Love, Grace and Damnation.

Father Barron on Les Miserables:

Majoring in Minors.

The Anchoress addresses the vicious extremes of art appreciation:

Here is Correggio’s Madonna del Latte — the Madonna of the Milk. Mary’s exposed breast brings sustenance to the Creator Incarnate and encourages the pondering of mystery upon mystery, a furtherance of comprehension, in so far as we may comprehend. I wonder if Wolf would look upon it and merely see “a woman reduced to her biology, useful only as a milk-production site.” I wonder if Katie would avert her eyes from the immodest breast, thankful that she can find this reality actualized in text, somewhere, or in her own life, so purity may not be wounded.

Understand, I am not being remotely snarky or sarcastic, here — I have no issue with either of these female writers; for all I know they are perfectly wonderful, intelligent people who do much good as they walk the earth. I’m simply wondering at what point any of us — “liberal” or “conservative” — risk choking our own ability to be generous to humanity, or to even see humanity in its fullness, because our interior vision has become, like a carotid artery, clogged with the plaque and detritus of what we have been smoking and chewing on most obsessively.

 And if we cannot see the fullness of humanity, because we are too busy policing it across gender lines or measuring its bodice, we will never be able to comprehend the fullness of God, who is all width and breadth. He is already more than we can take in, but especially when our lenses are fixed and locked upon one location.

Best use of Les Miserables in a Blog Post in 2011.

Devin Rose ponders how it is possible for a hardcore Calvinist to judge a former Calvinist as being damned.

Unsurprisingly then, when a Catholic is engaging in dialogue with (this kind of) Reformed Protestant, there is no parity in the discussion. One side thinks the other is a Christian who is doing his best to follow Jesus, and the other side thinks he is talking to a wicked and damned creature.


A blindness thus arises that clouds their hearts and minds, making it incredibly difficult for them to see the Catholic Church for what she truly is, and even to objectively weigh the arguments for and against her. This is not all Protestants, but many. It becomes a case where the disdain and revulsion takes on a life of its own, and no acts of love or courage or faithfulness on the part of Catholics can overcome it. Only God can. Consider Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables where Inspector Javert cannot believe that Jean Valjean–whom he classes as one of the reprobate–could possibly have repented and become a good man:

Here is the original post:

TurretinFan" says Christ did not die for me


From "TurretinFan":

David, You've turned your back on Christ and the church to follow Rome. You don't get to claim His blood. At least, as it stands, when you come before the Lord, he will simply tell you "I never knew," despite your claims. -TurretinFan

The thread is HERE. This is the insanity of the "true" Reformed mindset. Even those who specifically trust in the shed Blood of Christ are to them (and by them) to be condemned to hell simply by becoming a Catholic. He actually says that "I don't get to claim" Christ's blood for my salvation. I am speechless. If I can't claim Christ's Blood, what can I claim? I guess it must be Christ's Blood PLUS TurretinFans aproval. Makes me sick

Feel the love.

Linked by Turretinfan update:

Feel the Reformed Love.

Apparently, "Turretinfan" finds it noteworthy that anyone would dare - dare! - cast a light on his recent example of "Christian love." 

Roman Confusion

Devin Rose posted some less than complimentary thoughts (and Peter Sean Bradley tagged on) about Reformed apologists (myself as an example). Rather than dwelling on the caricature drawn from Les Miserables, I'd like to address one point that seems to be a common misconception:

Under Reformed Protestantism, God has predestined the elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation. Being a faithful Catholic therefore means, practically by definition, that you are a reprobate. And here’s the kicker: if you are one of the reprobate, many of the passages from the Gospel on forgiving your brother and helping him do not apply (at least as they interpret them). Once you cross the Tiber, you are anathema and damned.

If you leave a gospel-preaching church for Rome, of course we do (or ought) to treat you as lacking a credible profession of faith. Normally, for such a departure from the faith, a Reformed church will provide the Biblical discipline of excommunication.

That discipline, however, is discipline not condemnation. Through excommunication, it is hoped that a person will be brought back to the faith. It is hoped that he will see the error of his ways, repent of his sin, and return to the flock of Christ.

There is certainly no judgment as to the election or reprobation of the person. Only God knows who the elect and reprobate are - moreover, "to him that is joined to all the living there is hope," (Ecclesiastes 9:4) and we hold out that hope even for the most anti-Reformed, anti-Evangelical member of the "Called to Communion" blog.

It is our desire to see those who have apostatized from the church of Christ brought back to her. I realize that pointing out that the church of Rome is a synagogue of Satan is going to make those in the church of Rome unhappy - surely it made the people unhappy to whom the phrase was originally applied. Nevertheless, the point of such comments is to warn those of the danger.

When I tell you that your house isn't comfortable warm, it's on fire, I'm not attacking your house or pouring out vitriol against your air conditioning unit. It's an expression of love to warn those who we care about to avoid danger - not an expression of hatred.

One might think that Mr. Rose would appreciate this, since he wrote:

To their credit, they have this hatred for the Catholic Church (or “Romanism,” as you will hear) because they believe it is leading people away from Jesus and the Gospel. And good for them! If I believed that some church or denomination was doing that, I would oppose it too–perhaps not using their same vitriol and methods–but I would not want people to follow those beliefs.

And Rome does lead people away from the Gospel, encouraging them to trust in Mary, angels, martyrs, and saints and not in God alone - requiring their submission to a man who sits on an earthly throne in an earthly palace, claiming to be the earthly head of the church.

But unto us, there is one Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6).

Got that?

OK, here's the question.  How does the statement of Turretinfan in this post, to wit:

There is certainly no judgment as to the election or reprobation of the person. Only God knows who the elect and reprobate are - moreover, "to him that is joined to all the living there is hope," (Ecclesiastes 9:4) and we hold out that hope even for the most anti-Reformed, anti-Evangelical member of the "Called to Communion" blog.

Square with his statement in his comment, to wit:

Turretinfan said...


David,

You've turned your back on Christ and the church to follow Rome. You don't get to claim His blood.

At least, as it stands, when you come before the Lord, he will simply tell you "I never knew," despite your claims.

-TurretinFan

Answer: it doesn't.  TurretinFan is claiming an ability to judge the stae of David's soul "as it stands now."  In doing that Turretinfan is claiming an ability and a prerogative that no pope or apostle has ever claimed. The purpose and effect of excommunication was never understood to "damn" someone, but rather it was understood to leave the excommunicated to their own devices to make their own way - as essentially as impossible as that might be.

While no pope has ever declared that anyone is in Hell, Turretinfan seems to think that he has an ability to reach that determination on his own authority.

Amazing.

And, if that's the case, then why is Devin Rose wrong?  It is a very small step from deciding that you believe that a person is damned "at least as it now stands" to deciding that they were eternally damned, and then to deciding that they are not your brother and that the gospel's commands to forgive one's brother do not apply.

So, apart from a droit de seigneur of logic - i.e., it is not true because we say it is not true - why is Devin Rose wrong?