Lately, I have been engaged in a variety of discussions in which both Roman Catholics and Protestants have been involved and I have noticed something very interesting. Protestants are very quick to reject what Catholics contribute, even on topics that are not related to Catholicism. In fact, I have observed a projection on the Catholic regarding their doctrine when their doctrine had nothing to do with the discussion. It is as if the Protestant is telling the Catholic they have nothing meaningful to contribute simply because of the doctrinal positions that they hold.
It is not lost no me why this happens since at one time, I too would be very quick to dismiss Catholics and Roman Catholicism, wholesale. The primary reason I believe is because Protestants have embraced a model of Christianity that leaves no room for practices ascribed by Catholicism. In fact, I think if you were to ask the average evangelical Protestant about Catholic faith and practice, you might get these kinds of responses
- they promote a works-based system of merit
- they have elevated the Pope to same status of Christ and scripture
- they engage in practices that are contradictory to scripture, such as prayer to others rather than God
These were my responses at one time that demonstrated an ignorance of Catholic doctrine and its historical development. Taken at face value, it does seem that Catholic doctrine flies in the face of what we Protestants hold dear with respect to Soteriology and Ecclesiology. This includes
- Salvation is through grace alone, through faith alone, through Christ alone.
- Jesus Christ is our advocate and prayer is conducted to God through him; we don’t believe in praying to Mary or to others
- Jesus Christ and Scripture is the final authority for faith and practice, not the Pope.
However, I have come to realize that what appears to be contradictory practices of Roman Catholicism must be examined in context of the historical development of the Catholic church and how their doctrine is sourced in a rich tradition of early church practice. It is only through this understanding, that I believe Protestants can be more accepting and understanding of Catholic doctrine and practice. Absent that understanding, we will always measure the practices of Catholicism against our own and deem them unorthodox at best and heretical, at worst.
It is important to recognize that the first few centuries of the Christian church experienced a universality of doctrine and church practice. From the doctrinal perspective, there was a unified front on what was deemed authentic Christianity appropriate to the revelation of God and the apostolic witness of Christ. It is why in the early church writings, the word ‘catholic’, which means universal, was commonly used as a reference to one church. In protection of the one church, ecumenical councils were formed to combat false or distorted teaching that were attempting to infiltrate and distort the apostolic message.
In the absence of a solidified canon, writings were circulated to provide instruction to the various assemblies that were emerging. Church practice was an evolution that centered around interpretation of the apostles teaching and the instructive letters. Overtime, these elements would be transformed into a solidified practice incorporated into doctrine of church and shape liturgical practices that are very much apart of the RCC.
The doctrine of the church is a key element in understanding Catholic theology and why liturgical practices are deemed an important element related to the justification and sanctification of the believer. Affirmed at the Council of Trent, the church is the conduit through which Christ manifests his presence and authority. It is not simply the invisible church comprising all believers in Christ, but the visible organization established by Christ and maintained through apostolic succession based on Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16:18. The revelation of God, unveiled in Christ is not simply inscribed in writings of the apostolic witness (scripture) but is carried on through tradition established by the church. This is otherwise known as Sacred Tradition, which is just as valid as scripture, according to Catholic theology and it is the church who serves as the authoritative interpreter of both. It is not as though the overseers of the church would arbitrarily decide to incorporate elements into the church to bolster man-made practices, but to uphold an historic tradition that is reflected in the inception of church practices transmitted by the apostles themselves.
Francis Beckwith, former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, had this to say in an interview with Christianity Today regarding his conversion to Roman Catholicism
“Looking at tradition would also help evangelicals learn about Christian liturgical traditions, like Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, that many evangelicals reject because they say liturgy is unbiblical. When did these practices come to be? It turns out many of them came to be very early on in church history when people were close historically to the apostles themselves. There must be something to these practices that the early Christians thought were perfectly consistent with what they had received from the apostles.”
He further goes on to say that it was through his study of the church fathers and the development of liturgical traditions that liberated him with respect to his views on church tradition. To be honest, the Catholic doctrine of the church has garnered a greater appreciation for me of not only church tradition but the significance of the visible church. I think we protestants have been historically too dismissive of tradition and tend to undermine the authority and presence of the ecclesiastical body. Upholding scriptural authority has somehow created a laissez-faire attitude with respect to the unity of body that Christ sought (John 17:20-21) and that the RCC seeks with respect to doctrine and church practice. When Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the Wittenberg door, he had no intention of dismantling the church but reforming practices that had been corrupted. While I do not agree with the authoritative status of the Pope as the succession of the apostolic witness, I do think there is something to be said for the preservation of historic Christianity and ecclesiastical unity that the papal office seeks to uphold.
