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"
I came to this late but I categorically reject any kind of talk about the Catholic Church in a manner to suggest that somehow she needs the acceptance of Protestants. The only relevant discussion that can take place between Catholics and Protestants is to invite Protestants home. They left the Church and have formed for themselves graven images of the one true Church. It is the duty of Catholics to show them their condition, in love, and to invite them home. The Catholic Church does not need silly sympathy talks; she will endure to the last.
151. Dozie on 21 Aug 2010 at 11:47 am #
I came to this late but I categorically reject any kind of talk about the Catholic Church in a manner to suggest that somehow she needs the acceptance of Protestants. The only relevant discussion that can take place between Catholics and Protestants is to invite Protestants home. They left the Church and have formed for themselves graven images of the one true Church. It is the duty of Catholics to show them their condition, in love, and to invite them home. The Catholic Church does not need silly sympathy talks; she will endure to the last.
That’s a doozie of a post, Dozie.
:rolleyes:
Au contraire, mon frere. It is you and your heretical filioque-spouting and backwards-crossing and unleavened-bread partaking brethren and sistren who need to come home to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Orthodox Church, which has faithfully transmitted and maintained the Apostolic deposit through the centuries against both Romish and Protestantish deviations and heresies and doctrines of demented ones.
Repent and return. The Eastern Orthodox Church is ready to welcome all her erring and errant children home. Come to Mama (and Papa)!
EricW,
from the fact that the Eastern and Roman Churches are not in communion, it does not follow that Protestantism is all on the up-and-up.
In other words, I take you to be (by use of sarcasm), making the following reductio ad absurdum: “If we take seriously the idea of “going back” to an Apostolic Church, which are you going to choose? The Roman and Eastern churches are not even in communion with each other, and the choice between them is intolerably arbitrary.”
But it’s not. For starters, which Eastern Orthodox Church? Russian? Greek? Ukrainian? Serbian? One would have to make that choice. But then, the Roman Catholic Church, due to the fact that it has one head, the pope, is not nationally or ethnically defined, but simply catholic: that is, universal.
@Micah 153.:
Huh?
Lisa, are you agreeing with that statement? In other words, you believe that the Roman Catholic Church places Scripture as “the ultimate authority”? I have to say that if you can show that, I’ll be impressed. Their own dogmas claim that Church authority is superior to Scriptural authority, as the Church is responsible for defining, interpreting, and teaching both Scripture and Tradition. If the Church’s authority includes the authority to define Scripture, then Scripture is not ultimate; in addition, if Tradition is of equal authority to Scripture (as it clearly is in many of the Church’s formal dogmas), and the Church has the authority to pronounce anything to be Tradition (as they proved when they pronounced the Assumption, a doctrine which was present to the only church only in a single otherwise heretical group, and was noted as a peculiarity).
I’m very confused this statement. It sounds like you’re accusing White of “dismissing” a statement when he’s actually explicitly disagreeing with it and arguing against it. If you find his arguments insufficient, argue against them; don’t simply claim that he’s being “dismissive”. Once again: White (and I) disagree with the Church’s claim to have authority above the Scriptures. According to Paul, even an apostle himself would be anathema if he merely preached a different gospel — much less the “successor” of an apostle many hundreds of generations removed.
-Wm
More importantly, White also argues that the Roman church is unfaithful to the tradition that they claim to support; they often cite the doctrines that are believed by all the faithful, at all times, everywhere; but in practice they cherry-pick doctrinal support when and where they want it (the Marian Assumption being the most easily proven case, not being documented as being present at all; but even the unitary papacy is a doctrine that was unheard-of at, for example, Nicea — a council that the Roman pontiff couldn’t attend, by the way, and which explicitly restricted his authority to the local church of Rome).
In much the same way, Rome (and Beckwith, above) cannot accept someone like Ignatius as a teacher with his own message in his own context; rather than simply accept his teaching specifically against the docetists, they have to claim that he’s teaching the same dogma they hold now, even though the philosophical foundation of that dogma is a thousand years from being laid. Yes, if you listen through the anachronistic ears of a modern Rome, you can sort of pretend that he’s saying that the Eucharist is the same as Jesus’ body and blood; but when you read him in his own context, he’s accusing the docetists of rejecting the Eucharist because accepting it would be a concrete sign of their intellectual acceptance of Christ’s real body — and he also accuses them of failing in charitable gifts, probably for a similar reason, that charitable gifts would support physical flesh that their heresy said was evil.
