Despite a fairly orthodox Anglo-Catholic viewpoint, Mascall unexpectedly almost endorses Tillich and his views beginning on page 12, and it is here that I want to comment first. Early in my graduate studies, I took a course called Theology of Ethics at my alma mater, Southeastern University in Lakeland, FL, and one of the texts we had in that class was Tillich's Systematic Theology. Tillich didn't impress me much - unlike Barth, for instance, who at least tried to maintain some level of orthodoxy, and Bonhoeffer, who I believe to be a martyr for the faith despite some of his questionable theological tendencies, Tillich was a bit out there for me. That is why I have to reflect on this separately, as exposure to Tillich has piqued my interest in what an Anglo-Catholic traditionalist theologian would have to say about him.
Paul Tillich (1886-1965)
Paul Tillich, a German-born philosopher/theologian who later, due to his correct opposition to Nazi terror in his home country, fled to the US and eventually taught at both Union Theological Seminary in New York from 1933-1955, as well as being a guest lecturer at Columbia University from 1933-1934. He was a Lutheran by confession, and also would fall squarely into the liberal Protestant camp as far as his own convictions were concerned, but to his credit he was also an early supporter of the "Confessing Church" in Germany that opposed the Nazis too. Tillich's theology was essentially one that although at first appearing as traditional monotheism, his own wording more closely resembles pantheism when he describes God - a nod to Nazi-leaning philosopher Martin Heidegger here - as the foundation upon which all being exists. To an extent, on the surface this seems correct, until it is placed in the context of the rest of Tillich's view. While God is indeed the source of all being - that is not in dispute - Tillich's wording almost sacrifices the transcendant aspects of God in favor of confusing the "foundation of all being" with "being in all being." God then becomes, for Tillich, an "it" that encompasses a force behind all being, and thus personhood is merely an anthropomorphic symbol for Tillich, clothed in orthodox language, rather than a transcendent Person in His own right. And, that is where problems with Tillich's theology start (Information taken from "Paul Tillich," at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich - Accessed 2/26/2018).
Mascall, on page 12 of his text, refers to Tillich as an "outstanding figure" who possesses "mature thought" in regard to his views in his seminal defining work Systematic Theology. He does note something from Tillich's text though that does make some sense in lieu of the discussion - Tillich noted in Systematic Theology that the fundamental principle of Protestantism is not its unquestioning acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God, but rather its determination to protest against every human activity, idea, formula, and judgment as a challenge to and an infringement upon the transcendence of God. To a degree this is true, but there is a problem that Mascall doesn't address in his text but that I will here. Protestantism, by its nature, is reactionary - beginning with Luther and then more so embodied in Zwingli and the Radical Reformers, there has been this general attitude among Protestants to eschew Tradition - using of course alleged and real Catholic abuses of the past - in favor of a more individualistic approach, and in doing so I would argue that it is not so much an "unquestioning acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God" that is emphasized, but rather the individual interpretation of the reader. As the Archbishop-Primate of the Anglican Catholic Church, Mark Haverland, points out, it is symptomatic of a greater problem that is at the roots of Protestantism itself:
"However, the seeds of failure are present even in those forms of Protestantism that are doing well in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. For instance, the Southern Baptist (Convention - my add), the largest Protestant denomination in the United States in this period, is theologically committed to the individualistic ideas of personal inspiration in the reading of Scripture and the autonomy of the local congregation. Over time, in the context of a secular culture that is hostile to religious truth and traditional theological perspectives, such an individual and local focus will produce the same secularization found in other Protestant bodies. Likewise, the emphasis on the authority of personal religious experience found among the 'charismatics' lends a subjective and individualist cast to their movement that will, in the long run, lead down the familiar Protestant path." (Mark Haverland, Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice. Athens, GA: Anglican Parishes Association, 2011. pp. 62-63).
Archbishop Haverland's observations are quite astute, as he realizes that the primrose path of modernism is what will in time secularize even supposedly "conservative" denominations within Protestantism, and this can also be seen at the roots of the Protestant Reformation itself. Wiker and Hahn note that Luther himself set this in motion from the beginning when he began to radicalize that distinction between secular and sacred, and in doing so he carried on a tradition started by Marsilus of Padua in that the secular only was presupposed for the body, and that the soul was entirely separate. Neutralizing the secular from any notion of supernatural grace that could transform, perfect, heal, and elevate it made for a dangerous situation in which secularizing tendencies were then made a power unto themselves, and thus they could be at odds with the sacred. In time, if secular culture prevailed, it would secularize the sacred as well, and thus the problem (Wiker and Hahn, Politicizing the Bible. New York: Herder and Herder, 2013. pp. 216-219). The further desacramentalization of Christianity by subsequent Reformers such as Zwingli made further inroads into the realm of the Church, in that the absence of the sacred made the secular more logical and palatable. Thus, you have Protestantism's legacy of secularization, also intensified by Luther taking the hermeneutical responsibility of the Church away and placing it in the hands of either "experts" who served the secular state or the merely "baptized," who could supposedly read Scripture for themselves and become the concluding authority on its meaning. Luther paved the way, in essence, for those like Schleiermacher and others who came later. And, in time, it would even begin to infect Catholic theology, via people such as Tielhard de Chardin as well as Fr. George Tavard, whom Mascall discusses more at length.
