www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Both Catholic and Calvinist?

Jonn,

Calvin was hardly teaching anything new when he said that man cannot earn his way to heaven by good works. St. Augustine had already elaborated on this point extensively, and St. Paul had a bit to say on it as well.

What I find particularly interesting is that it certainly seems--especially since Calvin and the Reformers were so hot on this particular item--that the Catholic Church, while it may not have officially taught justification by works, surely must have been preaching it.

The people were lax in their practice, and "the Church" (i.e. the bishops and priests) was responding by emphasizing what they needed to do in order to avoid the loss of heaven and the pains of hell.

The irony of this, of course, is that by preaching that works were useless, the Calvinists often succeeded in getting people to renew their commitment to God and consequently to do more works.

As for the Jansenists, I had always understood that they were a rather joyless lot who emphasized ascetical practices and promoted infrequent Communion. However, since I am used to finding out that the truth of history is often different from what is taught in schools, I wouldn't be surprised to learn something different even about the Jansenists.

Not sure what you mean here. The Catholic Church has never taught that the penances we receive in Confession are what takes away our sins, rather than the Blood of Christ. The "ten Hail Marys and twenty Our Fathers," performed as an act of obedience, are merely a sign by which we confirm the sincerity of our repentance. As I stated above, though, it was probably preached somewhat differently at various times ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

No one, not even the Pope, is above Tradition.

It seems to me that Brother Roger was neither Calvinist nor Catholic, but rather some other sort of Protestant; perhaps a Protestantism of a sort all his own. If he believed in either Calvinism or Catholicism fully, he would mutually exclude the other.

To me, frankly, the arrogance that a person must have to think himself about the dictates of the Church and its constant, multi-millennial Tradition is in no way the hallmark of a saint, but rather an indicator of one of the most serious and destructive sins: Pride.

Alexis

Perhaps we had a person, not a member of the Roman/Latin Church, who believed in the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"?

Who lived that belief spiritually and physically?

Who also believed that the Roman Church was actually part of that Church, but not the only part of it?

Who also had the good fortune to encounter two Popes who believed the same things about the Church?

Francis, can you point out to me where it is defined that one must make a profession of faith to be a member of the Church and receive Communion?

"So then are you saying baptism is the only thing required? What about confirmation/chrismation? Are they no longer needed or are they retained for the masses and dispensed with for a select few?"

They haven't been required before Communion in the west for many years.

This is a longer version of the previous post....

Francis, can you point out to me where it is defined that one must make a public profession of faith to be a member of the Church and receive Communion?

Note that the profession of faith required by the Roman Church is quite short:

"I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."

It's quite possible that he made such a profession of faith at some point.

The teaching of the second Vatican Council clearly enters into this: "For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect." ( Unitatis redintegratio [vatican.va] 3 [Decree on Ecumenism])

Michael Liccione notes [mliccione.blogspot.com] notes that probably we should wait to hear what Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II (which could only happen through unpublished writings of some sort) have to say... Cardinal Kasper hasn't been the most reliable theologian on ecumenical matters.

Here's another reading suggested by Apolonio Latar [mliccione.blogspot.com]:

"There is a sense in which converts will say that they did not abandon Protestantism when they become Catholic. Rather, they became fulfilled, perfected. So there is no abandoning or "conversion" but entering into full communion."

This isn't that far off from parts of what Fr. Richard John Neuhaus wrote [sfbayc.org] when he left the Lutheran pastorate to study for the Catholic priesthood:

"There is nothing in that ministry that I would repudiate, except my many sins and shortcomings. My becoming a priest in the Roman Catholic Church will be the completion and right ordering of what was begun 30 years ago. Nothing that was good is rejected, all is fulfilled."

Now he was more explicit about the rejection of parts of his Lutheran background than Br. Roger ever seems to have been... but in an age when "Bishop" John Shelby Spong can remain a member in good standing of his mainline church it seems that the burdens of belief placed on some non-Catholic clergy are quite low... and may not require repudiation...

"So then are you saying baptism is the only thing required? What about confirmation/chrismation? Are they no longer needed or are they retained for the masses and dispensed with for a select few?"

Confirmation/Chrismation hasn't been required before Communion in the west for many years.

All that said... this isn't the way I think I would have preferred to see this all handled...

My problem with Calvinism is that some of its 5 point Calvinist followers seem to take it to the point where free will is undermined. That even the damned are damned because they were not chosen. That some people are predestined for hell and the cross only offers limited atonement, that is, only enough for those who God knew would believe. I am no expert, so it is possible I am missing something, but I do know that the more you look at salvation as God choosing some and not choosing others the most strict Calvinist has to affirm that by not choosing some that God is somehow choosing some for destruction. Whereas I truly believe regardless of whether all will be saved that God wants all men to be saved and does give each individual opportunity.
By emphasizing works sometimes I think the Church has done an injustice because a lot of people will leave the church when they "hear the gospel for the first time." This happened a lot at my earlier Baptist Church. Even thogh the mass/liturgy proclaims the gospel every day! But if you do not emphasize works there is danger toward complacency and from there potential falling away or lukewarmness. If you overemphasize the we fear God and forget that only grace and our cooperation with it (which is a fruit of grace anyway) will actually lead anyone toward salvation, so salvation is entirely by grace, just not without our participation in the matter. Sometimes in some places I think that the Catholic Church fails to make it clearly understood, but other times I think that we are wisely less concerned with getting people to memorize deep theological matters, and more interested in giving them the practical means of working out their salvation. Though both would be ideal so that they do not fall prey to those who preach a gospel that may at times be a bit incomplete or over simplified (say this prayer and you can know that you will be saved forever type of altar call gospel).
I will refrain from making any personal judgment on the matter at hand though.