If you try to read this passage as saying that the elements actually are the flesh of Christ, then you wind up reading that the docetists simply denied this transubstantiation — a ridiculous claim when the root problem with docetism is a complete denial of Christ’s flesh, not a denial of a transformation in the Eucharist. If the docetists were defined by rejection of the transubstantiation, then why would they uniformly refuse to eat?
-Wm
“Slippery slope” is the name of an argument and the name of an informal fallacy. The way you use it it’s a fallacy — slippery slopes need not be bidirectional.
There are churches that DID that once when they were founded. There are none that I know of that sustain it, although some claim to (for example, churches that claim to have no liturgy); a cultural institution without any tradition is a contradiction in terms.
Pedigree is important.
More in a second…
There’s a problem here. Scripture contains precisely those traditions which have a well-known “pedigree” — that is, they were recorded by an apostle or someone under the direct authority of an apostle, and then they were available to the whole Church. The thing that the RCC calls “tradition” is precisely the opposite of this: it’s teaching that was NOT known to be given from an apostle, NOT known to the entire church. Many of the details of modern Catholic dogma are specifically notable for being denied in the ancient church! I earlier mentioned the sixth canon of the council of Nicea, which limited the authority of Rome: “Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.”
So how do you get away with claiming a “pedigree” on precisely the distinctive points for which there is no pedigree whatsoever? All you have is a succession of names — from Pope Gelasius I, who anathematized the oldest attested documents that indirectly referenced the bodily assumption of Mary; through John of Damascus, who propagated the legend in an apparent attempt to imitate the story of Mohammed’s assumption; to (finally) Pope Pius XII declaring it dogma. All officials of the Church; the first and last of whom are in the official succession of popes — but each disagreeing with each other on the content of what is now called a dogma.
How is this a…
I disagree that this is at the heart of the debate. It does not touch on the Roman church’s practice of asserting as dogma things which have no scriptural support whatsoever, not even in the most remote interpretation.
However, setting that aside for the moment, I agree that it is an important issue. Who DOES have the authority to interpret scripture? It seems to me that the answer has to be the same people who have the responsibility of interpreting scripture. Authority and responsibility must be everywhere balanced. So, who has the responsibility to interpret Scripture? It seems to me that the answer is “the one who reads (or hears, or preaches) it.” This places the responsibility most heavily on the preachers and their trainers or leaders; but it inheres also to every single follower. In short, it applies to the Church with a capital C — not solely to the leaders in the hierarchy, although their exclusive job should be to promote true interpretations.
Now, I grant that the Church leadership, including the Roman hierarchy, has the authority to ensure doctrinal correctness. But this gives them also the responsibility of doing so! And Christ called down many curses on those who had that specific responsibility and did not fulfill it. Yet the Roman church, rather than being eager to prove the righteousness of their interpretation, simply claim that their interpretation is right because of who they are. They claim that they cannot possibly err!
-Wm
To wm tanksley’s main points:
When Lisa said that for the RCC, Scripture is “a supreme authority,” that’s somewhat misleading. Protestants are so used to treating the Bible like it’s *all* we’ve got to go on, that it requires quite a paradigm shift to even understand what the Bible is from within the RCC tradition.
wm tanksley says the authority to interpret the Bible should be given to the pastors and leaders. Well, the fruits of that approach are clear for all to see. People who ALL seem to take it as their utmost authority disagree all over the place on what it says. It’s ultimately every man for himself to figure out who, if indeed anyone, is right. What you describe as “the Church” is most certainly NOT the Church; it’s not even *a* Church. It’s a scattered sum of individuals trying to figure it out themselves, or else just taking someone’s word for it who has speaking charisma and/or tells them what they want to hear (Matt. 9:36).
