Aquinas, Sacraments & Wormholes

[tuttle]

With the Reformation, the connection between University knowledge and Western tradition began to break down. Reformation theology required study of the Bible, but it was untethered from the Tradition in which the Bible was written to be understood. Novel interpretations of Scripture were more respectable; Traditional understanding was often rejected.

By the 1700's and the ascendency of the sciences, a Ph.D. in any discipline no longer required mastery of ancient wisdom. The candidate only needed to contribute something novel to the body of knowledge. He had to "invent" something within a narrow discipline in order to prove his ability to teach it.

As a result, our modern universities are a mess. They are used to indoctrinate youth with the latest fads, but very little education occurs. Chesterton points this out often in his journalism.

Just can't let this slide in an otherwise marvelous post. Far from being untethered from Tradition, the Reformers relied heavily upon the teachings of the Early Church to undergird their efforts. Agree or disagree, their works are so dependent upon the Early Church Fathers that it makes a room of baptists nervous. What they were reforming were the errors (agree or disagree) they found in the contemporary (in their day) church. They were able to trace where the errors began and used Scripture and the ECFs to validate. Traditional understanding wasn't rejected, it was relied upon. From their vantage what they were rejecting were innovations, not Tradition. Even if one disagrees with what the reformers believed to be innovations, that's at least a more even handed look at the situation than you offered.

But more to your point: when the learned man stopped looking to ancient wisdom. CS Lewis rejects the modern historians that claim that the breakdown occurred between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. He places the Great Divide somewhere between us and the age of Walter Scott and Jane Austen. You touched upon it with the 'ascendency of the sciences' but Lewis pushes the date down the way from you because even though that time period unleashed the lion, at that point it was still a young gamboling lion, only later did it kill its owners.

Indeed, the Magisterial Reformation had much respect for the writings of the Fathers, and had they had access to some of the texts from the early Church (or the evidence that songs like "Beneath Thy Protection" were even more ancient than attested at that time) and Second Temple Judaism that we currently have thanks to recent discoveries of codices in remote non-Chalcedonian monasteries and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Reformation churches might have turned out much closer to Catholicism.

The problem is, the Magisterial Reformers only really cared about the textual and intellectual aspects of the Tradition, giving the writings of various Fathers more weight than the praxis of the Fathers- that is to say the oral and practiced aspect of the Tradition. Certain teachings of the Early Church such as the invocation of the saints and veneration of the Blessed Virgin were never really written about early on simply because they were uncontested- Christians knew about these things not because a St Paul or Clement or Ignatius (whose feast day in the Orthodox Church happens to be today) had to write an epistle about them but because they were already present in the liturgy.

When Fathers do start mentioning these things it is not to defend or explain them- the Fathers start writing about these things in the 4th Century not because this is some novel teaching but precisely because they are arguing about the Trinity with the Arians (and Sabellians. And Apollinarians) and the Arians are taking a hard-line Sola Scriptura stance- and these are extra-biblical teachings so universal they are to be found in the very liturgies the Arians used. It doesn't matter if the word "Trinity" (really "homoousia" was the big controversy) is never to be found in the Scripture- the invocation of the saints isn't either, but it is the universal practice of the Church, as it has always been the practice of the Church to baptize in the single name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Scripture never explicitly identifies the Holy Spirit as God with the same boldness St John opens his Gospel and identifies Christ as such- it doesn't matter, the liturgy has since time immemorial just as it has always had hymns to Mary.

Really, the Reformers had a failure of imagination- they see St Basil make these references and think "oh, that's two centuries after the Apostle John died. Well, we've seen how badly the Christian faith can go downhill in just two centuries." and assume that the "Roman errors" of the Mass had been creeping in by this point. More, they were used to a fairly ancient and standardized liturgy- the Western Church had a variety of local uses, but the main framework of the Mass (the priest's parts) was the same.

The Nicene era knew of no such thing- the Catholic Church was emerging from the catacombs of persecution and the local churches were beginning to compare notes to a degree to which they couldn't when they were underground. And they are delighted to discover that there is indeed a Catholic Church. From Glastonbury to Dharjeeling, the liturgy might contain vastly different elements but some things are constant- there is always a Eucharist, there is always an invocation of the saints, hymns are sung to the Blessed Virgin, baptism and prayer are in the name of the Trinity, and people everywhere make the sign of the cross.

It is difficult to overstate the improbability of these practices being post-Apostolic in origin yet so universal in practice- the persecuted Church had no magisterial mechanism to develop and impose new practices across such a large territory. A local council of few bishops might be called to discuss certain matters of controversy (such as the Montanists) but they had no way of imposing any rulings of such a council beyond their specific territories- the best they could is communicate the results of their council to other respected bishops and hope they agree. The one time the bishop of Rome tried to exercise such an authority over the dating of Easter he was politely rebuffed with "thanks, but we'll keep celebrating the way the Apostle John taught us".

Every diocese at that time was a local Church with the highest authority resting in the bishop. And every bishop had the ultimate authority over the liturgy practiced by his parishes - including keeping up with the maintenance of the codices containing that local Church's Gospels and Epistles.

Incidentally, there is little debate between the Fathers on the canonicity of the Scriptures (and there certainly was no Ecumenical Council of the pre-Schism Church that laid down a canon) . The Church as a whole never really set down a canon- the Roman Church would not do so until Trent in response to Luther. What you do see often among the Fathers is a discussion of canon- "Hey, Ephesus, our scroll of St Paul's Epistles is getting worn out and we're getting ready to copy a new one. We only have seven letters. We'd heard heard he'd written to you and were kind of wondering if we could get a copy." "Sure thing, Alexandria. Oh, by the way, our scroll of St Paul has fourteen letters. Wanna send your scribe over and copy the whole thing?" "Do we ever!" After St Constantine the various Churches were proclaiming their various local canons in triumph- "This is the deposit left to us!" and noting just how similar they were in content. Sure, some codices might have odd additions like The Shepherd of Hermas or the Apostolic Constitutions- but even these books were known to the other Churches, they just weren't considered acceptable for liturgical use (and none of the accretions were anything of Gnostic origin. At no point did the Church need to weed out the Gospel of Thomas, sorry Dan Brown).