With respect to the model of justification and sanctification, it might appear to be a meritorious works-based system, which sorely contradicts the Protestant understanding of justification by faith. However, the liturgical elements are not a set of rituals contrived to produce mechanics of symbolism, but are an active way in which members of Christ’s body participate in the union with Christ. Grace is dispensed through participation in the sacraments thus fostering this union. When the Catholic receives the eucharist, it is believed to be the actual presence of Christ. Therefore, I think it is unfair and not very accurate to label the RCC a system of works-based merit but one in which the model of participation in the union of Christ looks different than that of Protestants.
With the advent of the Vatican II Council, there has been a greater focus on scriptural authority in the RCC. I have witnessed that first hand in some recent viewings of Catholic masses on EWTN. I actually was impressed with the amount of scripture being read and taught and found little that I disagreed with in the messages. Yet, I wonder how many Protestants would even receive messages delivered by a Catholic priest, let alone watch a Catholic channel. I can’t help but believe that would only perpetuate ignorance and disharmony.
It too amazes me the backlash that I have heard from ex-Catholics who have converted to Protestantism who have joined the chorus of nay-sayers against the RCC vocalizing the same opposition as listed above. I wonder too if it was because of a failure to fully understand Catholic theology and doctrine that they at one time were actively engaged in. I do recognize that just because one actively participates in Roman Catholicism does not necessarily mean they are believers in Christ and it could be that the ex-Catholics who rail against Catholicism do so because they saw it as a detriment to the salvation they now have. However, there’s no sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps a greater consensus could be gained by ex-Catholics through an revisitation of the catechism that has now been wholesale rejected.
Because Catholicism does yield some very faithful and devoted believers in Christ. I have encountered some wonderful Catholics whose belief in and love for Christ matches, if not surpasses, Protestants that I know. And it is because of belief in Christ, not the practice of Catholicism, that allows for the unity that I believe some Protestants reject simply because the brother or sister in Christ is Catholic.
So I propose to my Protestant brothers and sisters, that rather than rejecting Catholics and Catholicism outright, that we take the time to understand where they are coming from. That does not mean we will necessarily agree with all the doctrine. I certainly don’t. But being quick to reject them or their contributions I believe does a disservice to the body of Christ and undermines the unity that we should seek to foster.
Here is an interesting interview with Mark Noll that I think fosters greater dialogue and cooperation between Protestants and Catholics
201 replies to "Why Protestants Are Quick to Reject Catholicism – And What Can Be Done About It"
Eric W and others,
I think the thing that the theological issue that causes me to lose the most sleep and should cause us all to lose sleep is the fact that there are theological positions I disagree with and do not hold which crept in very early in church history and persisted for a thousand or more years unchallenged.
Ultimately I am either left to conclude that either 1) I am not a Christian, 2) Roman Catholics and with them all “Christians” between 300 and 1600 AD were not truly Christians, or 3) the doctrines which divide us though they may distort the Gospel do not impinge upon it’s effectiveness and therefore we are all Christians.
Obviously I don’t believe 1 to be true or I’d become a Roman Catholic. Option 2 leaves me immensely uncomfortable because one must really question why God would go through all the trouble of establishing His church if it was going to disappear from the face of the Earth 300 years later for the next 1300 years. Where was the Holy Spirit during this time? This leaves me with option 3. If there is another option I’m open to suggestions.
Michael T, once again we are in step. Yes, I agree with your option #3 except would not necessarily contend a distortion but a deviation in interpretation. And that is not necessarily each individual doctrine but how those doctrines fit within the whole system of thought for each tradition.
Honestly, I have been wrestling with this issue ever since I conducted research for a paper I did last year on the Validity of Sacred Tradition in the Early Church. Because their were deviations in the baseline, it necessarily will lead to the distinctions we see between the traditions. But it starts with asking the question what does faith in Christ look like in its crudest form, as denoted in Acts 16:31 – believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.
It begins with the foundation of the work and person of Christ and how that is transmitted into an authentic Christian life. I may not agree with the Catholic interpretation of dispensation of faith through the church, but neither can I fault the definition since it can represent a legitimate interpretation of the authority established by Christ, especially in consideration of the complete witness of NT scripture regarding the significance of his body (the church). Does that mean that Protestants are wrong? no. But it doesn’t mean that Catholicism is necessarily wrong either for their doctrine does affirm that Christianity is based on faith in Christ, the finished work of the cross and his bodily resurrection. And it bears repeating that it does not mean that everyone who practices Catholicism is a Christian but the same could be said for every Protestant denomination as well.
Hi Lisa,
I’m afraid I’m a bit confused by your question! 🙂 (Also, I don’t know what Euthycianism is – that’s a new one for me.) Here’s a shot at answering it: yes, it’s the body that was and is still Christ’s by virtue of the hypostatic union. (What other body would it be?) Christ’s body when? Well at all of the times. We’re already used to thinking of the selfsame substance persisting through different times – me then, me now – in the same way, His body, insofar as it is His, is of the same person at different times – He is fully human, after all – so if all those “bodies” at different times are identical to one another, then so can that substance be found at other places and times too – in principle.