Contra tanksley, “apostolic” does NOT mean holding exclusively to what the Bible explicitly says: If so, the term would be redundant, and we could just say “one holy catholic and Bible-believing church.” But as Lisa has pointed out, don’t be impressed that someone claims to be “Biblical” – all that means is “my interpretation, which is clearly the correct one.” The RCC belief about itself is that IT is apostolic: that Jesus gave authority to the apostles, which was meant to be PASSED DOWN by holy ordination. THIS, plus a papacy, is sufficient to ensure a single unified Church, which Jesus explicitly promised would endure. Apostolic authority is how Scripture got canonized in the first place, as well as other teachings (the “traditions” St. Paul emphasizes) not found explicitly in the NT. For the first few centuries before it was canonized, how could someone say, even in principle, “show me where it says that in the Bible”? No RCC teaching contradicts Scripture (although it may contradict “your…
WM,
The point I was trying to make is that while it is certainly hopeless circular the RCC believes that the Bible sets them up as an infallible authority to interpret the Bible. Then with that in mind they interpret the Bible to give them that authority.
I know it is circular and I disagree with it strongly, however I went to a Catholic Law School (I’m Baptist, but it was the only decent option at the time for what I was looking for in a law school). Though many students weren’t RC many were and I had a lot of interesting discussions with students and faculty and even some priests who were RC. Not a single one of them believes that their traditions violate Scripture. Now many will admit that their traditions go beyond Scripture, but they see that as being authority given to them by Scripture to do. So when the Pope declares the perpetual virginity of Mary to be a doctrine for a Roman Catholic this is Biblical in the sense that the Bible gives the Church the power to do this.
Ultimately in order to unravel the entire thing one has to attack the RCC claim that the Bible gives them this authority (and this is why I am not RCC – I don’t believe the Bible gives a particular hierarchy the authority the RCC claims). Yet this in turn raises the issue of who can authoritatively interpret Scripture. I have made the conclusions that 1) I can interpret Scripture for myself (of course I look at church history and other factors outside of myself – but I still weigh the evidence and determine which factors are conclusive), and 2) Based upon my interpretation the RCC does not have the authority they claim. However, if I am wrong on either of these two counts I’m in trouble. It’s a risk I am willing to take, but it is a risk. For some people (even me – though to a lesser extent then others – I like thinking independently most of the time) there is certainly an attractiveness to having everything settled for you and not having to struggle with things on your own.
It’s a risk I am willing to take, but it is a risk.
A risk well worth taking, considering the alternative.
For some people (even me – though to a lesser extent then others – I like thinking independently most of the time) there is certainly an attractiveness to having everything settled for you and not having to struggle with things on your own.
Death, too, can be attractive – i.e., no longer having to struggle with the problems of life.
No, thanks. I prefer the struggle to having some magisterium tell me what and how to think. Call me stubborn. 🙂
It was Michael who said that the RCC always held Scripture as “the ultimate authority”, not Lisa. I agree that it’s misleading, and I attempted to disagree with it. I hope I was clear. The RCC does NOT take Scripture as “the ultimate authority”; on the contrary, they hold that the Church is the ultimate authority; Scripture is authoritative essentially because it is directly from the Church. This doesn’t deny authority to the Scriptures (to cut off a common misunderstanding), but it makes it sometimes less directly applicable than that wielded by the current Church (and of course, less enforceable).
But you badly mischaracterise the Protestant position when you accuse them of treating the Bible “like it’s all we’ve got to go on”. That’s not what Sola Scriptura means at all. In essence, sola scriptura is the converse of the above: rather than Scripture taking form and authority from the Church, the Church takes form and authority from the Scriptures. Again, this does not strip the Church of authority; rather, it makes its authority answerable to the Scriptures.
That’s more of a twisting than a summary. I actually said that the responsibility rests on “the one who reads”, but I parenthetically added “(or hears, or preaches)”. Naturally, in accordance with Christ’s clear teaching, and common sense, greater responsibility is on the teacher (whether pastor or bishop), but this doesn’t allow the listener to escape: James makes that clear. To be continued…
Your claim against my explanation is irrelevant and applies against yourself as well. People who claim a religious head disagree on which head it will be (Mormons say a prophet; JWs point to a council; the EO Church points to the collective bishops; and the Roman church points to the Pope). Even counting only those who claim allegiance to the Pope, you have enormous range of dissent; from sedevacantists; through the run-of-the-mill Catholic who listens to and obeys his teaching priest and doesn’t even know that what he’s hearing isn’t, strictly speaking, official; through people who sign petitions advocating new Marian dogmas; to the cardinals themselves; to the antipopes (none currently, unless you agree with the sedevacantists); and of course to the current Pope. And of course, you Catholics have the same Liberal, Postmodern, and Higher Critical problems that we Protestants have.