No, it is not.
it is part of a great Italian information group (L'Espresso) openly atheist, liberal, left-wing, pro-abortion, anti-clerical. The main newspaper of this editorial group is "La Repubblica": something like "the Guardian" in UK. You can check the link itself.

So be carefull also of the section "la Chiesa". It loves to show divisions in the Church that dont exist.

Here for instance, starting from an interview of Card Kasper where he only go thorough the life of Frer Roger, it has an article that is almost like "the Vatican allows be both catholics and calvinist", that is not at all true.

With all due respect for Mr. Latar -- who is a brilliant writer on theological and spiritual topics -- I think he does not appreciate the seriousness and the novelty of Cardinal Kasper's interpretation of Brother Roger's experience.

It is very clear from the interview that Brother Roger did not even "convert", much less enter into "full communion" with the Catholic Church. Rather, Brother Roger somehow became a sort of "Catholicized Calvinist" with emphasis on the fact that he remained a Calvinist till his death. And yet, his assumption of Catholic beliefs was considered as enough to justify his daily reception of Holy Communion.

Prior to this, entrance into full communion had always been understood as becoming a Catholic, even if this was understood as the completion and affirmation of the positive aspects of the convert's life in his / her previous denomination or Church. While it is true that some converts have said that they did not abandon Protestantism, the fact remains that they FORMALLY and OFFICIALLY converted.

As for Fr. Neuhaus -- he did renounce his membership in the Lutheran Church and his pastorate of a Lutheran community in order to be ordained into the Catholic priesthood.

Personally, what troubles me is the rush of some Catholic thinkers, apologists and bloggers to find ways to justify Cardinal Kasper's interview, which -- to call a spade a spade -- is full of brazen innovations that will only undermine all of traditional Catholic ecclesiology. Have we come to this, that some of us can no longer critique and raise our voices in protest? Have we come to this, that some think that to be Catholic means finding newer and ever newer justifications for every new innovation that comes out of some Curial cardinal? How about Tradition? How about the Apostolic Faith? Or will we soon see all of these justified as "Doctrinal Development?"

At the very least, I think this interview just about kills any possibility of reconciliation between SSPX and Rome.

Re: Fr. Neuhaus et al.:

On a psychological level, of course it would make sense to look at conversion from Protestantism as a "fulfillment" rather than, at least in some way, an "abandonment" of heresy. But the fact remains that Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc. all teach certain things which are in direct conflict with what the Church teaches is Truth. Certain elements of a faith already there are certainly built upon and "fulfilled," while other areas must be abandoned or torn down. Now, ISTM that for most people it would psychologically be the "easier way out" to view everything as a fulfillment. Human nature is such that it really doesn't much like admitting it was wrong, especially wrong in such an important area, for so long, an area to which an entire person's life was dedicated.

Alexis

Here is what my simple mind understands. Thirty one years ago I made the step and converted to Catholicism. At no time did I ask for or expect to receive communion until my confirmation took place. What this whole debacle says to me very clearly is that for the sake of ecumenism any thing goes.

To be very blunt, I can see why the Orthodox do not trust us.

Converted Viking

Do we know that Br. Roger definitely did not come into full communion? As far as I read, Br. Roger stopped ministering in the Reformed Church, especially liturgically, years ago because of his Catholic views on Eucharist.

Brethren,

Let us not forget that the source for the article in question has been determined to be dubious at best.

When the issue of Taize was brought up on this forum earlier this year, it was stated that Br. Roger had indeed been received into the Catholic Church, and at the time everyone accepted that statement.

I did a little web-searching, and came up with an article from a newspaper called The Remnant [remnantnewspaper.com], which is hardly favorable to the Taize community or Br. Roger Schutz. Nevertheless, their writer had taken the trouble to confirm that Br. Roger had indeed become a Catholic, criticizing only the way he went about it:
Peace,
Deacon Richard

Who knows. I am starting to think there are certain things I should not be reading.

Converted Viking

Dear Father Deacon Richard:

As I said to an earlier poster, I probably should stop reading some of these posts that hit on controversial subjects. There is nothing I can do about any of them anyway and the articles tend to upset me spiritually. Guess I might have some growing to do.

In Christ:
Converted Viking

CV

There is truth in what you say

But on the other hand this is not something we should ignore .

The Catholic Church has said for many years that non-Catholics cannot receive Communion - and we have accepted this.

Soooooooo questions are now correctly being asked .