Most importantly, there is no reason to think of the Real Presence, if it is in fact real, as being “re-sacrificed.” It’s the ONE-TIME sacrifice, re-presented repeatedly in the form of bread and wine. Why do we need it “re-presented repeatedly”? There’s a distinctively Catholic answer to that: because we need Him infused into us continually – it’s not a matter of “getting saved” just by believing that you’re saved – but of continuing to walk faithfully in Him.
Come to think of it, I think maybe the tendency among Protestants to think of the Eucharist as if it were a “re-sacrifice” is in analogy with the Protestant notion of “getting saved,” all at once – taking the sacrament more than once would be like “getting saved” over and over (again, the illegitimate mixup of concepts by the fallacy of incomplete analysis). But if we see salvation as a process rather than just instantaneous imputation, that does not entail that it means we’re adding our own works “on top of” Christ’s merit. Any forgiveness, any righteousness, comes just from God’s grace and not what we bring to the table beforehand.
Lisa my contention is that if Christ’s body is anything other than that of a human one then we are left without accurate representation of mankind.
The Thomist view of the Eucharist necessitates his body turning into bread and wine or rather the bread and wine becoming his body.
Unless all humanity possesses bodies which can magically turn into food, then Christ never fully represented us and is not representing us now. That is if the elements do turn into Christ’s body (which is what is being argued).
If you have a ubiquitous physical body of Christ then we ourselves would have to have ubiquitous bodies.
Do we possess that quality Lisa?
Carrie said: “The Thomist view of the Eucharist necessitates his body turning into bread and wine… ”
No.
“…or rather the bread and wine becoming his body.”
Yes. The hosts are then no longer bread and wine, because they have become Christ’s body and blood. The bread and wine retain the “accidental” features of bread and wine after Christ’s body becomes substantially present.
It occurs to me that if you think “the bread and wine becoming his body” means the same thing as “his body turning into bread and wine,” then there may be just a very simple misunderstanding at work here. “Becoming his body” could be taken to mean that the hosts stay the same but are extrinsically annexed, as it were, onto Christ’s body. But this isn’t what’s meant at all. Rather, it’s that their substance is replaced with the substance of Christ’s body and blood.
Suppose I turned into a frog: that’s not a case of extending the term “frog” to cover me (which means we would mean something different by “frog” now), but that where once there was me, now there’s a frog. Likewise, it’s not that “we’ve changed the definition of Christ’s body so that we can now call bread and wine Christ’s body and blood,” but where once there was bread and wine, now there is Jesus. That’s the doctrine.
This quite fascinating video is going around the Catholic blogosphere: even if you feel compelled to think it a hoax, it will at least leave no question as to what Catholics mean when they say they eat and drink the body and blood of Christ – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbg_dhI4XCs
Carrie, I do see what you getting at but I’m not sure it contradicts the humanity of Christ that constituted the final sacrifice. His body was just like ours when he went to the cross, as I believe Catholic doctrine affirms. But I think it raises the question of what the elements mean in terms of that final sacrifice.
Carrie 102.:
My understanding of RCC teaching is that the first Transubstantiation occurred at the Last Supper, before Christ had His glorified body. This would further raise your concerns about whether or not He had a body just like ours.
Michael T. 100.:
I guess option 4) would be the Orthodox Church (but then you’d have to decide between Eastern, so-called “Oriental,” Nestorian, Arminian, Ethiopian, Coptic, etc.). Also, that’s really just the flip side(s) of option 1).
To be, or not to be, Catholic: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous Protestantism,
Or to take arms against its sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
Restless nights, here I come!
To reply to Frank’s last comment. By “ambiguous” I don’t mean that Ignatius’ view is ambiguous just because it is not developed. What I mean is that I can claim his statement as a memorialist, Frank can claim his statement as a believer in transubstantiation, Luther can believe his statement as a consubstantiationist. It is ambiguous in relation to our debate, not Ignatius’ theology of the Eucharist. He may have had it worked out well within his day. The point is that he does not define his statement concerning the flesh of Christ. Memorialists use this language all of the time. We quote Christ saying, “This is My body.” What the statement means is a completely different matter, and Ignatius does not define it for us. Hence, it is ambiguous because we don’t know what he means by it. Frank can suggest that he knows, but Frank’s knowledge comes from his reception of papal authority, not the text itself, which is, as I say again, ambiguous. This stems, of course, from the fact that we are trying to read a debate that came about fifteen hundred years later into Ignatius’ words and trying to discover what he believed about the subject. This is like trying to read the evolution debate into Genesis 1. It is ambiguous as to the time frame and nature of creation in relation to our debate. Hence, many views can claim Genesis 1. The problem is that it most likely supports none of them, since it is not concerned with that debate. Same goes for much of the Fathers.