So doctrinal diversity is not, in fact, reduced by insisting on a single infallible source, whether the source is human (a Pope) or informational (Scriptures). In fact, Christ may have hinted to us that we will always have poisonous “doctrinal diversity” in the Church, in the parable of the Tares.
Is it, then, every man for himself? No. We have the Holy Spirit, working through Scriptures, individual wisdom, our peers, our parents, our local church teachers and leaders, and the teachings of the churches in every age. The same as you have.
-Wm
No — it’s all the people who have been granted repentance and the forgiveness of sins through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, and who are predestined by God to be conformed to the image of His Son. Your reductionism proves nothing; the same thing can be said about the Roman church, if one ignores everything that makes the Roman church distinctive as you’ve ignored everything that makes the Church distinctive. Yes, we may be scattered individuals; but by the grace of God we are also MORE than scattered individuals.
-Wm
No, it doesn’t. What’s irrelevant is the existence of “cafeteria Catholics” with regard to whether there is such a thing as Church Authority. One may as well point to the prevalence of divorce to show that there’s something intrinsically wrong with traditional heterosexual marriage.
This is demonstrably false. The RCC has a clearly delineated set of doctrines, disagreement from which places one outside orthodoxy. Matters that range outside such doctrines are those within with disagreements are allowed within orthodoxy.
As far as *which* authority to choose, for those legitimately wanting a objective authority, why cults like JW & LDS don’t choose one that has an unbroken continuous lineage back to the Apostles on whom Jesus founded his Church, you’ll have to ask them (the choice between RCC and EO is a separate issue; I am assuming that they are both at least legitimately apostolic in their pedigree).
You’ve defined the Church purely in terms of a sum of individuals, but why call that a “Church” at all? Does it have any of the intrinsic unity and visible functionality of a Body? Not at all. It would be more honest to bite the bullet and say that there is no Church or that it’s not important.
…ultimately, one’s own wisdom to *decide among* all these disagreeing sources, and whether one is indeed being guided by the HS. The alternative: be taught by The Church, to whom Jesus gave authority and promised would endure.
That’s true. Note that the Bible supports you in this, for example because most of the Bible (the Old Testament) wasn’t written by apostles.
No, that’s not “all it means”. It means that you’re claiming to be willing to submit to the Bible. It means, therefore, that anyone who disagrees with you but who also claims to be Biblical can persuade you by showing it to you in the Bible. You yourself have an obligation to submit to the Scriptures, since you claim to be apostolic, and the apostles taught submission to the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament.
I claim that ‘Apostolic’ means the same thing, but for the teachings of the apostles rather than strictly the text of the Scriptures. (CMP concurs, by the way.) Since the apostles taught us to trust, honor, and obey the Scriptures, being apostolic would imply being Biblical.
Even if I accept this as a definition of ‘apostolic’ (which I don’t), this is only a partial definition of what it means to be apostolic, because you’re omitting what happens when an ordained minister becomes apostate, as Protestants claim the vast majority of the Roman church’s leadership has. I’ll look next at the plausibility of that Protestant claim (given your claim that Christ promised a preservation of His Church).
-Wm
Let this serve as your definition of “apostolic”, then. You’ve heard mine. The major problem with your definition — only partially addressed in the next sentence — is that it omits the problem of apostasy. And this is exactly the problem here. I don’t claim that the Roman church lacks a line of ordination back to the original apostles; rather, I claim that the line is sullied by apostasy, and thus the current leaders need to repent and return.
You claim that the because Christ promised that the Church will not become apostate, therefore the Roman church will not become apostate; but Christ spoke many times of entire churches and peoples falling away, and yet His purposes would be fulfilled. Revelations directs these warnings at specific churches.
No, apostolic authority is how the New Testament got written, and why the Old Testament is referred to as “scripture”. It was canonized by all the local churches observing the texts which had been observed early and by all (or most) local churches. This inquiry was done sporadically through the early Church, and more commonly as the problem of redactors and false gospels become common (we have evidence of this). The Church did not have to wait for the council of Trent; nor did it at some earlier point authoritatively declare something to be Scripture which was not Scripture before; rather, it accepted the Scripture it was given with authority and signs from the apostles who penned, dictated, or (apparently in the case of Hebrews) spoke it.
