“The Reformation was born of nominalism and voluntarism”? I thought it was born out of folks like Huss, Wycliffe and Luther opposing things the Papists were doing such as selling indulgences to allow people to buy their dead relatives out of a purgatory (followed, of course, by centuries of torturing, burning and drowning Baptists.)

You seem fixated on Karl Rahner. As a theologically literate Roman Catholic, I am utterly perplexed by this notion that Rahner is “probably the most influential Catholic of the last century.” I can think of a dozen thinkers equally, if not more, important: Benedict XVI, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Etienne Gilson, Louis Bouyer, Jean Danielou, Henri de Lubac, Jacques Maritain, Aidan Nichols, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Yves Congar, Walter Kasper, Romano Guardini, Alice and Dietrich von Hildebrand, Josef Pieper, etc.

The Reformation was born of nominalism and voluntarism, the rotten fruit of an exhausted scholasticism, as well as the pernicious influences of Islam. Ironically, Vatican II in many ways accomplished what the Reformation so desired: ressourcement, a return to the church of the apostles and their immediate successors. Of course, the reformers had a very poor sense of the early church, owing to their grievous unfamiliarity with the patristic texts and their inability to read said texts apart from the strict categories of late medieval scholasticism and certain novel theories, which were the products of an individual’s intellectualization rather than generations of prayer.

The early church, as the writings of the fathers make clear with unanimity, was mystagogical, sacramental, and sacerdotal. The reformers had some legitimate complaints, as the likes of Erasmus and Thomas More recognized, but in their revolutionary zealotry they tragically rejected the most basic elements of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith, and all because of a novel and ahistorical reading of Scripture. At least, that’s how this “Romanist” sees it. 😉

Anyway, despite our disagreements, I do like many of your programs. God bless you and your families.

Kevin,

In this case, it matters significantly what some Catholics think, since the particular one I mentioned is probably the most influential Catholic of the last century.

It’s absolutely true that the official teaching is still in effect; I wasn’t disputing that fact. I was, however, suggesting that modern Roman Catholicism is much more advanced and even more contrary to the truths that Reformed Christians uphold. In that regard, we must not be satisfied merely to point out the official teaching, especially when Catholics have a method for isolating and historicizing that official teaching.

Reformed theologians ought to go even deeper to the foundational theological and philosophical structures. In my opinion and that of many Catholic scholars, these structures are overwhelmingly different from the Catholic Church of the 16th century. Nonetheless, that doesn’t render the principles of the Reformation insignificant. I’m convinced they’re even more important in our day than they were 500 years ago.

Note also the article states that R. C. Sproul points out that “the Roman Catholic Church has not altered its official positions.” And, in the end, that’s all that matters.