I raise the point about the liturgical authority of the local bishop in the early Church because again, we have two centuries of each diocese being capable of it's own liturgical developments and they all come back together with liturgies teaching the exact same thing in regards to the Trinity, the Invocation of the Saints, and Marian hymns. Contrast this by walking into a random selection of Episcopalian churches and seeing how many have retained orthodoxy and how many have pretty much made up their own creeds based on whatever whimsy of bad theology has infected the local parish (but, really, don't, it's not worth it).

This doesn't even begin to get into the precedents for Trinitarian theology, Marian (or the Queen Mother of the Davidic heir) devotion, and veneration of the saints we are discovering all the time in recently uncovered Second Temple Judaic writings.

So while Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer might have had the utmost respect for the writings of the Fathers (after the Scriptures), Del is completely right in saying that the Reformers were divorced from the Tradition. The Liturgy is the Tradition of the Church- beyond the writings of any of the Fathers. And because Luther looked at the Roman practice of veneration and found it wanting, he removed as much as he respectfully could from the Mass- he thought to teach the Mass, when the Mass was only ever supposed to teach him.

------------------------------------------
You (and Lewis) are completely correct about the dating of the ultimate breakdown. The seventeenth and eighteenth century "scientists" that modern historians would like to point to called themselves "natural philosophers" for good reason as they were well immersed in the philosophic tradition of the day. Like all good traditional philosophers they did not limit themselves to "natural philosophy" but were more than happy to spout forth on topics such as theology, epistimology, and (in the case of Newton) Enochian magic. You can't say that Newton was outside the tradition just because he primarily wrote about physics and calculus unless you want to toss Pythagoras as well (who also had weird magic practices- inventing a new math must break some part of the brain). Modern historians want a myth of the rise of Progress from the ashes of Regressive Religion (much as Landmark Baptists want a myth of unbroken succession to Apostolic times) and will point to any figure from the Renaissance on that fits this mold (much as Landmark Baptists will point to any historical heresy that disagreed with Rome on sacraments). But modern historians wants and the realities as they have happened are very rarely the same thing.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond and I like what you wrote, even though I'm tempted to argue here and there, I'll refrain and try to just reiterate my point.

There is no denying that a change/shift took place at the Reformation. There is no denying that there were unforeseen repercussions that stemmed from it. I'll also concede that the Reformers did not embrace Tradition the same way RC/Orthodox do/did. But I would argue the Reformation was first and foremost a pastoral reaction that later developed into what it became, and did so across a large geographic area, languages, and cultures with various leaders among them, over a period of time in areas friendly and hostile, with events taking place from within and without of the Church. That is to say, it was a pastoral reaction in a maelstrom that only seemed to increase. Like writing theological commentary on the back of a galloping wild stallion. Things are bound to get over emphasized or de-emphasized. Considering such was the case it's frankly amazing the unity of thought/doctrine/etc that did occur among them.

That said, I want to re-emphasize that I believe the main motive for the Reformation was, at it's root, pastoral. (You see the same concerns in men like Wycliff and Hus) So there are clear cases where they mounted arguments against things that might have had the historic pedigree, but had by their day developed into something harmful to the flock. Like the bronze snake God had Moses design, a symbol of grace and healing the people turned into an idol and Hezekiah had it destroyed.

In a real way the reformers did not view themselves as an offshoot of the church or a new start up, nor did they think the doctrines that they held were innovations, but they believed they were holding fast to what their forefathers in the faith held to, and frankly looked at the moral decay within much of the church at that time as evidence that their convictions about reforming doctrines which had turned sour was the right thing to do. Any charges that basically claim the Reformation wrecked XYZ (you name it, hierarchy, power, veneration, metaphysics, etc) and led to this bad thing down the line, may have some truth to it, but from their point of view, and I'd agree, reformation would not be needed if certain doctrines hadn't grown rotten in the first place.

I know RCs/Orthodox don't view the Reformers that way, but that's how we view it. Which is to say the Reformers did not regard themselves as being untethered to Tradition, in fact, they believed the opposite, that that which needed reforming was out of line with Tradition, either as a later development, or as something that had become rotten and harmful to the flock. (Again, agree or disagree, that's how they viewed it).

NOW! That said, 500 years have passed and there have been some really bad advocates for the Reformers and many protestants HAVE untethered themselves from Tradition, which can be a whole other can of worms. But there are also protestants that have recognized some of the 'baby out with the bathwater' stuff that has occurred and seek to recultivate such things.

Think of the reformation as a vinedresser. Certain leaves were cut, but with an eye towards healthy growth. Their inheritors take a look at a few of those branches that were pared and for fear of them growing rotten again, or through sheer unfamiliarity (which is also fear), they keep cutting it back and never allow it to grow.

[mcommini]

Just can't let this slide in an otherwise marvelous post. Far from being untethered from Tradition, the Reformers relied heavily upon the teachings of the Early Church to undergird their efforts. Agree or disagree, their works are so dependent upon the Early Church Fathers that it makes a room of baptists nervous. What they were reforming were the errors (agree or disagree) they found in the contemporary (in their day) church. They were able to trace where the errors began and used Scripture and the ECFs to validate. Traditional understanding wasn't rejected, it was relied upon. From their vantage what they were rejecting were innovations, not Tradition. Even if one disagrees with what the reformers believed to be innovations, that's at least a more even handed look at the situation than you offered.

But more to your point: when the learned man stopped looking to ancient wisdom. CS Lewis rejects the modern historians that claim that the breakdown occurred between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. He places the Great Divide somewhere between us and the age of Walter Scott and Jane Austen. You touched upon it with the 'ascendency of the sciences' but Lewis pushes the date down the way from you because even though that time period unleashed the lion, at that point it was still a young gamboling lion, only later did it kill its owners.