Like many Protestants, I believe we have a fallible canon of infallible writings.
-Wm
Micah, I also want to challenge your statement that the Pope and Holy Ordination is “sufficient” for a unified church. Given the Roman church’s own internal schisms, and its factual disunity, how can you claim that? What is your definition of “unity” that the Roman Catholic Church meets, but the Church as a whole doesn’t? (If you’re going to submit the question-begging “submission to Rome”, then I return that many or most Catholics don’t submit to Rome; and historically, Rome has been split more than a few times, starting with the very early Church where there was more than one top bishop in Rome.)
Only one more post to make!
-Wm
No council released, nor Pope endorsed, any putatively complete list until Trent. Are you saying that literally none of the Church Fathers who claimed to be citing “Scripture” were actually doing so? When Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies and claimed that in his third book he would “adduce proofs from the Scriptures…” When Athanasius listed the books he recognized as scripture… Both of those were mistaken? Or lying? Or arrogating to themselves authority they didn’t have?
How does this make sense?
-Wm
I have no idea how you’re succeeding in posting consecutive comments; when I tried that earlier I got relegated to the spam file. And now even if I want to post one comment, I have to email Michael to pull it out of the spam pile to post. Consequently, I can’t possibly keep up with you in this particular forum.
Besides that, the commenting rules for this blog explicitly state that it should *not* be used as a forum, and the comments on this post have gone way past that. In the interests of respecting the blog owner’s wishes, we really need to have this discussion elsewhere. My own blog is actually a place that I would welcome any and all questions about the Catholic Church; in fact, that’s its purpose. Which particular forum is used isn’t really important, I just know that this isn’t supposed to be a forum, and I can’t get it to work well at my end anyway…
Good point. I think it would be better to attack their claim that they hold this authority specially — i.e. in a way that other churches don’t hold — but I see what you meant.
To a certain extent one HAS to choose which interpretation to accept, of course; even if one sticks with the Roman church, one will have multiple conflicting “authoritative” interpretations of any given doctrine or passage from which one MUST pick a single one. But one need not choose merely between lone-wolf interpretation and the Roman hierarchy; the Bible is clear on the need for trained teachers, and in fact the Holy Spirit gifts some of us (the members of Christ’s body) to be those teachers, so any organized church can conceivably meet that need (not that I’m claiming that ALL churches will).
You may as well worry that you’re in trouble if a group of martians have the authority. The modern Roman church is as foreign to scriptural authority as they are; they have (over the martians) a succession of names, but they disobey the leadership of those past people in order to aggrandize their own power, so therefore they deny the authority of their own past church. The more plausible claim is from the Orthodox church, which accepts the authority of their own past, making their doctrines of authority internally consistent.
-Wm
Huh, good question. I don’t know — it might have to do with my long history here.
Can you post a link to your blog? Or what are some keywords I could use to find your blog?
-Wm
166. Micah on 01 Sep 2010 at 1:28 pm #
As far as *which* authority to choose, for those legitimately wanting a (sic) objective authority, why cults like JW & LDS don’t choose one that has an unbroken continuous lineage back to the Apostles on whom Jesus founded his Church, you’ll have to ask them (the choice between RCC and EO is a separate issue; I am assuming that they are both at least legitimately apostolic in their pedigree).
On what “objective” basis can you demonstrate that the RCC is “an objective authority”?
E.g., while I think one can be objective (i.e., uninfluenced by one’s emotions or subjective opinions or beliefs) when stating what the Biblical text says, because the actual words are what they are in space and time, regardless of how they’re understood or interpreted, to say that one’s church or institution has an authority derived from the Scriptures or its authors or its authors’ authority that is itself an “objective” authority (i.e., an authority that is uninfluenced by emotions or subjective opinions or beliefs), is, I think, to misapply the term “objective.”
Micah
“I have no idea how you’re succeeding in posting consecutive comments; when I tried that earlier I got relegated to the spam file.”
I can’t give a specific answer to this because I’m not a admin here. However, having been here for awhile I can give my observation. “Chain posting” is generally prohibited. However, if it is only two posts posted back to back or something like that it will generally be ignored so long as it isn’t continual. Once you post three back to back you are pushing you’re luck.
