just about my complete thoughts on this! :-) I wanted to give a thorough answer because this is such a good and important question. Feel free to follow up as you wish.<br /><br />MarkMark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-10508019078451946482015-10-30T15:56:36.876-05:002015-10-30T15:56:36.876-05:00But your concerns are a bit different. I see two ...But your concerns are a bit different. I see two basic concerns in what you have said: 1. In approving the Jesuit view, Rome has contradicted its approval of the Augustinian view, and so has polluted its adherence to the gospel. 2. Rome has acted cowardly in refusing to stand up more firmly for Augustinianism.<br /><br />Regarding #1, I don't think there is a contradiction, because it is not the case that Rome has approved the Jesuit system in the sense that would cause the concern. We can talk about Rome "approving" an idea in two senses: 1. Rome might declare a position to be orthodox and consistent with the faith or even part of the faith. 2. Rome might simply refrain for the time being from condemning a position as false and rejected (at least explicitly). Rome has done the latter with the Jesuit position rather than the former. If Rome had done the former, I could not be Catholic, because the Augustinian position (or at least core elements of it that contradict the Jesuit view) is logically certain to me. In that case, Rome would be declaring a falsehood to be true. But simply not yet condemning something is not the same as declaring it correct or consistent with the faith. Rome has not declared those things. It is permissible within Catholicism to believe (as I do) that the Jesuit position, if taken to its logical conclusion, is inconsistent with Catholic faith and truth. I cannot declare them heretical in a formal sense or removing myself from fellowship with them, but I can say what I think of their system. Just as Calvinists often do with Arminians, Augustinians can recognize that the Jesuits disavow what we see as the logical implications of their system and so are not necessarily as bad in their actual beliefs as they would be if they <i>did</i> avow those implications. So I don't think there is a problem in this regard.<br /><br />To be continued . . .Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-3819214895872709402015-10-30T15:55:47.592-05:002015-10-30T15:55:47.592-05:00Hi Robert! Thanks for your thoughts.
I understan...Hi Robert! Thanks for your thoughts.<br /><br />I understand your concerns in this matter. That's something how I used to feel about it as well. I would also have said previously that Rome contradicted herself by condemning the Jansenists while explicitly not condemning the Augustinians/Thomists.<br /><br />Regrading the concern of contradiction, I came to realize that there was no contradiction because what the Church condemned in the Jansenists were not the same things it allows in the Thomists. I admit, though, that that line has been difficult for me to see. At first (that is, at the beginning of my Catholic transition), my position was that I cannot prove that the Church contradicted herself in this, though I have to take it on faith that she did not. As I've continued to ponder the issue, however, I've started to see a bit better what Rome was getting at and am developing my own formulation of how to articulate the differences. (I'm actually planning to write something up on this before too long. I discuss this a little in another post I've already written as well - http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2015/07/thomists-molinists-and-calvinists-oh-my.html?zx=f6f157b12608058c) For example, the Jansenists refused to acknowledge the existence of "sufficient grace" given to all for conversion. They rejected this because they understood this to mean a grace that would actually make it possible for someone to convert so that nothing would be lacking besides something added by the free will of the person. But the Catholic Church was not requiring them to accept that idea. The Thomists admit "sufficient grace" but understand it to refer to the idea that God has given all that is necessary for a person to convert <i>besides the will itself</i>, so that those who receive this grace but don't receive efficacious grace (which is not given to all) <i>could</i> convert if they wanted to but they will never <i>want</i> to. The point of "sufficient grace," then, is not to push a semi-Pelagian conception into theology but merely to safeguard the idea that no involuntary obstacle that would excuse the sinner is in the way of his not converting. The Jansenists could have accepted that, but they chose instead to defy the Church and stick to their own terminology. The Church saw their refusal to admit sufficient grace as a problem for their system because of the lack of safeguard against falling into the idea of an involuntary sinfulness and so condemned their system at that point. I'm not saying there wasn't more to it than that, but this is one way of seeing some of the substance of what was probably going on there. So I don't think we can show a proven contradiction there.<br /><br />To be continued . . .Mark Hausamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371790103414979060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-808697756426649418.post-6254011630438648022015-10-30T07:59:05.634-05:002015-10-30T07:59:05.634-05:00Mark,
I'm sad to see you swimming the Tiber. ...Mark,<br /><br />I'm sad to see you swimming the Tiber. I have to comment on one inconsistency I see:<br /><br /><i>If the RC church condemned the Jesuit view, the Jesuits would be forced to conclude, looking at things from their theological perspective, that the church had condemned voluntary human agency. If the RC church condemned the Augustinian view, the Augustinians would conclude that in rejecting these ideas logically bound up with and implied in the gospel, the church had rejected the gospel (and they would be right). So the church balances the purity of the gospel with charity towards individuals. </i><br /><br />I don't see how you can hold this alongside trust in the infallible Magisterium. What I mean is this: Either way the church settles the question, all it has to do is answer to the Jesuits or the Augustinians: "We have not denied what you think we have denied or condemned, and we say infallibly that we have not done so." At that point, all debate should cease. If you really think the Augustinian position is the gospel, you really need to think more, in my opinion, about what the infallible church's failure to condemn the Jesuit position says about Rome's true view of the gospel. Rome could come down one way or the other and simply say, "the infallible church is spoken and you are wrong to think that the view we have endorsed actually denies the gospel."<br /><br />As you have rightly noted, the two positions really are incompatible. But Rome takes no position on which one is correct. They cannot both be correct.<br /><br />It seems to me that in order to be consistent you'd have to make one of several moves:<br /><br />1. Conclude that the Augustinian position is correct and that Rome is being cowardly in not saying as much.<br />2. Conclude that the Augustinian position is correct and that Rome has made a dogmatic error in permitting the Jesuit position to be orthodox, thereby invalidating Roman Catholicism.<br />3. Conclude that the Augustinian position really isn't essential to the gospel and so it doesn't matter what you think on it, so why tell the Jesuits they're wrong.<br /><br />Basically, you have to either give up being Augustinian in this matter or rethink your submission to the Magisterium. Because if the Magisterium really were to one day condemn the Augustinian position and endorse the Jesuit one, then you'd have to change your mind regardless of what you really thought about it. If Rome really does teach the gospel and Augustinianism is essential to the gospel, then we have a contradiction.Robertnoreply@blogger.com