Why Are All The Good Catholics Condemned... (don't answer that Protestantism)

I find that every time I read a theologian or philosopher who brilliantly defends the Roman Church against Protestantism and has a real flair, I later find out that our Mother Church has rewarded them with condemnation.

Cornelius Jansen and Blaise Pascal for sure, and to a lesser extent, Peter Kreeft, Hans Urs Von Balthasar. I think it's almost like they're just Augustinians (minus Balthasar) and the Church keeps mistaking Augustine for Luther or something (except read mistaking as not mistaking as the Church can't doctrinally err).



Anyway, add to the list Francois Fenelon. A great orator who helped convert Huguenots and Jansenists back to the Roman cause, and his great reward was: multiple condemnations from Rome and diocesal house arrest... even though the minute his writings were condemned by the Magesterium he submitted completely. (Just like when Jansen said that if any of his writing contradicted the Church he would recant it).

It wouldn't really be such a problem for me, if the Church actually produced good orthodox writers, but it seems -contra Chesterton- that the only orthodoxy available is boredom. Get too excited about any idea, and the Church will condemn it. It's kind of a monument to Lukewarmness.

Anyway, the Church is still Christ's even if she didn't produce alot of good orthodox theologians between 1600 and 1900. And as all these men teach us, we must submit, even if our most precious personal opinions are removed from us.

Strangely enough Marian devotion (which I am in no way against) is the only available option to 'go nuts' with. I've never heard of someone in our Church being condemned for being too Marian. But quote St. Augustine on Predestination or Grace and you'll get shafted.

Requiem in Pace Fenelon.

How Philosophy Changes Our Lives

I was taught as a teenager the Worldview of C.S. Lewis, for which I am grateful, as there are many worse starting points. I think my view of faith and reason as well as the neo-Platonism of Lewis that we learned in philosophy allowed me to fit well into the Catholic faith. Unlike the nominalists (anti-rationalists) Luther and Calvin, Lewis fell more closely to the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas), through Lewis' study of Dante, and in his clever use of reason, I understood how Christianity shouldn't be afraid of philosophy.

But I did learn many unhelpful views that I'm only now philosophically unpacking. Our epistemology (method of finding truth) was Berkeleian Immaterialism. It was basically this argument:

Ideas are true or false
Matter/Material Objects is/are not true or false
Therefore ideas are not Matter/Material

This gave us "spirit" which wasn't material, or 'idealism' at least. Then we would go on to attack Empiricism with the typical Cartesian methods, as well as Berkeley's which sought to show how the senses were unreliable. Ex:

How do you know you have proper vision?
you hear the doctor say you passed a vision test
How do you know you have proper hearing? , etc to infinity where one can no longer believe anything based on the sense, but by the mind alone / reason.

This is the argument Bishop (Anglican/CofE) Berkeley used to argue for immaterialism, the idea that the only 'real' existent things are ideas perceived in one's mind. This then led to the problem of: 'what happens when someone isn't thinking about an object? does it cease to exist?' - we know the things don't cease to exist, as we do not when we sleep, etc. This means a universal mind must be perceiving everything at once (a Term Lewis uses in Mere Christianity for God - he was a Berkeleian after all). This universal mind is God.

Thus cometh the famous phrase that "we are all just thoughts in the mind of God".

This was a fun worldview because it was diametrically opposed to materialism, the worldview of the modern university. Then I remember reading Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols" and his chapter on how the real world became myth, etc. It wasn't so much of a logical argument that disarmed me / immaterialism, it was just an interesting approach which many people would prefer to my pseudo-platonic arguments.

Like I said, Nietzsche never really convinced me logically of anything (that's kind of his whole point really), but it did much to shake my thinking. Subsequently I've read Christians who attack his post-modernism from a Modernist Christian standpoint, and I've seen other Catholics and Protestants accept postmodernity and understand Catholicism within it (Kearney, Vattimo, MacIntyre also kind of).

I then started studying Aquinas, and I began to love his way of doing things. He mixed the 'best' of neo-platonism with aristotelianism, and made it all Christian. But there was one problem... He was an empiricist (the view, you'll remember, of my oldest enemies). He described the intellect and soul ascending to God from perceiving sensible things. But when I read "Nicomachean Ethics" by Aristotle last year and his "Politics", I felt like I "gave my mind to Aristotle" (like I gave my heart to Christ), because he was such a genius. But I'm still trying to figure out Aristotelianism and my own life.