Indeed, the Magisterial Reformation had much respect for the writings of the Fathers, and had they had access to some of the texts from the early Church (or the evidence that songs like "Beneath Thy Protection" were even more ancient than attested at that time) and Second Temple Judaism that we currently have thanks to recent discoveries of codices in remote non-Chalcedonian monasteries and the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Reformation churches might have turned out much closer to Catholicism.

The problem is, the Magisterial Reformers only really cared about the textual and intellectual aspects of the Tradition, giving the writings of various Fathers more weight than the praxis of the Fathers- that is to say the oral and practiced aspect of the Tradition. Certain teachings of the Early Church such as the invocation of the saints and veneration of the Blessed Virgin were never really written about early on simply because they were uncontested- Christians knew about these things not because a St Paul or Clement or Ignatius (whose feast day in the Orthodox Church happens to be today) had to write an epistle about them but because they were already present in the liturgy.

When Fathers do start mentioning these things it is not to defend or explain them- the Fathers start writing about these things in the 4th Century not because this is some novel teaching but precisely because they are arguing about the Trinity with the Arians (and Sabellians. And Apollinarians) and the Arians are taking a hard-line Sola Scriptura stance- and these are extra-biblical teachings so universal they are to be found in the very liturgies the Arians used. It doesn't matter if the word "Trinity" (really "homoousia" was the big controversy) is never to be found in the Scripture- the invocation of the saints isn't either, but it is the universal practice of the Church, as it has always been the practice of the Church to baptize in the single name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Scripture never explicitly identifies the Holy Spirit as God with the same boldness St John opens his Gospel and identifies Christ as such- it doesn't matter, the liturgy has since time immemorial just as it has always had hymns to Mary.

Really, the Reformers had a failure of imagination- they see St Basil make these references and think "oh, that's two centuries after the Apostle John died. Well, we've seen how badly the Christian faith can go downhill in just two centuries." and assume that the "Roman errors" of the Mass had been creeping in by this point. More, they were used to a fairly ancient and standardized liturgy- the Western Church had a variety of local uses, but the main framework of the Mass (the priest's parts) was the same.

The Nicene era knew of no such thing- the Catholic Church was emerging from the catacombs of persecution and the local churches were beginning to compare notes to a degree to which they couldn't when they were underground. And they are delighted to discover that there is indeed a Catholic Church. From Glastonbury to Dharjeeling, the liturgy might contain vastly different elements but some things are constant- there is always a Eucharist, there is always an invocation of the saints, hymns are sung to the Blessed Virgin, baptism and prayer are in the name of the Trinity, and people everywhere make the sign of the cross.

It is difficult to overstate the improbability of these practices being post-Apostolic in origin yet so universal in practice- the persecuted Church had no magisterial mechanism to develop and impose new practices across such a large territory. A local council of few bishops might be called to discuss certain matters of controversy (such as the Montanists) but they had no way of imposing any rulings of such a council beyond their specific territories- the best they could is communicate the results of their council to other respected bishops and hope they agree. The one time the bishop of Rome tried to exercise such an authority over the dating of Easter he was politely rebuffed with "thanks, but we'll keep celebrating the way the Apostle John taught us".

Every diocese at that time was a local Church with the highest authority resting in the bishop. And every bishop had the ultimate authority over the liturgy practiced by his parishes - including keeping up with the maintenance of the codices containing that local Church's Gospels and Epistles.

Incidentally, there is little debate between the Fathers on the canonicity of the Scriptures (and there certainly was no Ecumenical Council of the pre-Schism Church that laid down a canon) . The Church as a whole never really set down a canon- the Roman Church would not do so until Trent in response to Luther. What you do see often among the Fathers is a discussion of canon- "Hey, Ephesus, our scroll of St Paul's Epistles is getting worn out and we're getting ready to copy a new one. We only have seven letters. We'd heard heard he'd written to you and were kind of wondering if we could get a copy." "Sure thing, Alexandria. Oh, by the way, our scroll of St Paul has fourteen letters. Wanna send your scribe over and copy the whole thing?" "Do we ever!" After St Constantine the various Churches were proclaiming their various local canons in triumph- "This is the deposit left to us!" and noting just how similar they were in content. Sure, some codices might have odd additions like The Shepherd of Hermas or the Apostolic Constitutions- but even these books were known to the other Churches, they just weren't considered acceptable for liturgical use (and none of the accretions were anything of Gnostic origin. At no point did the Church need to weed out the Gospel of Thomas, sorry Dan Brown).

I raise the point about the liturgical authority of the local bishop in the early Church because again, we have two centuries of each diocese being capable of it's own liturgical developments and they all come back together with liturgies teaching the exact same thing in regards to the Trinity, the Invocation of the Saints, and Marian hymns. Contrast this by walking into a random selection of Episcopalian churches and seeing how many have retained orthodoxy and how many have pretty much made up their own creeds based on whatever whimsy of bad theology has infected the local parish (but, really, don't, it's not worth it).

This doesn't even begin to get into the precedents for Trinitarian theology, Marian (or the Queen Mother of the Davidic heir) devotion, and veneration of the saints we are discovering all the time in recently uncovered Second Temple Judaic writings.

So while Luther, Calvin, and Cranmer might have had the utmost respect for the writings of the Fathers (after the Scriptures), Del is completely right in saying that the Reformers were divorced from the Tradition. The Liturgy is the Tradition of the Church- beyond the writings of any of the Fathers. And because Luther looked at the Roman practice of veneration and found it wanting, he removed as much as he respectfully could from the Mass- he thought to teach the Mass, when the Mass was only ever supposed to teach him.

