7 Theological Quick Takes Friday (vol. 4)

-1-

I've decided that if I want to do a quick takes, they will be theological.

Got it?

Good.

If you have not already, please go read this post that exhaustively compares Vatican II and Star Wars. It is long but worth the read. It will give you a chuckle and a head scratch. (HT: Father Z).

-2-

At Called to Communion, "Nick" recently commented on a new article about an ex cathedra Evangelical response to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He wrote:

"The most important question the Evangelical side has to answer is: Did Jesus take Mary’s nature? If She was conceived in Total Depravity, and thus had a “sin nature,” then Jesus must have a “sin nature” as well (though no Evangelical would say that). But if Jesus took on a non-sin-nature, then how did Mary give this to Him?"

Someone was a little concerned with this argument and said:

"I am and have always been a little worried about this line of argument. Regress concerns loom. I don’t think it’s impossible for God to cause the conception of a person immediately, and not subject to original sin, if He so wishes; and I don’t think a pre-requisite to His doing this is that He ensures that the woman in which this person is conceived is likewise not subject to original sin. Don’t get me wrong — I’m with you on the dogma; but (and maybe I’ve just misunderstood you) I’m not sure this is the best way to argue for that dogma."

And I replied:

"I don’t see the regress problem in Nick’s argument (if I understand his argument and your objection correctly), if we think about the IC in terms of an act of God. I think when we conceive of it as a condition of the possibility, then we have problems. But, of course, God could do anything so there is no condition of the possibility for an act of God (with some qualifications). Nonetheless, potuit decuit ergo fecit. The IC simultaneously tells us about Mary’s nature in lieu of God’s saving power, and ultimately what God was saving Mary from (original sin inherited from her parents). So, I see no reason why St. Anne would have to be conceived immaculately for Mary to be conceived immaculately. The proportional difference between Mary and Jesus make St. Anne’s immaculate conception non decuit. Additionally, the regress “problem” is further mitigated by the IC’s Biblical grounding in the Ark of the Covenant."

-3-

I love the Divine Office app for my new iphone. For those that may be unfamiliar with the Divine Office, it is the official prayer of the Catholic Church. Surprise: Catholics officially pray the Bible. Myth busted!

-4-

I will be publishing a review of the Logos Bible software this weekend. Come back and get my 4 cents worth. (really, it will be four cents)

-5-

"Chris Hora" in my combox on the post The Problem with "Easy Believism", left this comment:

"It just goes back to one of my quotes from G. K. Chesterton. “I don’t need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I already know I’m wrong. I need a Church to tell me I’m wrong where I think I’m right.”

Bravo!

In Protestantism, this quote might read:

"I don't need a Church to tell me I'm right where I already know I'm right, I need a Church to tell me I'm right where I think I'm wrong that way I'm always right."

You can read more about what I mean by this inverted Chesterton quote at When Church Shopping Makes Sense.

-6-

Did you know that the Marian dogmas were the first Catholic doctrines I affirmed? I think it represents my epistemological shift that ultimately challenged the ground for the doctrine of sola scriptura. In the combox at Called to Communion, I wrote about it:

"Not to beat a dead horse, but I think impediment one is the smoking gun (which has been talked about a lot here).

“The first is the notion that only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, or follows by logical entailment from what is taught explicitly in Scripture, is necessary for Christians to believe.“

Where is this taught in Scripture? I think the lack of real answer for this question demonstrates why, in my observation, Protestantism naturally devolves into relativism. If you have no principled way for determining your first principle, then your method is irrational. Of course, the objection would be that the above principe is rational; and I would agree that it appears so. However, I’m not questioning the rationality of the principle, but the method for obtaining the principle–the cause. For example, a person might believe that every child should be kept safe, but the method for obtaining that conclusion could be pure sentimentality. Thus, when sentiment changes, children may be more or less valuable.

This same problem manifests in Protestantism (and can manifest amongst Catholics as well). It manifests in questions like “What does that Scripture mean to you“, or in short and shallow statements of faith, or in essentialism. What all three point to is a method: namely subjectivism (primacy of the individual conscience). This only makes sense, when from Scripture itself, one cannot adduce “the notion that only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, or follows by logical entailment from what is taught explicitly in Scripture, is necessary for Christians to believe”. Because that principle–in theology–is a novelty of the subject. So, we should not be surprised when in Protestantism novel doctrines are created ad infinitum from the principle of the primacy of the individual conscience lurking just beneath the surface of their alleged “first principle”."

-7-

Last but not least, I want to remind you that we are new Catholics. Our family's have no Catholic traditions, thus we inherited none. Would you mind sharing some Advent traditions that you inherited from your family that might benefit mine?

Thanks Jen for hosting!