It also makes a difference whether or not you’re posts are responses addressed to different people. For instance if I wrote this post to you and then wrote another one right after this directed at something WM or Eric said it would probably be acceptable since I am addressing different issues in my posts even though they are technically back to back. What CMP and the admins seem to be trying to avoid is someone who comes in and decides that this is the appropriate place to post their doctoral dissertation.
But isn’t this kind of replacing the original post? And why is that acceptable? I think those who have such a bent that that they have to do this should question their own motive. Sorry, but this is CMP’s blog, whether we always agree with it or not, we are certainly not to think we have to take it over.
And certainly by the the large number of posts by one person that has certainly become apparent.
I’d say if your post exceeds the number of words in the original, or is so much better in your eyes, get your own blog, whoever you are.
Michael T,
I am not addressing your posts, which are replying to the comments, but to the one that is spamming this post.
Guys, there is no spamming going on. That is not the reason that Micah’s comments are going to spam.
Micah, I think there is something about your e-mail address that is keeping your comments going to spam. I have no idea how to correct it. I’ve been detained from jumping back in this discussion but I do the spam queue for comments. Please feel free to continue commenting.
Lisa,
I am not talking about Michah’s comments which are honest questions but the others here that have been taking over the post. That shouldn’t be hard to pick out, at least it isn’t for some of us who have been trying to follow this thread, at least as CMP has laid it out. Is this other poster speaking for him? There has sure been a long discourse of comments that makes one think otherwise.
Just saying… please let us know the difference.
Yes, I think Michael’s use of the word “spam” is in the original sense, as in circa ’95 when I started seeing it used on email listservs to mean “internecine conversations conducted by means of hitting “Reply to All” instead of taking it offline.”
Thanks, Lisa, for the invite to continued commenting, but I still don’t feel comfortable participating in a “hijacking” when the blog’s commenting rules clearly forbid it. The uphill battle of trying to address mushrooming misconceptions and confusions make it beyond any foreseeable wrapping up in this context.
To wm tanskley’s question, click on my name next to any of my comments. I actually just yesterday posted my “conversion story” from lifelong Protestantism to the RCC. Any and all questions and challenges are more than welcome. Seriously, ask me anything. But first, I would recommend this site/blog: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/ which has a large amount of *excellent* material written by “Reformed” Christians who ended up joining the RCC. Honest seekers will find it an eye-opener, I think.
Finally, just to address one very important question: by “objective” I mean, has unbroken apostolic succession by holy ordination (both RCC and EO have this; and no, this is not just a “list of names”) and is a single unified institution (oh yes it is; see my comment #166) that is *catholic* (i.e., universal) in not being tied to any particular ethnic origin or nation (unlike the EO).
Mbaker,
This was Lisa, not CMP’s post so I guess it is up to her to determine whether or not someone is hijacking it.
Nobody’s saying it is acceptable — not even I, who did it. I’m waiting until Micah can tell me his blog’s URL or some keywords I can use to find it…
-Wm
Wm Tanksley,
To get to Micah’s blog, simply click on his name by the comment #. Try it in his last comment above, #80.
I backed out of this discussion ages ago. I simply didn’t have the time to engage. I have followed along with the comments here and there via email.
I have seen some excessive posting by some folks and at times it was borderline off point and out of sync with the original blog post. I probably would have closed comments if folks didn’t comply with requests to keep it succinct and on point. But then it’s not my blog post so it wouldn’t be my place to police it.
I’m actually not as tolerant as Lisa or Michael so God bless ’em. Thankfully, I don’t blog often enough for my lack of tolerance to matter.
Anyhoo…
Micah I just emailed you. Perhaps the issue of your comments landing in our spam filter has been resolved.
Thanks, Carrie, I’ll use that for future commenting (on other posts, where if I want to comment I’ll try to keep it concise!).
Understand I don’t mean to self-promote here, it’s just that the commenting guidelines say “that’s great you have so much to say; get your own blog,” and, well, I do have one. I would do just email exchanges except that unfortunately I tend to get even more snippy over email, and need to feel that I’m being held accountable in some public forum or other.
mbaker, did I offend you? Please explain and I’ll be happy to ask forgiveness. Specifically, it looks as though you see my posts as dishonest (post #179). I can understand “overwhelming”, and I do admit that I WAY overposted and will be very careful to control that in the future — but I was not to my knowledge speaking untruthfully.