------------------------------------------
You (and Lewis) are completely correct about the dating of the ultimate breakdown. The seventeenth and eighteenth century "scientists" that modern historians would like to point to called themselves "natural philosophers" for good reason as they were well immersed in the philosophic tradition of the day. Like all good traditional philosophers they did not limit themselves to "natural philosophy" but were more than happy to spout forth on topics such as theology, epistimology, and (in the case of Newton) Enochian magic. You can't say that Newton was outside the tradition just because he primarily wrote about physics and calculus unless you want to toss Pythagoras as well (who also had weird magic practices- inventing a new math must break some part of the brain). Modern historians want a myth of the rise of Progress from the ashes of Regressive Religion (much as Landmark Baptists want a myth of unbroken succession to Apostolic times) and will point to any figure from the Renaissance on that fits this mold (much as Landmark Baptists will point to any historical heresy that disagreed with Rome on sacraments). But modern historians wants and the realities as they have happened are very rarely the same thing.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond and I like what you wrote, even though I'm tempted to argue here and there, I'll refrain and try to just reiterate my point.

There is no denying that a change/shift took place at the Reformation. There is no denying that there were unforeseen repercussions that stemmed from it. I'll also concede that the Reformers did not embrace Tradition the same way RC/Orthodox do/did. But I would argue the Reformation was first and foremost a pastoral reaction that later developed into what it became, and did so across a large geographic area, languages, and cultures with various leaders among them, over a period of time in areas friendly and hostile, with events taking place from within and without of the Church. That is to say, it was a pastoral reaction in a maelstrom that only seemed to increase. Like writing theological commentary on the back of a galloping wild stallion. Things are bound to get over emphasized or de-emphasized. Considering such was the case it's frankly amazing the unity of thought/doctrine/etc that did occur among them.

That said, I want to re-emphasize that I believe the main motive for the Reformation was, at it's root, pastoral. (You see the same concerns in men like Wycliff and Hus) So there are clear cases where they mounted arguments against things that might have had the historic pedigree, but had by their day developed into something harmful to the flock. Like the bronze snake God had Moses design, a symbol of grace and healing the people turned into an idol and Hezekiah had it destroyed.

In a real way the reformers did not view themselves as an offshoot of the church or a new start up, nor did they think the doctrines that they held were innovations, but they believed they were holding fast to what their forefathers in the faith held to, and frankly looked at the moral decay within much of the church at that time as evidence that their convictions about reforming doctrines which had turned sour was the right thing to do. Any charges that basically claim the Reformation wrecked XYZ (you name it, hierarchy, power, veneration, metaphysics, etc) and led to this bad thing down the line, may have some truth to it, but from their point of view, and I'd agree, reformation would not be needed if certain doctrines hadn't grown rotten in the first place.

I know RCs/Orthodox don't view the Reformers that way, but that's how we view it. Which is to say the Reformers did not regard themselves as being untethered to Tradition, in fact, they believed the opposite, that that which needed reforming was out of line with Tradition, either as a later development, or as something that had become rotten and harmful to the flock. (Again, agree or disagree, that's how they viewed it).

NOW! That said, 500 years have passed and there have been some really bad advocates for the Reformers and many protestants HAVE untethered themselves from Tradition, which can be a whole other can of worms. But there are also protestants that have recognized some of the 'baby out with the bathwater' stuff that has occurred and seek to recultivate such things.

Think of the reformation as a vinedresser. Certain leaves were cut, but with an eye towards healthy growth. Their inheritors take a look at a few of those branches that were pared and for fear of them growing rotten again, or through sheer unfamiliarity (which is also fear), they keep cutting it back and never allow it to grow.

So, I actually agree with the majority of what you just said- if I didn't think Rome was a mess in need of reform both then and now, well, I would have joined the Roman Church instead of the Orthodox. And I also agree that it was largely a pastoral mess. It's a problem endemic to the Episcopal Churches (not be confused with the Episcopal "Church") that when the bishops start gaining temporal power they become lax about their primary responsibility- the care and maintenance of the Tradition as delivered. This can be seen on both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sides of the Schism and can be seen prior to the schism- it is almost inherent in Christianity becoming the religion of the Empire. The problem was further compounded by the Roman tendency to centralize ecclesiastical authority following the "reforms" of Gregory VII (yes, clergy passing on Church property to their descendants is bad. Wholesale clerical celibacy is worse).

A good example of this would be the practice surrounding the Western rite of Confirmation. These days it is practiced sometime around the age of 7 or 8. And a lot of later Western theology looked at this practice and said "This must be the age of reason". But originally it was practiced much like the Eastern rite of Chrismation, immediately following baptism (the two are really two different names for the same practice, the ritual words are the big difference). Originally, the chrism (oil) used in the practice was both consecrated and administered by the local bishop. As time passed, dioceses got larger and more populous. Infants were baptized fairly early due to the constant threat of infant mortality of the times and could be baptized by priests with no problem- it has always been the teaching of the Church that any Christian may perform a valid baptism, though should only be done by a layman in extremis. But dioceses were so populous that it became impossible for many bishops to visit their parishes even once a year. The Eastern Church adapted by changing the rules- a priest could perform the Chrismation using Chrism his bishop sent him each year (these days the Chrism is usually prepared by the Patriarch or ranking bishop of a local Church and then distributed to the parishes). The Roman Church adapted by waiting until all those little babies were about seven years old and then sending the bishops out to confirm them en masse (pardon the pun).

And after a few generation of this practice, a theology developed around it. See, you have all these baptized babies running around and they can't take communion. Why can't they take communion? Because they haven't been confirmed. Why haven't they been confirmed? The historical answer was lost to the annals of time and the Greeks were unavailable for comment (well, the "help, I'm being repressed!" was a comment, but wasn't helpful to the discussion). So they invented a theological answer- children are confirmed around the age of seven because that is the age of reason. Therefore, a person must be able to apprehend the Eucharist intellectually before they can partake. All this because the bishops can't be bothered to get off their fat butts and do their one job (verbally abusing bad bishops is also a fine old Christian tradition)- and now we have hordes of Evangelicals delaying baptism to age 7 because of bad bishops.