And I do have to reiterate that what Ignatius says has nothing to do with what we are talking about. He mentions practice B as a result of belief A in his criticism of belief A, not the other way around.
Michael,
I would, of course, contend with the idea that theology was completely warped between 300-1600 or the RCC is the true Church. That seems like a bit of an oversimplification to me. Both views/presupps to developed views found within the magisterial Reformers and the RCC are represented throughout those time periods. The only ones who should present this dichotomy are those within the radical reformation, solo Scriptura, tradition. They either have to claim such a loss of the Spirit’s guidance, become ultra-relativists when it comes to what they consider secondary doctrine, or become RCC (or reject the faith altogether). This is not a dilemma for some of us.
Eric, absolutely. Yes.This makes for a big problem.
Lisa the humanity of Christ isn’t simply to do with the final sacrifice it is to do with the entirety of Who he is and will continue to be for all eternity. He is the New Adam, something that extends beyond the crucifixion.
I have no reason to believe that in His glorified state his physical body suddenly becomes ever-present anymore than I have grounds for believing our physical resurrected bodies will become ever-present.
I am not sure what you are getting at in terms of the elements and how that corresponds to the final sacrifice. Unless you want my opinion of the contribution the elements have to the final sacrifice (which is none). Obviously I believe that as a Protestant.
Perhaps you can go further with your explanation on that because quite frankly I am confused.
Carrie: From The Baltimore Catechism:
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson26.html
344. When did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist?
Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, the night before He died.
And having taken bread, he gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In like manner he took also the cup after the supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” (Luke 22:19-20)
345. Who were present when Our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist?
When Our Lord instituted the Holy Eucharist the apostles were present.
Now when the evening arrived, he came with the Twelve. (Mark 14:17)
346. How did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist?
Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist in this way: He took bread, blessed and broke it, and giving it to His apostles, said: “Take and eat; this is My body”; then He took a cup of wine, blessed it, and giving it to them, said: “All of you drink of this; for this is My blood of the new covenant which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins”; finally, He gave His apostles the commission: “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
And having taken bread, he gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In like manner he took also the cup after the supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you.” (Luke 22:19-20)
347. What happened when Our Lord said: “This is My body . . . this is My blood”?
When Our Lord said, “This is My body,” the entire substance of the bread was changed into His body; and when He said, “This is My blood,” the entire substance of the wine was changed into His blood.
(cont’d next post)
(cont’d)
Carrie: From The Baltimore Catechism:
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson26.html
348. Did anything of the bread and wine remain after their substance had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood?
After the substance of the bread and wine had been changed into Our Lord’s body and blood, there remained only the appearances of bread and wine.
. . .
352. How was Our Lord able to change bread and wine into His body and blood?
Our Lord was able to change bread and wine into His body and blood by His almighty power.
All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (Matthew 28:18)
Eric to use a highly technical theological term …..
That’s jacked up!
And back to my earlier statement that the RCC teaches that the priest has the power to effect the change by saying the Words of Institution/Consecration:
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson26.html
353. Does this change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continue to be made in the Church?
The change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continues to be made in the Church by Jesus Christ, through the ministry of His priests.
354. When did Christ give His priests the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood?
Christ gave His priests the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood when He made the apostles priests at the Last Supper by saying to them: “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
355. How do priests exercise their power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?
Priests exercise their power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by repeating at the Consecration of the Mass the words of Christ: “This is My Body … this is My blood.”
Where I come from, we use a different word than “jacked.” 😮
But, yes, it’s “jacked up.” In your lingo, we’d say it’s JUBAR.
And one more:
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson26.html
356. Why does Christ give us His own body and blood in the Holy Eucharist?
Christ gives us His own body and blood in the Holy Eucharist:
1.to be offered as a sacrifice commemorating and renewing for all time the sacrifice of the cross;
2.to be received by the faithful in Holy Communion;
3.to remain ever on our altars as the proof of His love for us, and to be worshiped by us. (emphasis added)
Hence, Eucharistic Adoration, the WORSHIP of the wafer as Christ Himself, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
haha!
Edited to add…
I was laughing at the JUBAR comment …
*Not* the further addition to your post Eric. That is actually a very sad thing.
Not sure what I’m trying to get at either. Too much multi-tasking 🙁
But I would agree with that 2nd sentence…as a Protestant
I think this site must automatically relegate consecutive comments to “spam,” because it’s done so again… I realize the site’s guidelines, but unfortunately I’m trying to respond to multiple people with length-restrictions…!
OK thanks Lisa.