-Wm
No, Wm, you did not offend me personally, so there is no need to ask for forgiveness. I just found the length of the posts, sometimes 3 a day, a little overwhelming, and at times a bit off topic. I realize that I’m not the blog police, and not trying to be, but it is good for all of us to keep in mind that the rules of this particular blog do state guidelines for the length of comments. That applies to all of us, unless of course, we are the author of the original post. And thanks to Michael T for reminding me that Lisa wrote this post. Sorry for the oversight, Lisa. I realize that she and CMP and others who who author the blog don’t have time to moderate every comment, that’s why out of common courtesy I think we need to self-regulate ourselves when it comes to the length of our comments.
So no biggie, except for that. Thanks for your concern and your recognition of that. You have made many good points to consider, and while I might not agree with everything all the time, I do respect your attention to detail and the time you spend on doing your research.
Micah, thank you. I’m preparing a reply, which will follow the intro post at my own mostly-unused blog. If you’d like to post something to correct my initial “take” on the issues, whether at your own blog or as a comment on mine (I think Google automatically detects linkbacks to specific posts, and I’ve enabled that on my blog’s configuration), I’ll be more than happy to alter my outline.
Ok, so I’ve been looking through the comments from the past week, and do see some heavy hands in chain posting. This has been a good conversation but please keep comments to one or 2 at a time. Thanks.
To this comment here
This of course is where we Protestants (yes I am affirmedly one) have to part ways. The apostolic authority is passed down through the teaching by which the church adheres as a matter of faith and practice. Catholics consider the teaching separate from tradition and roll everything under the authority of the church to determine what is compatible with the apostolic tradition. But the apostolic teaching itself should ensure ecclesiastical unity and not necessarily what is dictated through an infallible office that is occupied by fallible men. As I mentioned in the post, while I appreciate the unity the papal office seeks to uphold, I can’t agree with its existence as authoritative representation of apostolic succession.
But of course, I realize that Protestants and Catholics will never see eye to eye on this issue.
Alrighty then, so the whack-a-mole game of quashing misconceptions continues… 😉
It sounds as though you mean there was a settled deposit of apostolic teaching (i.e., at least roughly, the NT), and then the traditional Church became its official guardian and valid interpreter. But the idea of the NT as a settled deposit of apostolic teaching is a specifically Protestant one, which Catholics don’t share. (This assumption about the NT is so ingrained for Protestants that it’s often very hard for them to recognize it as an assumption. See also the “fallacy of incomplete analysis” that I mentioned earlier.) So it definitely is NOT that “Catholics consider the teaching separate from tradition”; on the contrary, it’s that the whole fabric of written Scripture and (originally unwritten) tradition forms a continuous whole.
The Protestant objection to the RCC tends to be that they went way beyond their guardianship of the initial settled deposit of the NT and added a bunch of extraneous stuff to it. But the RCC position about itself and its doctrines is that it is all a gradual natural outgrowth of what was implicitly there from the beginning, including gradual canonization of the NT books themselves, and making doctrines explicit as they were fully thought through and systematized; hence, doctrine naturally develops over time, as an oak tree from an acorn. (I myself think this is a much more reasonable picture of historical continuity.)
And it does – the fact that some disagree with some teachings is no point against it. The alternative would be to please as many people as possible by making doctrine democratically defined.
Actually, I thought Lisa put this one VERY well.
You have to read her in context: she first said that apostolic authority is passed down through the ages as teachings, not as a distinct thing that the Church possesses. Thus, what she’s saying is that unlike Protestants, “Catholics consider the [apostolic] teaching separate from the [apostolic] authority.”
The modern Roman church holds that they have the authority to define new doctrines, even ones that the apostles were not known to teach (except in hints). This is the meaning of the switch from the medieval doctrine of partim/partim revelation to the modern doctrine of material sufficiency: the medieval Roman church believed that the apostles made one deposit of revelation through two sources (Tradition and Scriptures), while the modern Roman church now believes that the apostles made one primary deposit of revelation (Scripture), and one primary deposit of authority (Tradition), and the two support one another indirectly.
-Wm
Micah, I wasn’t going to respond here, but you “called me out” on my blog as using a fallacy by saying that “cafeteria Catholics” were the disproof of Roman authority, and you requested a response. (Thank you for your graciousness.) So I posted a response on my blog. In a nutshell, I didn’t intend to imply anything about cafeteria Catholics (and didn’t mention them at all); I was talking about the teaching authorities of the Roman church.