(And to stop picking on our Roman friends, the Orthodox have a tendency to do this as well. Every year during Holy Week starting Sunday evening you will find Matins services being offered in the evenings and Vesperal Liturgies being served in the morning. The theological explanation that has developed is that the Creator approaches His death and thus the entire cosmos has been turned upside down. A beautiful and poetic teaching, but the real reason is that Holy Week is the single most attended week of the Orthodox calendar. In the Muslim ruled countries it was easier for the Christians to go to church in the mornings than in the evenings- many towns even had strict rules on what time of the day Christians could celebrate services. So they moved the Eucharistic services to the morning when more people could attend- and kept the Vesperal trapping because the Vesperal Scripture readings are important. We haven't changed back because we're hard-pressed to change our underwear let alone service times or calendars. How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb? "CHANGE?!")

And while I can say that the Roman Church of the time was a practical mess, I cannot speak to what her official teaching was- mainly because if I ask three different Roman Catholics what the official teaching of the church might be at any given time, I'll get back three different answers. We're guilty of the same sometimes, but we don't go around smugly claiming things about ex cathedra statements. But yes, on a pastoral level Reform was desperately needed. Unfortunately, being Orthodox, I happen to believe the Reformers managed to miss just about everything that needed reforming (reinstituting the practice of Communion in Both Kinds is about the one thing they got right) and threw out all the things they were supposed to keep ("let's lose the Marian hymns but keep the 'F' word in our Creed!"). They were attempting horticulture based on a generic gardening manual and not a book about proper care of the vine. They knew you were supposed to get grapes and decided that meant to prune all the leaves and leave a naked vine.

And let's not quibble about one big thing- Luther's reforms were so very ego-driven. Rather than lose his own extra-biblical "faith alone" he'd rather throw out the entirety of St James. "Scripture is a higher authority than tradition! Except when it's my own invented tradition!" I'd have hated to be his confessor!

That said, the Orthodox tend to look kindly on the Magisterial reformers- outside of Calvin, who we kind of view as the grand Heresiarch of the Reformation. The Lutherans and the Anglicans managed to keep a lot more of the deposit handed on by the Apostles than the other reformed churches. We even temporarily allowed a provisional intercommunion with the American Episcopalians (basically, if there was no convenient Orthodox church available, allow our parishioners to attend Episcopalian churches) in the early 20th Century after being approached by several Anglo-Catholic bishops. The arrangement ended when the Episcopalians started telling Orthodox Christians they didn't need to go to Orthodox churches because the Episcopal Church was the American Orthodox Church- we did a hard double take and our bishops looked more closely into the reality of the Episcopal Church and realized there's more than Anglo-Catholicism going on under that hood. That aside, we don't blame all the ills of Modern Western Civilization on the Reformation- we see the Reformed churches as having done the best they could under the circumstances. We place the blame for all the ills of the Modern West about four centuries before Wittenburg Except for Calvin- seriously, screw that guy.

[tuttle]

So, I actually agree with the majority of what you just said- if I didn't think Rome was a mess in need of reform both then and now, well, I would have joined the Roman Church instead of the Orthodox. And I also agree that it was largely a pastoral mess. It's a problem endemic to the Episcopal Churches (not be confused with the Episcopal "Church") that when the bishops start gaining temporal power they become lax about their primary responsibility- the care and maintenance of the Tradition as delivered. This can be seen on both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sides of the Schism and can be seen prior to the schism- it is almost inherent in Christianity becoming the religion of the Empire. The problem was further compounded by the Roman tendency to centralize ecclesiastical authority following the "reforms" of Gregory VII (yes, clergy passing on Church property to their descendants is bad. Wholesale clerical celibacy is worse).

A good example of this would be the practice surrounding the Western rite of Confirmation. These days it is practiced sometime around the age of 7 or 8. And a lot of later Western theology looked at this practice and said "This must be the age of reason". But originally it was practiced much like the Eastern rite of Chrismation, immediately following baptism (the two are really two different names for the same practice, the ritual words are the big difference). Originally, the chrism (oil) used in the practice was both consecrated and administered by the local bishop. As time passed, dioceses got larger and more populous. Infants were baptized fairly early due to the constant threat of infant mortality of the times and could be baptized by priests with no problem- it has always been the teaching of the Church that any Christian may perform a valid baptism, though should only be done by a layman in extremis. But dioceses were so populous that it became impossible for many bishops to visit their parishes even once a year. The Eastern Church adapted by changing the rules- a priest could perform the Chrismation using Chrism his bishop sent him each year (these days the Chrism is usually prepared by the Patriarch or ranking bishop of a local Church and then distributed to the parishes). The Roman Church adapted by waiting until all those little babies were about seven years old and then sending the bishops out to confirm them en masse (pardon the pun).

And after a few generation of this practice, a theology developed around it. See, you have all these baptized babies running around and they can't take communion. Why can't they take communion? Because they haven't been confirmed. Why haven't they been confirmed? The historical answer was lost to the annals of time and the Greeks were unavailable for comment (well, the "help, I'm being repressed!" was a comment, but wasn't helpful to the discussion). So they invented a theological answer- children are confirmed around the age of seven because that is the age of reason. Therefore, a person must be able to apprehend the Eucharist intellectually before they can partake. All this because the bishops can't be bothered to get off their fat butts and do their one job (verbally abusing bad bishops is also a fine old Christian tradition)- and now we have hordes of Evangelicals delaying baptism to age 7 because of bad bishops.

Not to detract from the major agreements I have with you in the bulk of what you wrote, but to carry the thread a little further regarding baptism (from a baptist, eep), especially considering the sacramental emphasis of the thread...

