Credo in Unum Deum

I Believe in One God

The Nominalist, Islamic and Sophist roots of Protestant Thinking

I have been listening to the esteemed Dr. Rao’s series on the legends created by enemies of the Catholic Church and what methods were used to debunk the Church throughout the ages.  He arrived at the Reformation and started making some very interesting points.

It seems that the distrust in natural reason to know anything for sure, which then led to a faith alone approach (literally alone- in fact, even contra-ratio), was accompanied with the notion that God’s will is supersupreme… so supersupreme that it can even do what it cannot possibly do.  The Laws that govern everything are arbitrary and could be changed in an instant.  The way of salvation could be one way today and if God willed it another way tomorrow.  Of course, this has its roots, in terms of “Christian” heresy, in the Muslim philosophers.  (Yes, Islam is a Christian heretical splinter group– shall we say the first major Protestant “Church”.)  Additionally, there was the humanist movement that was in full swing which was very adept at rhetoric and focussed more on quick wit than sharp logic and good reasoning.  Rao read numerous passages from Luther and Calvin as they took the age old approach of making your opponent look silly through mockery and not detached argument.  As Calvin put it, “Sure, little children can go for this popery, but not grown men…” and frequent name calling like Luther’s “popish asses”, and “drunk with the blood of the saints”, etc…  This goes back to Isocrates and his folks that were pounded by Plato and Aristotle.

This all held together with the emphasis on the “word” and its superiority.  Now the “word” was then taken to mean preeminently the “Word of God”, or the Bible.  This all a very puzzling situation, and as Rai points out in his talks, when different groups converge to try and take out the Church, they end up affirm mutually exclusive propositions in their efforts.  But many times they don’t see it, and worse, if they do, they contend that your human reason is not the judge of Scripture… Scripture is the judge of Scripture.  And if you question them on what that could possibly mean, they say, “So what do you have against the Bible?”  See how it works?  Quite odd indeed.

Well, this is not exhaustive and is only meant to make you think about something you might not have considered before… especially if you are protestant.  The whole mindset that went into doing the theology that resulted in the Protestant Reformation is a mindset that is dangerous and false.  That is not even to mention the fact that because of Luther, we got the Enlightenment and … ugh… Kant and his pals.


July 9, 2008 Posted by | Religion | Leave a comment

“All” Israel means what?

Michael Barber over at Singing in the Reign has an interesting piece on that old passage that keeps Dispensationalists alive as they continually twist Paul’s hard words to their own destruction, as our first Pope put it.

Rom. 11.25-26:

Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel [πᾶς Ἰσραὴλ] will be saved…

The conclusion of the argument is that the All is not a strictly universal all in the sense of the logical form of the universal proposition Every A is B.  Instead it is to be taken as referring to the 12 tribes of Israel as a whole, and not every individual within that class.  This is a weaker form of All and makes sense given the texts cited in the article.  Check it out!

July 3, 2008 Posted by | Catholicism, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment

Analyzing Analyticist

This is my rant against Analytic Philosophy after nearly being strangled to death by studying Analytic philosophers for nearly a year.

Let B stand for the the belief that Analytic Philosophical Reasoning is the best way to do philosophy.
Let S stand for the seriousness with which Analytic Philosophers take their enlightened position.
Let P stand for the prideful superciliousness which Analytic Philosophers hold for non-Analytic Philosophers.

Therefore, there is a belief B that is taken seriously S, and is then P used to look down upon the less enlightened.
In Anal code, the above would look roughly like:
BS, then P.

Let Toilet be a placeholder for BS and P.


July 2, 2008 Posted by | Religion | 1 Comment

Why Good Scotch is Good…

It is tasty.  It is subtle.  It is peaceful.  It is relaxing.  It lifts the mind from the base things of this world to the high things of this world.  God was good in giving us this masterful drink via the ingenuity of 4th and 5th century monks in Scotland.

Scotch.. another reason to be Catholic!  What else but the Catholic Church could have given us such a beautiful libation? 😉

July 1, 2008 Posted by | Aesthetics, Catholicism, Ethics, Life, Religion, Theology | Leave a comment