Arturo on the Political Question

Arturo posts an enlightening piece on the complicated nature of religious tolerance and religious identity.  He writes:

I have always found the Vatican’s line of “soft confessionalism” in Europe a bit precious and not a little patronizing. On the one hand, it wants Catholicism to appear to be a kinder, gentler version of itself as opposed to l’Action Française or all of those horrible people before Vatican II who the flower children of the 1960’s rejected. On the other hand, it wants a State that looks nominally Catholic, where the clergy are still influential over daily life, where the Faith is a decaffeinated, “lite” revision of the old brand.

In some ways Protestantism has more ability to allow for religious plurality.  By drawing a distinction between earthly and heavenly citizenship, the Reformation, at least in principle, allowed for a measure of religious tolerance.  Jerome Zanchi once wrote:

But seing (to say something brieflie of the other duetie of a prince concerning religion) there be diverse kinds of mene which a prince may have under his government, namely either mere infidels, or such as indeede professe Christ, but yet are also open idolaters or in manie things apostates from the apostolicall church, or in some article of the faith manifest heretikes, or else erre upon simplicitie, or such as are rightly persuaded in all matters, we doe certainly hold that a prince ought not to use one kinde of measure towards all these sorts. For some of them are to be loved, cherished and honored; some to bee winked at; some not to be suffred; other to be quite cut off. And none must be permitted to blaspheme Christ or to worship idols or retaine ungodly ceremonies.

What is interesting is that a distinction is made between mild tolerance and an open-ended “anything goes” sort of establishment.  Just as RCs need to reflect on the logical consistency of their own thought, Protestants need to think more about their own principles instead of too quickly settling for the modern status quo.

This might be a good time to check out Althusius’ Politica, which is now available online.

N T Wright on Protestantism’s Advantages Over Rome

When asked to respond to the neo-Catholic converts who are claiming him as inspiration for their decision, N T Wright pleasantly defends Protestantism.  He writes:

“Sacramental, transformational, communal, eschatological”? If you gave me that list and said “Where in the Christian world would you find that?” I could easily and truthfully answer:

• (i) in the best of the Reformed tradition — spend a couple of days at Calvin College, or read Jamie Smith’s new book, and you’ll see;
• (ii) in much of the best of the charismatic movement, once it’s shed its low-church prejudices and discovered how much God loves bodies;
• (iii) in the best of… dare I say it… Anglicanism… ;
• (iv) in some bits (not all) of the Emerging Church movement . . .

Trent said both much more and much less than this.

• Sacramental, yes, but in a muddled way with an unhelpful ontology;
• Transformational, yes, but far too dependent on unbiblical techniques and practices;
• Communal, yes, but don’t let the laity (or the women) get any fancy ideas about God working new things through them;
• Eschatological? Eschatology in the biblical sense didn’t loom large, and indeed that was a key element in the Reformers’ protest: the once-for-allness of the events of Jesus’ death and resurrection as producing, not a new system for doing the same stuff over and over, but a new world.

Trent, and much subsequent RC theology, has had a habit of never spring-cleaning, so you just live in a house with more and more clutter building up, lots of right answers to wrong questions (e.g. transsubstantiation) which then get in the way when you want to get something actually done.

In particular, Trent gave the wrong answer, at a deep level, to the nature/grace question, which is what’s at the root of the Marian dogmas and devotions which, despite contrary claims, are in my view neither sacramental, transformational, communal nor eschatological. Nor biblical.

He also gives a pretty brilliant line about Rome’s view of authority:

Rome is a big, splendid, dusty old ocean liner, with lots of grand cabins, and, at present, quite a fine captain and some excellent officers — but also quite a few rooms in need of repair. Yes, it may take you places, but it’s slow and you might get seasick from time to time. And the navigators have been told that they must never acknowledge when they’ve been going in the wrong direction . . .

Now this is basically what my friends have been saying for some time now.  If you wanted liturgy, you wouldn’t have gotten much in old Rome.  It was fairly exclusive to the clergy and rather dead (Catherine Pickstock’s hypothesis that “mumbling” was an attempt by the finite to express the infinite through apophatic ecstasy to the contrary…).  If you wanted sacraments, again, you probably wouldn’t have gotten much of it in old Rome.  If you wanted tradition, you would have only gotten it as mediated by the magisterium.

The Reformation was about all of these things.  And yes, there was something to the nature/grace opposition as well.  Rome’s view of “holiness,” as well as their political theory betrays their commitment to grace superseding nature.  The Prots were all over that from the start.

The new Catholicism is simply trying to pass Protestant teachings off as its own.  You know, like Scott Hahn does.

Now we just need to get Bishop Wright straight on philosophy and the medievals…