Many, many fellow baptists would disagree with me. Even brothers in my own congregation. But, while I hold to a view of baptism that believes that only those who confess faith should be baptized (thus precluding infants), I am also of the opinion that faith works forwards and backwards. That is to say (and here's where many of my fellow baptists disagree) one who is baptized as an infant and confesses faith, their baptism is valid because of the faith. How I would frame their baptism is valid but improper. Improper simply referring to the 'order' in which it (under a baptist view) should occur. (So there's no need to re-baptize them as so many in my camp do). So on one level, I have no issue with pedobaptism, especially when the child is discipled and nurtured in the faith.

But even for many of the baptists who disagree with me, they don't look to a child's age as any sort of marker, they look for a 'credible' (don't get me started) confession of faith. That many children raised in the church are then baptized around 6-7 isn't because they are 7, but because they've professed their faith. I think a lot of traditions look at the credo-baptist position as (ironically) one that depends to much human agency, and while I cannot discount that many do fall into that, it's not a feature of credobaptism that critics think it is.

But if I keep pulling this thread things might get messy.

(And to stop picking on our Roman friends, the Orthodox have a tendency to do this as well. Every year during Holy Week starting Sunday evening you will find Matins services being offered in the evenings and Vesperal Liturgies being served in the morning. The theological explanation that has developed is that the Creator approaches His death and thus the entire cosmos has been turned upside down. A beautiful and poetic teaching, but the real reason is that Holy Week is the single most attended week of the Orthodox calendar. In the Muslim ruled countries it was easier for the Christians to go to church in the mornings than in the evenings- many towns even had strict rules on what time of the day Christians could celebrate services. So they moved the Eucharistic services to the morning when more people could attend- and kept the Vesperal trapping because the Vesperal Scripture readings are important. We haven't changed back because we're hard-pressed to change our underwear let alone service times or calendars. How many Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb? "CHANGE?!")

And while I can say that the Roman Church of the time was a practical mess, I cannot speak to what her official teaching was- mainly because if I ask three different Roman Catholics what the official teaching of the church might be at any given time, I'll get back three different answers. We're guilty of the same sometimes, but we don't go around smugly claiming things about ex cathedra statements. But yes, on a pastoral level Reform was desperately needed. Unfortunately, being Orthodox, I happen to believe the Reformers managed to miss just about everything that needed reforming (reinstituting the practice of Communion in Both Kinds is about the one thing they got right) and threw out all the things they were supposed to keep ("let's lose the Marian hymns but keep the 'F' word in our Creed!"). They were attempting horticulture based on a generic gardening manual and not a book about proper care of the vine. They knew you were supposed to get grapes and decided that meant to prune all the leaves and leave a naked vine.

And let's not quibble about one big thing- Luther's reforms were so very ego-driven. Rather than lose his own extra-biblical "faith alone" he'd rather throw out the entirety of St James. "Scripture is a higher authority than tradition! Except when it's my own invented tradition!" I'd have hated to be his confessor!

That said, the Orthodox tend to look kindly on the Magisterial reformers- outside of Calvin, who we kind of view as the grand Heresiarch of the Reformation. The Lutherans and the Anglicans managed to keep a lot more of the deposit handed on by the Apostles than the other reformed churches. We even temporarily allowed a provisional intercommunion with the American Episcopalians (basically, if there was no convenient Orthodox church available, allow our parishioners to attend Episcopalian churches) in the early 20th Century after being approached by several Anglo-Catholic bishops. The arrangement ended when the Episcopalians started telling Orthodox Christians they didn't need to go to Orthodox churches because the Episcopal Church was the American Orthodox Church- we did a hard double take and our bishops looked more closely into the reality of the Episcopal Church and realized there's more than Anglo-Catholicism going on under that hood. That aside, we don't blame all the ills of Modern Western Civilization on the Reformation- we see the Reformed churches as having done the best they could under the circumstances. We place the blame for all the ills of the Modern West about four centuries before Wittenburg Except for Calvin- seriously, screw that guy.

Again, not to detract from my major agreements with you, but to tug on some other strings.

Specifically the horticulture metaphor (which I think is a really good one), you're picking up on a little of what I was getting at. They really did go 'back to the book' because they'd been fooled and let down by a host of 'books about proper care of the vine'. Remember many of the reformers were monks and priests, well acquainted with the life of the Roman Church, and in all honesty, many things they were 'protesting' that had been brought up other times in the history of the Church. They were aware of the theological/historical/pastoral/geo-political issues involved more than we are. I'd argue that their pruning of the vine was not intended to leave the vine naked, but to allow for healthy regrowth. So I wouldn't lay the naked vine at the feet of the reformers, but on many who followed them who continued to prune, but failed to realize their pruning was meant to cultivate. They rightly saw the rot and danger and rightly cut. But when the shoot began to grow again, it was cut for fear it might grow rotten and dangerous. That, I would heartily agree, is a failure of the heirs of the Reformation. I see much of it rife in my own tradition.

Regarding Luther's ego, part of me says, so what? I don't say so what to discount his ego, but that the reformation wasn't his ego-project. It was always bigger than Luther, and it was peeking up before Luther was even born (look at guys like Hus). That said, it's likely his ego did play a role as Luther became the man of the hour, he could have shrunk back, but as it is, ego or lunacy or principles or a mix of all of it, I believe God certainly used Luther's personality as a vehicle to propel the reformation. But once started, if it were fueled by ego, it would have sputtered.

One of the lesser known events that took place during the Reformation was that the reformers looked East to perhaps join forces with Eastern Orthodoxy. Luther often pointed to "the Greek Church" to support his claims against Rome. After Luther died there were some Lutherans who held dialogue with a patriarch (sorry I don't know who!) which continued for some years, but fizzled out over doctrinal differences. That said, while there are disagreements, it's clear the Reformers leaned upon the Greek Church to support their claims as corrections rather than innovations.