The advantage I do see in St. Thomas - aside from his legacy and centrality in our Holy Roman Church - is the way his system seems so true in everyday life. It is a challenge though to my normal Platonic system which has a heavy emphasis on distinguishing between mind and body, matter and spirit. This has been a key theme in my life (probably why I'm obsessed with learning and education, but morbidly obese, or why I am great with faith, but terrible with works). Aristotle, and St. Thomas always make sure that the internal and the external are linked, and that grace perfects nature. That sounds really simplistic but in reality it's REALLY profound. In my previous worldview matter was almost evil, corrupted by the fall, grace abolished nature, it didn't perfect it. The material world was the fake and transient world, the world of the forms or ideas was the 'real world'. Aquinas will have none of this. God is reconciling even nature to himself, and evil is only a privation of good, Christ gave us physical things - sacraments (baptism, eucharist, etc) - to change our spiritual reality by grace. This means faith and works, nature and grace, the natural and supernatural, are all married to some extent. For instance he writes on the Law of Christ:

"The kingdom of God consists chiefly in internal acts: but as a consequence all things that are essential to internal acts belong also to the kingdom of God. Thus if the kingdom of God is internal righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, all external acts that are incompatible with righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, are in opposition to the kingdom of God; and consequently should be forbidden in the Gospel of the kingdom." - St. Thomas Aquinas (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2108.htm)

I didn't go to church/mass today, even though I could've, because "I didn't feel like it", and because I couldn't receive the sacrament anyway (I'm as usual, in mortal sin). I figured regardless of whether or not I sat in church today, my relationship with God would be uneffected. But Aristotle reminds us that virtues are formed by habitual action and repetition. St. Thomas and Catholicism likewise oblige us to attend Mass regularly because this physical habit changes our spiritual reality, it makes God's Word more prevalent in our mind, it makes our Will more easily inclined towards the work of God, and it brings us into deeper fellowship and even allows us to spiritually partake in the oblation (Sacrifice of the Mass) of the priest/Christ.

But in my own choice of will, I demoted my intellect to my passion of laziness, and thus missed another chance at grace. This is how philosophy changes my life, and our lives. Perhaps you should look over your own philosophy, after all, according to Socrates: "the unexamined life is not worth living".

City of God (pt. 1)

I decided to start reading St. Augustine's classic work "City of God" on the Fall of Rome and which God or gods were responsible, etc.

I found it interesting as I constantly hear people in the Reformation traditions call Augustine their 'homeboy' , and then sit down to read this book. First argument: Saints' and Martyrs' relics were a source of divine protection even from unbelieving and Pagan attackers.

Next time someone asks what my theological views are, I should say "I'm in the Augustinian tradition, I believe in the conservatory power of relics"

Mastering Sin

I always wondered why I constantly failed as a Christian and then even as a Deist/Nominal Protestant and then as a Catholic. It never made sense to me if things were just as simple as: Satan and the Holy Spirit fighting it out for my soul. Certainly I believe that's part of it, but so many decisions seemed completely arbitrary or worse, completely up to me.

I've since studied Aquinas' view of the Fall (through that lovely website Called To Communion) and have entertained the notion that sin is a disease that goes against the natural order of your body and the subordination of the will to Reason. Thus all sin is basically failing to use reason to act in accordance with Virtue and the Spirit instead of simply gratifying desires.

All theories are just theories until you start applying them, and in my constant losing battle with lust and excess of all kind, I'm going to try to reason with myself when I enter temptation. Free Will is much bigger than I'd previously thought and it somehow survives the influence of concupiscence and of grace.

St. Augustine prays:
"O Lord, grant me the power to overcome sin. For this is what you gave to us when you granted us free choice of will. If I choose wrongly, then I shall be justly punished for it. Is that not true, my Lord, of whom I indebted for my temporal existence? Thank you, Lord, for granting me the power to will my self not to sin."

Obviously Scripture is infinitely above even holy Augustine, and so I hope to memorize this verse I've needed to make a way of life:

"If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it." - Genesis 4:7 Douay-Rheims

"If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." - Genesis 4:7 RSV

It was interesting looking at the Rheims translation here: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=1&c=4 because I could understand much of the Latin. The Vulgate says "et tu dominaberis illius" - lit. and you will have dominion of it (sin).

In one translation it's a moral imperative (RSV), and in the others it's a rhetorical question and promise / result clause. You will master it if you do well, if not it will be at your door, etc.

This I will have to combine with verses I found in studying the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the passage in 1 Pet 2:5 "offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.". May my struggle against sin be a spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

... knowing me, I'm going to give in right away next time as I've created this big dramatic statement hah.