Aren’t we all amateurs with limited categories? : ) I really do plan to call you soon–things have just been crazy on the homefront. I’ll be driving home from UD tomorrow around 4pm (CST), so I’ll try to give you a call then.

Best wishes,
Cynthia

p.s. I like your “political views” status on Facebook : )

Rowan is a very generous scholar. i, on the other hand, tend to dismiss the major reformers, too quickly, I know. But then, I am an amateur languishing in a medical school, and so my categories are awfully limited. Give me a call sometime.

Cheers
Jeff

I absolutely agree with what you say about Thomas. I’m not sure that I would go all the way with what you say about the Protestant Reformation, though I do agree (following Oberman’s thesis as laid out in _The Dawn of the Reformation_ that the PR has many causes (social, political, theological, etc). Luther, Peter Martyr Vermigli (who influenced Calvin, particularly his re-thinking of the Eucharist) viewed the sacraments are more than mere doctrines to which we by faith assent. They too held that the sacraments shape and transform us (Cf. Calvin’s _Institutes_,IV.17.7. Both Calvin and Vermigli drew heavily from the patristic font. (Cf. Billings recent book on Calvin: Calvin, Participation and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ, Oxford Press, 2008). All that said, contemporary expressions of various Protestant-isms, do seem to have gone the way of Zwingli and fit the more rationalist description you lay out. I’m not at all convince that this was the case with Calvin. (Archbishop Rowan Williams had some great thinks to say about Calvin and other Protestants in his Holy Week series on Prayer).

With all good wishes,
Cynthia

I do not hold that there are epochs in history, even though we can discern sharp changes when comparing large chunks of time. Things change slowly, gradually. And in retrospect we notice them. The Protestant Reformation is the culmination of a series of more subtle changes, modulations, and mutations in the way religion and Christian theology are conceived. Religious faith becomes an act of the mind, referred to as faith, an assent to a set of dogmas taught, rathern than participation in a set of liturgical practices. For the extreme mutation that Protestantism has become, acts such as eucharist and baptism are acts of faith, rather than sacraments, that transform me, that do work on me in order to transform me. Giving assent is a work of the mind, but it is my work nonetheless. The sacraments work on me.

Thus, liturgical practices, prayer books requiring prayer daily, are central to how I do theology, or it seems it ought to be. So perhaps we must look further back at the early fathers, or next door at the local orthodox parish, in order to see how theology is lived, rather than taught.

Just a few, unconnected, and unrquested thoughts.

Best wishes
Jeff

Thanks for your comment. So are you suggesting that the main cause of the protestant reformation is the failure of the Church to be faithful in liturgical practices? If so, would you unpack this? (I’ve never heard it put quite like that before). Wasn’t Aquinas already engaging in a good deal of philosophical theology (in comparison with someone like Lombard, whose work doesn’t attempt to systematize the whole)? (I’m not suggesting that philosophical theology is a “bad thing” per se, as I think that it can be quite useful so long as one is willing to adjust, amend, or even do a major overhaul to the “system.” In other words, so long as it doesn’t become an idol, I think it can be helpful. I do very much agree with your last statement about right doctrine and right practice in the liturgy. I hope to give you a ring this week.

Best wishes,
Cynthia