Lastly, Calvin. If ever a man got a bad wrap... I think most people who hate Calvin have never read Calvin. His views on soteriology--the subject of most people's ire--in all honesty, are essentially that of Augustine. It's true that he did prune a little more, but I still contend it was a pruning with an eye toward cultivation and not a naked vine, though I will admit that it is the followers in his camp that have been the most prune happy. Though I still maintain that the pruning (for the most part) by Calvin or by Calvinists, was often done for pastoral reasons, some begin to view the pruning itself as the thing. To be frank, I think you can rightly put the blame on this stream as a contributor to materialism, as a result of constantly pruning a sacramental worldview (which Calvin shared), which led to further metaphysical pruning, which led to a distaste (or a functional distaste) for anything 'supernatural' at all. I don't say that was Calvin's intention, but it happened. And so we see people who begin to recognize this negation wind up swimming the Tiber. However, speaking as one from the inside a prune happy tradition, a real and serious look at our history, from our 500 year vantage point allows us to see what happened, and because our pastoral situation is different, we can seriously approach the over-pruned leaves with real care and attention, and begin to cultivate what our forefathers cut, knowing they had their reasons, but still lamenting our loss.

Maybe I'm a hopeless romantic, or perhaps a glutton for punishment.

But I do appreciate your take. Christians of all stripes like to blame Christianity for our societal ills. But sometimes we forget that we have an enemy that is working against us. Sometimes the bad fruit we see isn't the result of a theological movement but a result of tares planted among the wheat by the devil. Or schemes plotted and carried out while we're busy looking the other way, maybe when we're fighting about who is and isn't part of the church. For instance, there was a recent in-house dustup among some like-minded protestants, discussing 'how we got here' kind of things and some presbyterians blamed baptists for transgenderism. Not to be outdone the baptists blamed the presbys for she-pastors. The whole time I'm like, why blame each other for what the world, the flesh, and the devil clearly did? I feel the same on a macro-level when Catholics blame the ills of modernity on the Reformation. But this is running too long. Man, I'd love to meet up in person one day!

[mcommini]

*snipped* because our vortex is getting deep!

Wanted to respond, but also don't won't to derail too much. The Patriarch of Constantinople who had the dialogue with the early Lutherans was Jeremiah II. It's an interesting conversation between them- they sent a Greek copy of The Ausburg Confession asking for review and potential communion. Jeremiah wrote back detailing the relatively few disagreements we had at the time- the filioque, the Lutheran view of Sanctification, using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This took the Lutherans by surprise- they truly expected the Confession would be viewed as Orthodox.

The exchange went for exactly 3 letters. After the third, following St Paul's injunction to Titus (3:10), the Patriarch ended the discussion. He didn't say "screw you guys and go to hell!" But he did say that the topic of discussion was closed- but he'd be happy to exchange letters in a spirit of friendship, so long as the disputed topics weren't brought up.

When I say Luther was driven by ego, what I was getting at is he was somewhat unscrupulous in applying his own rules about deriving doctrine from Scripture when that Scripture discounted his ideas about justification. "Epistle of Straw" indeed.

I actually read Calvin back when I was still at least somewhat of a Baptist and a few times since then. I disagreed with him on just about everything then, more so now Never let a juridical lawyer anywhere near St Paul!

Edit: by all means! Send me a PM if you're ever out New Mexico way.

[tuttle]

*snipped* because our vortex is getting deep!

Wanted to respond, but also don't won't to derail too much. The Patriarch of Constantinople who had the dialogue with the early Lutherans was Jeremiah II. It's an interesting conversation between them- they sent a Greek copy of The Ausburg Confession asking for review and potential communion. Jeremiah wrote back detailing the relatively few disagreements we had at the time- the filioque, the Lutheran view of Sanctification, using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This took the Lutherans by surprise- they truly expected the Confession would be viewed as Orthodox.

The exchange went for exactly 3 letters. After the third, following St Paul's injunction to Titus (3:10), the Patriarch ended the discussion. He didn't say "screw you guys and go to hell!" But he did say that the topic of discussion was closed- but he'd be happy to exchange letters in a spirit of friendship, so long as the disputed topics weren't brought up.

Ah, good on you for the specifics. I'd read all about it some years back.

When I say Luther was driven by ego, what I was getting at is he was somewhat unscrupulous in applying his own rules about deriving doctrine from Scripture when that Scripture discounted his ideas about justification. "Epistle of Straw" indeed.

Ok cool. I hear you. The book of James stuff was ridiculous and obviously no one besides Luther seriously considered it, which is kind of an example of my point that his ego had nothing really to do with the movement (which is where I mistakenly thought you were going, since that what lots of other critics do)

I actually read Calvin back when I was still at least somewhat of a Baptist and a few times since then. I disagreed with him on just about everything then, more so now Never let a juridical lawyer anywhere near St Paul!

I disagree with Calvin on a number of things, but I don't ascribe any maliciousness, nor do I think he was contrary to orthodoxy. As I said, he's essentially Augustinian in his soteriology (which is the biggest beef folks have with him). I happen to agree with the soteriology, and yet you have a point about juridical lawyers writing theology. There is a reason so many calvinists come off as cold and robotic. You are what you eat, as the saying goes, and a steady diet of nutrient pills makes for a dull and sour existence. But when you look at the best 'calvinists' you find they've feasted on a variety of truth. (It's interesting that perhaps the group most infatuated with Chesterton outside of Catholics are calvinists). Give me a jolly papist who loves Jesus over a dour calvinist who can recite every jot and tittle of the Institutes any day!

[mcommini]

*snipped* because our vortex is getting deep!

Wanted to respond, but also don't won't to derail too much. The Patriarch of Constantinople who had the dialogue with the early Lutherans was Jeremiah II. It's an interesting conversation between them- they sent a Greek copy of The Ausburg Confession asking for review and potential communion. Jeremiah wrote back detailing the relatively few disagreements we had at the time- the filioque, the Lutheran view of Sanctification, using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. This took the Lutherans by surprise- they truly expected the Confession would be viewed as Orthodox.