This trichotomy assumes that a Church will be either wrong or right, nothing in between. It also assumes that whether or not you’re a Christian depends on what your church teaches you.
Compare to the preservation of Scripture. We also know that many errors crept into the Scriptures which were not present in the originals, and SOME of the errors were substantial, and probably affected people who had no choice. (In fact, some people had only as much of the Bible as a scholarly person in their neighborhood had memorized or hand-copied as a devotional ritual — probably with errors and devotional insertions).
Were those people saved?
The answer doesn’t depend on the quantity of Scripture that was available to them. It depends on whether God changed their heart to believe on Him to be their righteousness, as Abram did (with almost no Scripture, and with no Church).
The answer also doesn’t depend on the information the Church imparts — although God normally uses that information, and the Church’s negligence in not pursuing it is a grievous error.
The Church is responsible for protecting and promulgating true information about God and His salvation. If it fails to do so, God will “do something” about it… Be assured God’s plan won’t fail because the Church does. God’s plan didn’t fail because the sons of Israel did; we are grafted into the root from which they naturally grew. If we abandon God’s truth, He will cut us off as He did them.
-Wm
Hodge,
Could you clarify comment 106 because I’m not quite sure what you’re saying?
I would also note in regards to the magisterial reformers (by which I believe you mean the Lutheran and Reformed traditions) that 1) they don’t have the best track record on remaining true to the Gospel themselves and 2) they don’t agree on many points of doctrine with each other much less the RCC, EO, or Radical Reformers.
If the Roman Catholic beliefs/doctrines about the Eucharist and the Priest(hood) were side issues, it might be possible for there to be some form of rapprochement between Protestants and Catholics at or around all the core issues of the faith(s).
E.g., I assume (maybe wrongly) that the LDS Church could dispense with their beliefs about Temple (under)Garments if necessary and/or at some point were this to be an impediment to Protestant-LDS co-communion.
But these RC beliefs are not only at the core of belief, they in some ways ARE the core beliefs.
Christ in the Eucharist IS the Gospel for Roman Catholics, according to some speakers (and priests?) on a Catholic radio station a few weeks back.
The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all the ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch.” (CCC 1324)
Emmanuel = God with us = Christ present body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist and administered to the communicants for 1) union with Christ, 2) separation from sin, 3) wiping away of venial sins, 4) preservation from future mortal sins, and 5) the unity of the Mystical Body, the Eucharist making the Church (CCC 1391-1396).
Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism the same religion? That’s a good question.
WM,
“This trichotomy assumes that a Church will be either wrong or right, nothing in between.”
I’m not quite sure this is accurate. The third option clearly assumes that the vast majority of churches will teach some things that are correct and some things that are incorrect. The question is to what degree the incorrect teachings destroy the Gospel. My three options may thus be restated with six options as such
1) The RCC has the only True Gospel and following any other understanding will lead to damnation
2) The Protestants have the True Gospel (or at least one of our sects does) and the teachings of the RCC completely destroy the True Gospel such that if followed they will lead to damnation
3) The Protestants have the True Gospel and the teachings of the RCC distort or deviate from the True Gospel, but not to such an extent that if followed they render the Gospel ineffectual
4) The RCC has the True Gospel, but the Protestants do not distort it or deviate from it to the point that Protestant teachings render it ineffectual.
5) Neither the RCC or Protestants have the True Gospel and all are damned
6) Neither the RCC or Protestants teach the True Gospel with 100% accuracy, but neither one is in so great of error as to render the Gospel they teach ineffective.
I obviously don’t believe 1,4, or 5 since I wouldn’t be a Protestant if I did. Number 2 and 5 both create the problem of having the Church disappear for 1300 years (unless one of the Orthodox Churches has the True Gospel, but that just moves the problems up a step). This leaves 3 and 6 for me. Since I obviously believe that my own beliefs are right (otherwise I wouldn’t believe them) I must go with door number 3. However, the knowledge of my own fallibility, makes me at least entertain number 6.
Micha you said:
“we’ve changed the definition of Christ’s body so that we can now call bread and wine Christ’s body and blood,” but where once there was bread and wine, now there is Jesus. That’s the doctrine.
Yes I *know* it is the doctrine! I fully understand the Thomistic position on this. Yet you claim I do not.
I will just ask you this…
What kind of body does Christ have that it can become bread and wine and then be consumed by thousands (millions) of people simultaneously, across the world?
This shouldn’t take more than a few hundred characters to answer.
What kind of body does He have?
Your six options still make the same assumption: that the Church controls salvation. They don’t. They support the truth by teaching it (the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth, as Paul said). If they fail to do so, God will work through their church less, but this doesn’t mean that God will stop saving.
Look at your choice #6:
“The Gospel they teach” isn’t the power that saves. The Gospel they teach is important to their function as a church, but what saves is the power of God.