I’ve also provided a specific example of a Pope who has been infallibly declared to have committed heresy in composing a letter that many Catholics admit has all the external signs of being ex cathedra; my point is that a loyal Catholic can’t tell which statement is infallible and which statement is fallible; they have to use their own judgement.
-Wm
I have to disagree with one point that keeps coming up, which Hodge wrote as
“but the point of our disagreement is over sola fidei with faith defined apart from the works it produces.”
I think evangelicals have the same understanding of faith and works that some of the Catholics in this discussion have observed – i.e. that they go hand in hand and you can’t have one without the other.
I constantly hear evangelicals making this argument.
I think to condemn a different tradition for framing the same idea in different words is ridiculous.
It’s sad that this blog ignores the ecumenical movement, the true history of the Catholic Church (pertaining to its full embrace of apostasy), and ex-Catholics who know what they’re talking about. Catholicism quickly became pagan centuries ago and remains thus. The ecumenical movement was started by compromises- Catholics changed their doctrine to appear more “Christian” and apostates changed the bible/made new versions to appease Catholicism and paganism. Anyone who truly knows Catholicism knows it isn’t Christian. To say it is Christian is to listen to Satan. Praying to Mary, angels, and dead people can never be justified and is idolatry. Going to a priest to have him pray each body part out of hell is foolish and dismisses Jesus and his sacrifice. Purgatory is a lie. At best, Catholicism is equivalent to apostate Christianity. That means Catholics live to please God by following, at best, partial truths. And, of course, many Protestants are following suit and excusing evil.
Both Protestantism and Catholicism are built on a long history of intuitive assumptions based on perceptional fallacies which prevent each of these traditions from capturing the ever illusive ontology of the effusive presence of the Thou in juxtaposition to the existential I or community of we in authentic concrete relationships. May I suggest Jesus, pure and simple as the way, the truth, and the life? Hey, it worked for me.
Protestants come up with new traditions of Scripture all the time.” Look at the Pre Trib rapture. An honest look at the Early Church writings one will see that Christians always believed the Church would experience the tribulation.
A big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is 1. We at least do look for hints of said teaching in the early church.
2. We don’t allow “new interpertations” to contradict long held traditions.
I do want to point out quietly to the person who said they don’t want the Eucharist to be like the Catholics described.
It is not for us to say what we want the Eucharist to be. Its suppose to be how Christ wants it to be. The Jewish people rejected Jesus as their messiah because they didn’t want a suffering servant.
Christ is fully human he’s also God, and God is omnipotent. God I suspect is fully everywhere. Its also his glorified body, or bodies may be different too when its glorified.
The Eucharist was instituted by Christ-for his purposes. And Catholic teaching is he wants us to partake of his body so we can become one with him and more like him. So we can “literally be the temple of the Holy Ghost0. You are what we eat and by partaking of him we can be more like him.
I became Catholic partly because I realized what I want, what I thought, mattered little. But it was what God wanted and what God thought.
The undercurrent of patronizing tone here, as if it’s Catholicism which has something to contribute, rather than the being the source of truth standing firm against Protestant asininity, is amusing.
Kudo. You are to be commended for your insight and courage.
Jason, what you fail to see (in my opinion) is that mental assent alone is not enough; true there must be that commitment, but it also takes the efficacy of the Holy Spirit to bring about the New Birth. Otherwise, by just thinking the right thoughts, even those that are acted out (as in good works), would be sufficient. Thus, the contiguity is the Spirit is required to bring about the New Birth. The key to understanding what these canons are contexually saying is the word “alone” is not sufficient. Protestants have a tendency to think in terms of either/or; whereas, both Catholic (and I believe Biblical theology) presents a both/and choice. Take care.
Jason, what you fail to see (in my opinion) is that mental assent alone is not enough; true there must be that commitment, but it also takes the efficacy of the Holy Spirit to bring about the New Birth. Otherwise, by just thinking the right thoughts, even those that are acted out (as in good works), would be sufficient. Thus, the contiguity is the Spirit is required to bring about the New Birth. The key to understanding what these canons are contexually saying is the word “alone” is not sufficient. Protestants have a tendency to think in terms of either/or; whereas, both Catholic (and I believe Biblical theology) presents a both/and choice. Take care.