The exchange went for exactly 3 letters. After the third, following St Paul's injunction to Titus (3:10), the Patriarch ended the discussion. He didn't say "screw you guys and go to hell!" But he did say that the topic of discussion was closed- but he'd be happy to exchange letters in a spirit of friendship, so long as the disputed topics weren't brought up.

Ah, good on you for the specifics. I'd read all about it some years back.

When I say Luther was driven by ego, what I was getting at is he was somewhat unscrupulous in applying his own rules about deriving doctrine from Scripture when that Scripture discounted his ideas about justification. "Epistle of Straw" indeed.

Ok cool. I hear you. The book of James stuff was ridiculous and obviously no one besides Luther seriously considered it, which is kind of an example of my point that his ego had nothing really to do with the movement (which is where I mistakenly thought you were going, since that what lots of other critics do)

I actually read Calvin back when I was still at least somewhat of a Baptist and a few times since then. I disagreed with him on just about everything then, more so now Never let a juridical lawyer anywhere near St Paul!

I disagree with Calvin on a number of things, but I don't ascribe any maliciousness, nor do I think he was contrary to orthodoxy. As I said, he's essentially Augustinian in his soteriology (which is the biggest beef folks have with him). I happen to agree with the soteriology, and yet you have a point about juridical lawyers writing theology. There is a reason so many calvinists come off as cold and robotic. You are what you eat, as the saying goes, and a steady diet of nutrient pills makes for a dull and sour existence. But when you look at the best 'calvinists' you find they've feasted on a variety of truth. (It's interesting that perhaps the group most infatuated with Chesterton outside of Catholics are calvinists). Give me a jolly papist who loves Jesus over a dour calvinist who can recite every jot and tittle of the Institutes any day!

Tuttle, my apologies- I had gotten a good start on a reply during my lunch break and even saved the draft. Some glitch as I continued my response upon getting home deleted that draft. This is now my post-D&D game/I've been socializing with people so there's no way I'm getting to bed on time/somewhat more (hopefully, we'll see where my fingers end) redacted response.

So, to point [this was originally going to be near the end and hadn't been typed yet]: I don't ascribe any maliciousness to Calvin. I believe that Calvin sincerely and truly believed that his teachings were the true teaching of the Christian Faith. I believe that Calvin distorted St Augustine to extreme levels of uncharity with the most charitable intention of - if not saving, because predestination (cheap shot. I'll take one at us Orthodox in a later exchange at worst, further down in this post if I know myself as well as I think)- at least alerting people that their salvation was in peril because the official Church has things wrong.

But that's the thing about heretics- more often than not they are quite sincere and charitable in their belief. I believe Arius, of the oh-so-punchable-face, really and sincerely believed that the Word was the first created being (through whom all other creation comes) and thus of a different nature than the Father, and that he espoused these beliefs because he thought it was important for people to know that the other priests and their bishops are wrong.

Malicious heresy requires no malice on the part of the heretic- Mohammad being the outlier.

What it does require is someone to elevate a single phrase or idea - a metaphor that is perfectly fine in the context of the larger Tradition - to taking priority over the Tradition. Arius believed that "Firstborn of Creation" took precedence over "The Word was God" and "only Begotten Son". The Donatists took St Paul's approval of excommunication in I Corinthians over his joyful restoration of the fallen member in II Corinthians.

And Calvin elevated "Sovereignty" to such levels that somehow, Glory manages to eclipse Light.

Jeroboam's worst sin was trying to depict God in the form of a bull. Calvin robbed every man born after Adam's fall of the very image of God.

Now, to explain yet another miscommunication [and to return to where I once began]- so when I made the "juridical lawyer" remark that was by no means a critique of Calvin's delivery. Earlier in this thread on Aquinas that you and I have gleefully driven off the rails I was more than happy to critique the delivery. No, when I say a juridical lawyer should be allowed nowhere near St Paul, I'm not afraid of the theology to follow being cold and robotic in tone- I'm afraid of them being too tied into their forensic view of legality to really grasp what St Paul really meant about law. Roman Law- and therefore all the Common Law of Western Culture to follow- was about guilt and punishment. The Mosaic Law was about relationship and ways of restoring relationships- something I may go further into in future conversations. The overall gist is there's a world of difference from a western lawyer and the Pharisaic lawyers and Calvin had a world of presuppositions left over, not so much from St Augustine as from Anselm, that truly distorted his view.

The only person I can think of as the "best" of the Calvinists is George MacDonald- who I think more Catholic and Orthodox read than Calvinists these days, so he might have Chesterton beat there. I will say Calvinism becomes almost beautiful when it combines Sovereignty and predestination with "Who desires that all should be saved." That is almost approaching the balance of Tradition.

[tuttle]

The only person I can think of as the "best" of the Calvinists is George MacDonald- who I think more Catholic and Orthodox read than Calvinists these days, so he might have Chesterton beat there. I will say Calvinism becomes almost beautiful when it combines Sovereignty and predestination with "Who desires that all should be saved." That is almost approaching the balance of Tradition.

This is hitting at what I was approaching. One of the reasons a lot of critiques of calvinism fall flat for me is that, from the inside, it's just not true. However, I will emphasize, it's just not true intrinsically. Which is to say, there those calvinists who easily prove their critics right. Now to be fair, the term calvinism can cover a lot of ground. A person raised in a calvinist church might be called a cavlinist regardless of their belief. But more often than not anyone claiming the calvinist name is essentially doing so if the line up with his soteriology. And while not always the case most folks find Calvinist and 'reformed' interchangeable. You may already know this, but inside the circle you have calvinsists and CALVINISTS and not really calvinsits, if you read me.

Which is a long way to say that I tend to agree with you about finding balance. Kind of like I was saying earlier, I don't trust a Calvinist who doesn't read Chesterton, or Lewis, or the Church Fathers, or (to pretend this has anything to still do with the thread) Thomas Aquinas.

Just as I'm thinking about it, another calvinist who might surprise you is Hans Boersma.