This is, of course, something the Roman Church has to affirm, since it’s what the ancient Church believed from which they wish to derive their authority; but they also have to deny it, substituting instead the idea that the words the Church says (whether teaching or incantation) have power that can save or condemn. And thus, the Roman Catholic Church asks us to decide which of those options we think is right, when the answer is that none of them are right; they’re all beside the point.
-Wm
They support the truth by teaching it (the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth, as Paul said).
Actually, the articles aren’t in the Greek before the words for “pillar” and “ground/support” (in fact, only “truth” in 1 Tim 3:15 is articular) so it may be that he’s calling it “a pillar and support.” The only anarthrous noun that would have to be translated as definite would be “God” in “(an) assembly/church of the living God,” ISTM, though there may in fact be reasons to support treating these nouns as definite. I’d defer to experts in Greek on that.
Carrie: (comment #124) You’ve lifted my words out mid-sentence so that now it sound like they mean the opposite of what I meant. It’s NOT that “we change the definition of “Christ’s body” so that it includes some bread and wine on Earth.” RATHER, it’s that bread and wine are replaced with the real body and blood of Christ.
I actually did try to answer your earlier question, which you’ve reiterated, but that comment seems to have gotten lost in the spam pile. What kind of body does Christ have? A human body. How does it find place on millions of altars around the world every day? How did five loaves and two fish get multiplied to feed thousands? How did a virgin conceive a child? How can there be one God in three Persons that are not three Gods? Danged if I know.
I don’t know if I can prove to you that transubstantiation is logically possible. Even though I have trouble with the idea (I wrestle with it to some extent most times I’m at Mass), and even the word “transubstantiation” doesn’t do much for me, I’m convinced anyway that Jesus founded One Holy and Apostolic Church that “the gates of hell would not prevail against,” and that would consistently teach true doctrine, so the fact that it’s not something I would have come up with is irrelevant. We’ll disagree, of course, on whether the final authority for discerning truth is the Church or the individual.
If the purpose of inquiry is to refute, one can always find something convincing enough for oneself. But this is a very different motive from “faith seeking understanding.”
Lisa: I probably agree with where you trying to go with this, but a two page blog article is not going to overturn 500 years of history on this one. You’re probably going to have to go way deeper on the issues to get people to think and step out of their preexisting prejudices.
WM,
No one is denying that there is both true believers and false converts in every church or for that matter any religious body in general. There are Muslims who go through the routine of being Muslim because it’s what is expected of them just like there are Baptists who go through the motions of being Baptists because it is what is expected of them without truly believing.
Also, at least as far as I am concerned, mere mental assent to a list of believes does not a saved person make. Despite this there are some issues I have with what you seem to be saying. It seems that so far as I can tell in your thinking the visible church has no relation to the true church whatsoever. Since it is simply a matter of God choosing at random (at least as far as we know) who to save and who not to one might be just as likely to find a saved person in a Mosque as in the pew of a [insert you’re chosen denomination here] church. Now I know you wouldn’t say this, but I think logically this is where your thinking leads.
At it’s root the questions here is if someone believes wholeheartedly in the dogmas of the RCC or some Protestant denomination (whether caused by God to believe this or not) can they be a Christian? Can one believe in the Marian Dogmas and be a counted among the saved? Can one believe in the doctrines regarding the Eucharist and be saved?
Michael T, thanks for that helpful list in #123. The point of this post really was to get those who were firmly entrenched in option #2 to at least consider that options #3 and 6 can be a possibility. It would greatly improve how we receive Catholics, I think.
John (#128), thanks for that comment and I’ll consider it. Just based on the reaction for some it does seem like some dissection is in order.
OK Micah.
Your answer is a human body. And that it’s a mystery.
Thanks,
Carrie
No. The visible church is truly the Church. But we’re not talking about the visible Church; we’re talking about “the Roman Catholic Church” as opposed to “the Protestant Church”. Neither of those is “the visible Church”; the Roman Church is (essentially) a single local church ruled by one Bishop, while the “Protestant Church” is a group of local churches.
The Visible Church includes people in all the local churches, including Roman, all the branches of EO, all the Protestant denominations and independent churches… I shouldn’t say “all”, there, because some clearly have given up on being a church and are just a social club, but that’s a side issue.
Absolutely not! I affirm that God works through _means_, not through mysticism. My point is that all three or six of your divisions presume that if Christianity becomes institutionally corrupt by losing the Gospel, God then becomes unable to save. No — even in a totally corrupt church God can send people to preach His truth, and where one group (or local church) totally gives up its mission to teach the truth, God will cut them off and graft in another.
