Tony Flannery
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
The Source of the Question
It
turns out that the discussion concerning Tony Flannery is not as important as I
once thought it was. What is important
is my relationship and frank, open communication with you. I’m sorry it has taken so long to get back to
you. I got absorbed in Alvin Plantinga’s
paper, “Pluralism: a Defense of Religious Exclusivism,” which proved to be
crucial for other current discussions; and with the Conciliar Movement, which
also provided critical understanding.
http://swantec.blogspot.com/2013/11/pluralism-defense-of-religious.html
http://swantec-tt.blogspot.com/2013/11/church-unity-and-conciliarism.html
My Background
This quote is very helpful in understanding my own proper relationship
with the Roman Catholic Church. This is
a quote I want to nail to my wall and remember for all eternity.
“if a Catholic comes to believe the Church is in error in
some essential, officially defined doctrine, it is a mortal sin against
conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to remain in the Church and call
himself a Catholic, but only a venial sin against knowledge for him to leave
the Church in honest but partly culpable error.” ’[1]
In general, this blog was very helpful. However, I am not at all interested in
excusing or condemning Father Flannery.
As you noted, he stands condemned or acquitted before the courts of the
Roman Catholic Church and before our Lord
Jesus Christ. I’m merely trying to
improve my understanding of, and communication with, Roman Catholics, as well
as with Orthodox and with Protestants.
I am a cradle Lutheran, the old conservative American
Lutheran Church (ALC) kind: somewhat influenced by Calvinism and evangelicalism.[2] After years of shameful living I repented,
served with The Navigators on Okinawa, and later became a product of Dallas
Theological Seminary (1976), a place with strong Southern Presbyterian and
Congregational history: a Scofield Bible kind of place. Rejecting Dispensationalism, I served the
Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) for about thirteen years, at which time I
also rejected fundamentalism as a system of theology, and eventually rejected
Calvinism as well. After another
thirteen years or more seeking refuge in a hodge-podge of religious venues, I
ended up in the Orthodox Church where I received the baptismal name Augustine. In Orthodoxy I ran into anti-Augustinian
sentiments, opposition to original sin,[3] ultimately leaving to
return to the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) where I am today, as an
uneasy refugee.
The Vital Importance of Dogma
By the words, “essential, officially defined doctrine,” I am
compelled to believe that Kreeft specifically means dogma, Roman Catholic Dogma. Obviously, both Lutherans and Orthodox have
dogma as well, which in some cases overlap, and in other cases are quite
distinct. Other doctrine, that is not
dogma, merely relates to the opinions of learned men, and is irrelevant for our
present purposes. It is dogma that
specifies our real differences, and issues of dogma that we must find a way to
resolve. This is not to say that I
believe in watering down dogma, but perhaps there are communications issues,
differences of understanding, and new information that will cut through this
Gordian Knot.
Well, at least we have, I hope agreed upon, a common term. We know specifically what to call this thing
we seek: it is dogma. This may be old
hat for you, since you grew up with the idea, but it’s relatively new to
me. Please don’t laugh, at least not too
hard. You may think it strange that I
have studied dogmatic theology[4] at length, four years of
it in seminary, and from thence in 1976 until today, but have not studied dogma
other than accidentally. Okay, I did
figure out that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is probably dogma in Lutheran,
Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches: even if the wording has been somewhat
abused from what I am able to detect of its Greek original. It is perhaps ironic that Roman Catholic
practice, at least some of the time, is closest to that Greek original. Strange that some people think Πιστεύομεν is best
translated as, I believe.
In any case it is dogma that I need to learn. So I hope you can find it in your hearts to
be patient with me as I stumble along.
It is this inability, of people like me and Dr. Leithart,[5] to deal with specific
terms in Roman Catholic dogma, which leads to communication difficulty, even
though we are both very supportive of and sympathetic to catholicity.
Sincerity in Church Membership
Well, why don’t we both, Leithart and me, just take Roman
Catholic instructions, and join the Roman Catholic Church. Believe me, I could like that very much. However Kreeft’s paraphrase of Aquinas
explains everything. From Kreeft I can
easily write the obvious corollary.
If an Orthodox or Protestant Christian comes to believe the Roman
Catholic Church is in error in some essential, officially defined doctrine, it
is a mortal sin against conscience, a sin of hypocrisy, for him to join the Roman
Catholic Church and call himself a Roman Catholic, but only a venial sin
against knowledge for him to remain outside the Roman Catholic Church in honest
but partly culpable error.
Here is something I can and do respect. Here is my proper quest for knowledge. However, at age 76, I'm not the sort of kid
that sits meekly and quietly at the back of class swallowing everything hook,
line, and sinker. I will be screaming my
head off, if I don’t understand, or think I’ve found a logical error. At the end of the day, I will be the kid that
understands the lesson or dies trying. I
sincerely hope that my screams are not offensive to you. I really love The Church, and am sincerely trying,
the only way I know how, to be Catholic.
Nevertheless, that path is radically different for me than for those of
you who are cradle Catholics. Perhaps
you can recommend helpful study materials.
Flannery, Leithart, and me
As far as Flannery’s waffling is concerned: it’s deplorable,
there is no excuse for it; he needs to conform to dogma or depart. As for me, that advice leaves me without any
place to go, unless I start an independent church, not the best idea, ever. I hope you picked up on the idea that, at
least in my mind, Leithart and I are in pretty similar boats.
[1] In
the introduction, “The Fabulous Father Flannery.” http://thethirstygargoyle.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/father-flannerys-fables.html
[2] before
it became liberal
[3] It
took me a long time to learn that these opinions were in violation of Orthodox
dogma: specifically the Councils of Carthage and Ephesus; but by then the
emotional damage was done, and I’m still in recovery. Focal to my exile is the fact that I don’t
know how to repent of and confess the sin of another. I will not get in bed with the theology of John
Romanides; or, as I learn dogma, anything contrary to it. Notwithstanding this commitment to dogma, I
will not necessarily have means to resolve issues where dogmas disagree.
[4] In
evangelical parlance, dogmatic theology is just a synonym for systematic
theology; it is not specifically the study of Church dogma, or Cannon Law and
its development.
[5] http://www.leithart.com/2012/05/21/too-catholic-to-be-catholic/
and http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/comment-page-2/#comment-62788
No comments:
Post a Comment