Fr. George Tavard (1922-2007)
Fr. George Tavard was an French Augustinian priest and theologian who focused much of his work on the disciplines of ecumenism, spirituality, and historical theology. Fr. Tavard taught for many years at Princeton Theological Seminary, and later participated in joint Catholic dialogue with Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans, serving as well as an official Catholic observer at the WCC Faith and Order Conference in Montreal in 1963. While the positive fruit of his efforts meant a greater openness on the part of Roman Catholics to Protestants as fellow Christians, he also was very liberal on theological and dogmatic issues, even advocating (as did Richard McBrien, another prominent liberal Roman Catholic theologian) for women to be ordained to Holy Orders as well as expressing some sympathy for Communism during the Vietnam conflict. Based on his views, Tavard would not be recommended as a sound doctrinal source for studying Catholic dogma, and his efforts unfortunately also led to some of the faulty implementations of Vatican II that came later (From "George Tavard," at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Tavard - Accessed 2/26/2018). He is referenced by Mascall in relation to his book Paul Tillich and the Christian Message, in that Tavard offers a fairly even-handed critique of Tillich's theology, in particular the confusion Tillich displays regarding man's created being and fallen nature. Tavard notes, as Mascall documents, that Tillich rejected Chalcedonian (and thus creedal) Christology based on misunderstandings of language, thus introducing the "Godmanhood" notion in his Systematic Theology. While Tavard notes the weakness in Tillich's attempt to express traditional faith with contemporary terminology in other words, Tavard likewise fails in trying to unintentionally redefine the Creed to reflect such terminology. In regard to that passage, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually quite clear in that it affirms that the Church confesses (in its historic Creeds) that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man, and that there is no confusion due to the result of a random mixture of divine and human, and it also doesn't mean that part of Jesus is God and part of Him is man; he is fully both (CCC 464, 469). Tavard seems to avoid this, at least by what Mascall quotes of him, and Tillich misinterpreted it totally and because he couldn't understand it, it had to be radically redefined. That is where some closing remarks on this subject now come into bearing.
True Catholicism accepts that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant in its truth and unique in its revelation. However, the Bible is a book of supernatural origin, and there are some things in it that may be ambiguous to prior generations but that we may understand completely. The Church, in her wisdom, has kept that in mind through the centuries, and therefore any confusion about what the Biblical text says can be easily clarified by the consensual view of the Church throughout the ages - if the Church doesn't address a certain thing, then a consensus can be drawn based on peripheral issues that relate to that thing. Mascall actually is faithful to this as an orthodox Anglo-Catholic, and in doing so he is also faithful to Anglican patrimony which is accepted by the Church. However - and this is the clencher! - it is ironic that Fr. George Tavard, a French Augustinian and Catholic priest, is less Catholic than Mascall in this regard, and it proves something very pivotal - there are those who don't profess to be Roman Catholic who are often more faithful to the Magisterium than self-professed Roman Catholics, including priests and bishops. This also means that although the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ, she is not a perfect Bride - there are those in our parishes, religious orders, seminaries, and other places who are only "Catholic" in name but not in conviction, and they are what my late mentor Fr. Eusebius Stephanou calls "baptized pagans." The roots of this secularization even within the Church were seen by Pope St. Leo XIII, who even addressed it in official encyclicals. Leo predicted that in the 20th century, the Church would undergo a great shaking and to a degree an apostasy as more self-professed "Catholics" would become ensnared to the idols of secularism - they would sit in Church, some even receiving the Sacraments, yet they also were for all intents and purposes atheists; their mindsets are secular, and they tend to flippantly dismiss very vital Catholic teaching on important matters. This is why even today in our US Congress, we have secularists (and rabid leftists) such as Nancy Pelosi, the late Ted Kennedy, and others calling themselves "Catholics" yet not listening to the Church on pivotal issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, and euthanasia are three big ones). Mascall, like the late Pope St. Leo XIII, prophetically saw this happening even in his own time, which is why he wrote the book addressing it specifically. When we return in the next segment, there will be more detail on these and other issues.