(more…)
I know the “change in the bread and wine” viewpoint entered the church(es) somewhat early, but I can’t help but think that it arose as a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what Jesus said and did, including His words in John 6,
Eric W.,
Do you know why I think this is unlikely? (And since you’ve been an Orthodox for a number of years, I think you will understand my point). Orthodox Churches are filled to the abuse with icons, and everything about them, and the services we serve therein, is symbolic, sometimes even on multiple parallel levels. As such, we have an extreme awe or reverence for icons and symbols. There’s no such thing in our mind as “mere” icon or “mere” symbol. YET we do NOT believe these holy things actually become the even holier things that they represent: we DO believe that God’s grace is present in them, and works through them… but -as already stated before- we do NOT believe that they’re transformed into that certain something — so WHY would we do that “mistake” for the Eucharist?
Let me illustrate this with more clarity:
— we do not believe the icons of Christ and his Saints become or are transformed into them, or into their bodies.
— we do not believe that the three holy doors in the icon-stand actually become the holy Trinity, nor do we believe that the middle one, which is a double-door, becomes the dual nature of Christ.
— we do not believe that Bishop is transformed into God the Father, although we believe his monarchical bishoprick represents the Father’s monarchy.
— we do not believe that the Bishop & his priests are tarnsformed into Christ & his Apostles, although that’s the meaning of this particular liturgical symbolism.
— we do not believe the (stone-)holy altar is transformed into Christ’s nativity-cave or burial-tomb, although that’s the liturgical significance we attach to it.
So WHY then did we make that particular mistake ONLY with regards to the Eucharist?
… I also wanted to add the Proskomede, where the Priest does and says all these symbolical things to/about the bread, remembering Christ’s sacrifice, but the bread isn’t even changed into His body then (it happens before the Liturgy, during Matins).
Anyway, I think I’ve made my point.
Those are fair questions, and I do think you’re right to ask them. I don’t think your previous line of questioning — the three or six alternatives — led to these, though. The Three or Six assumed that there is only one church at a time, it’s irreplaceable, and its job is to save people by teaching correct doctrine. Since all three premises are false, the dilemma is also false.
I’m going to start answering your fair questions by saying that one can be superstitious and wrong and nonetheless saved. One can also sin repeatedly and nonetheless be saved.
For example, one can break the first and second commandments by worshiping Mary, or putting her in the place only Jesus occupies as the Mediator between God and Man, and still be saved — but the Holy Spirit must be convicting you of your sins in worshiping anyone other than God, and you must repent for forgiveness and rest in the righteousness of Christ — whether you’ve ever heard of that or not.
I know the official Roman Catholic teaching is more nuanced than this, and I respect that — but the official teaching doesn’t survive on the streets; both priests and laymen are constantly giving to Mary position and work that replaces Christ’s. Researching for this discussion was really eye-opening, and I wasn’t even researching about the Marian dogmas. I should add that one can reverence Mary according to the terms of the Catholic dogmas (minimalist) without sinning (although one’s beliefs would be non-Scriptural and ahistorical). But the dogmas are not the only thing the Roman Church teaches; the doctrines are the truly pernicious things…
So WHY then did we make that particular mistake ONLY with regards to the Eucharist?
I don’t know, but it’s a mistaken concept, nevertheless.
Is it like light, i.e.: Is it a wave, or is it a particle? It’s both and neither.
To Protestants, it is and behaves like a wave.
To transubstantiationists and their kin – i.e., Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans – it is and behaves like a particle.
That’s actually a lousy analogy/comparison, though.
Maybe it’s like Schroedinger’s theoretical Cat – Can it be both dead and alive at the same time? Can the bread and wine of the Eucharist actually change (whatever that means) into Christ’s body and blood and thereby impart grace, life, forgiveness, etc., to those who communicate in faith and believe this is what happens via a priest’s involvement and/or the Holy Spirit’s doing, and yet also NOT change and be a remembrance and proclamation of Christ’s death, with Christ just as much imparting His Spirit and Life and forgiveness to those who just as strongly believe that it’s bread and wine and no more than that (though the meal of/with bread and wine is by the communicants a remembrance and reconsecration to Jesus with Him as Head of His assembled Body and Head of His assembled Table)?
Eric W.,
Short answer: yes.
The Fahers, even those before Chalcedon (like Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, for instance), speak of it as a dual reality, both heavenly, as well as earthly:
For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly, so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Against Heresies, 4, 18, 5; AD 180)
The same thought can be found in John Damascene as well:
Now, seeing that this Adam is spiritual, it was meet that both the birth and likewise the food should be spiritual too, but since we are of a double and compound nature, it is meet that both the birth should be double and likewise the food compound. We were therefore given a birth by water and Spirit: I mean, by the holy baptism : and the food is the very bread of life, our Lord Jesus Christ, Who came down from heaven. […]
Just as, in the case of baptism, since it is man’s custom to wash himself with water and anoint himself with oil, He connected the grace of the Spirit with the oil and the water and made it the water of regeneration, in like manner since it is man’s custom to eat and to drink water and wine , He connected His divinity with these and made them His body and blood […] not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God’s body and blood. […]
Isaiah saw the coal. (Isaiah 6:6). But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two. […]
Maybe it’s like Schroedinger’s theoretical Cat
…or like that piece of pie in the “Matrix”, into which the French Merovingian inserted a certain code… 8) — how’s THAT for typology? 😀
Or maybe each and every believer is in his own Fred Alan Wolfe parallel universe and what works in one universe need not work in another universe, but each universe represents and is created by each and every option available for each and every action.
So in my universe the bread and wine do not change and my reading of Scripture and history as well as my experience confirms and creates this reality. No change, no priests, no need for such. Jesus is Alive and Active and Reigning.
Whereas in your universe the bread and wine undergo some kind of change and Christ is received by you via them. Priests, Jesus, all is well and all works.
And you’re in my universe and I’m in yours.
I think I need to take the blue pill.
LOL! …not unless we’re both Buddhists as well, apart from being Christians! 🙂 — to my knowledge, we believe God to be the Creator of all things visible and unvisible, … not ourselves… 😀
[…but now that you’ve mentioned that: I *WAS* actually planning on doing a mean little rant-article on my blog, … something along the lines of: Protestant-Orthodox joint statement on the Eucharist: leaders of both faith-communions have agreed at Geneva that they’re both right in each their respective eucharistical teachings: the Reformed, when saying that “the Eucharist” does NOT become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, they (obviously) refer to THEIR Eucharist, (not ours); and when we say that it DOES, we also refer (equally-obvious) to OURS, (and not to anyone else’s), so… 😀 — am I just plain evil, or what? 8) ].
I think I need to take the blue pill.
Well –now that you’ve brought it up– your last comments DID remind me of a certain movie we once talked about… 😉
Well –now that you’ve brought it up– your last comments DID remind me of a certain movie we once talked about…
John Carpenter’s DARK STAR? 😉
It’s quite metaphysical/philosophical/theological, actually, esp. toward the end.
“Let there be light.”
Oh, you mean THAT ONE (ALTERED STATES). Wow. You have quite the memory.
It’s almost my autobiography, save for the caveman part.
I can’t help but grin….. whenever CMP (although it was Lisa this time) uses the word “RCC” or “LDS”, we hit over 100 comments in 3 days….
Other posts… don’t even hit 100… ever…
Hot buttons anyone ? 😉
Mick
Hey Michael L, don’t forget about telling women folk they can’t share the pulpit with men.
Uh oh, I think I hear the escalating pace of computer keys….
Lisa..lol
Yet an interesting comment…. I was just wondering about women ordination a couple of weeks ago…
Food for a different post I’m sure…
Mick
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/02/why-women-cannot-be-head-pastors/
1255 comments and waiting for yours…. 😀
whole thing with tradition in my opinion is slippery slope , similar to Oral Law or Talmud that orthodox jews have , im not sayin that it is all bad we can learn allot from it but it can lead as to accepting this things as infallible! like Jesus said somewhere that yr traditions over rule God’s Laws!
same with many protestant denominations they take luther or calvin as their laws and stuff like that!
[…] – Lisa Robinson addresses Protestantism’s quick rejection of Catholicism. […]
Jesus started a living church. He didn’t write stuff down. Not all of the teaching and practice of his church was written down at first. Some oral tradition is Sacred Tradition.
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15 New International Version (©1984)
http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
Alexey: (#146) If it’s a slippery slope one way, it’s a slippery slope the other way too, which can lead to constantly reinventing Christianity with no reference to anything that came before, acting as though the Bible fell into our laps yesterday. There are churches out there that do pretty much that.
Bottom line: There’s no dichotomy between “Tradition OR the Bible”; it’s a matter of which tradition you go with, and its particular pedigree. Before I understood what Catholics mean by “tradition,” I used to think “scripture and tradition have equal authority” meant you have “scripture” on one hand and then on the other hand something essentially independent of it called “tradition,” with equal “weight.” This just sounded stupid. But for the Catholic Church, the point is not just tradition per se, but the theory and practice that extends all the way back continuously to the Apostles (with natural growth and development along the way). Now understanding what Church Tradition is, the relationship between tradition and scripture now seems to me pretty much like the relationship between a hand and a glove.
[…] Top Ten Biblical Discoveries in Archaeology – #4 Ketef Hinnom Silver Amulet ScrollLUKE1732 on Why Protestants Are Quick to Reject Catholicism – And What Can Be Done About ItWeek in Review: 08.13.10 | Near Emmaus on Why Protestants Are Quick to Reject Catholicism – […]