The Reformation is over. Catholics 0, Protestants 1

triablogue ^ | April 13, 2015 | Jerry Walls

[RnMomof7]

I'm going to transcribe an article that Jerry Walls wrote when he was a grad student at Notre Dame:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am nearing the end of three very happy (with a brief interlude) years as a graduate student in the philosophy department at Notre Dame. The philosophy department is quite lively and stimulating and I have learned a great deal about my discipline.

Along the way, I have also acquired an education of another sort–namely in the ways of the Roman Catholic Church. My education in this regard has been informal and piecemeal, to be sure. My insights have been gathered from diverse sources: from lectures, from letters to the Observer, from articles in the conservative magazine Fidelity, from interaction with undergraduates I have taught. But most of all, I have learned from numerous conversations with students and faculty in the philosophy and theology departments, many of which have involved a friend who is a former Roman Catholic seminarian. While my informal education in these matters hardly qualifies me to speak as an authority, Roman Catholics may find interesting how one Protestant in their midst has come to perceive them. I can communicate my perceptions most clearly, I think, by briefly describing three types of Catholics I have encountered. 

First, I have met a fair number of conservative Catholics. Those who belong to this group like to characterize themselves as thoroughly Catholic. They stress the teaching authority of the Church and are quick to defend the official Catholic position on all points. For such persons, papal encyclicals are not to be debated; they are to be accepted and obeyed. Many conservative Catholics, I suspect, hold their views out of a sense of loyalty to their upbringing. Others, however, defend their views with learning, intelligence, and at times, intensity.

At the other end of the spectrum of course, are the liberal Catholics. These persons are openly skeptical not only about distinctively Roman doctrines such as papal infallibility, but also about basic Christian doctrine as embodied in the ecumenical creeds. It is not clear in what sense such persons would even be called Christians. Nevertheless, if asked their religious preference, on a college application say, they would identify themselves as Catholics. I have no idea how many Catholics are liberals of this stripe, but I have met only a few here at Notre Dame.

It is the third type of Catholic, I am inclined to think, which represents the majority. Certainly most of the Catholics I have met are of this type. I call this group "functional protestants."

Many Catholics, no doubt, will find this designation offensive, so let me hasten to explain what I mean by it. One of the fundamental lines of difference between Catholics and Protestants, going back to the Reformation, concerns the issue of doctrinal authority. The traditional Roman Catholic view, as I understand it, is that its official teachings are guaranteed to be infallible, particularly when the pope or an ecumenical council exercises "extraordinary magisterium" when making doctrinal or moral pronouncements. Protestants have traditionally rejected this claim in favor of the view that Scripture alone is infallible in matters doctrinal and moral. This was the conviction MartinLuther came to hold after he arrived at the conclusion that both popes and church councils have erred. After this, his excommunication was all but inevitable.

When I say most Catholics are functional Protestants I simply mean that most Catholics do not accept the authority claims of their Church. In actual belief and practice, they are much closer to the Protestant view.

This is apparent from the fact that many Catholics do not accept explicitly defined dogmas of their Church. For example, I have talked with several Catholics who are doubtful, at best, about the Marian dogmas, even though these have the status of infallible doctrine in their church. Such Catholics have often made it clear to me that they believe the basic Christian doctrine as defined in the creeds. But they frankly admit that they think their Church has taken some wrong turns in her recent history. Where this is the case, they do not feel compelled to follow. As one of my functional Protestant friends put it: "I am a Roman Catholic, but I am more concerned about being Catholic than about being Roman."

That many Catholics are functionally Protestant is also evident in their attitude toward the distinctive moral teachings of their Church. The obvious example here is the Roman Catholic teaching that all forms of "artificial" birth control are immoral. The official view was reaffirmed explicitly by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, and has been reiterated again and again by Pope John Paul II. Nevertheless, as the article on Humanae Vitae in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion noted, "the papal ban is simply being ignored," and "a concrete authority crisis has thus emerged."

I attended the recent debate on abortion between Fr. James Burtchaell and Daniel Maguire. It is interesting to me that Fr. Burtchaell who eloquently defended the conservative view on abortion, admitted to a questioner that he rejects his Church's teaching on birth control. I could not help but wonder: is Fr. Burtchaell, Catholic statesman though he is, also among the functional Protestants?

This raises, of course, the deeper issue here: to what extent can a member of the Roman Catholic Church disagree with the official teachings of his Church and still be a faithful Catholic? Can one reject the teaching of a papal encyclical while remaining a faithful Catholic? If so, can he also reject a doctrine which the pope has declared infallible?

I have put these questions to several Catholics. Conservative have assured me that the answer to both the latter questions is no. Others insist the answer is yes.

This brings me to a final point concerning functional Protestants: they do consider themselves faithful Catholics. I have  often pointed out in conversation with such Catholics that their views differ little from mine. Why then remain Catholic I ask. In response, these Catholics make it clear to me that they love their Church and intend to remain loyal to it. More than one has compared the Church to his family. One's family makes mistakes, but one does not therefore choose to join another family.

I am not sure what to make of this response. It is not clear to me that one can line up behind Luther in holding that the Popes and councils have erred in their doctrinal and moral pronouncements, and still be a faithful Catholic.  But on the other hand, things have changed since the 16C. It is no longer the case that a Catholic will be excommunicated for holding what Luther held. Perhaps this is just another sign that the Reformation is–despite the pope's best efforts–finally taking hold within the Roman Church. 

Jerry Walls, "Reformational Theology found in Catholicism," The Observer, Thursday, April 23, 1978, p8.

[Salvation]

Acts
Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[delchiante]

Quote-
The apostles would attend the synagogue on Saturdays and then on Sundays meet for an agape meal and the Eucharist in a home church. You can see this in the book of Acts where they all lived in one community.

You are assuming that the pope Gregory calendar is the biblical calendar.
It isn’t. It misses one important day each month, a new moon day.
It is why Ezekiel 46 details three types of days:
New moon days
6 (not 5) Work Days
And Sabbath.

It is why people, if observant, can see things like Passover ( the real day the Lamb laid His life down for the sins of the world) ‘floats’ around the calendar.
Passover, the 14th day our Heavenly Father’s calendar, is ALWAYS the 6th and final work day , according to the template He gave ezekiel.
The Son finished His Work on Passover and that hasn’t changed if Passover ‘lands’ on a pope Gregory Monday..( like it did for Jew in 2014)

Saturnsday is no more holy than sun’s days..

But people who use Rome to tell time, woudnt see that..

That is prophetic if one sees Rome as the 4th kingdom in Daniel 7 that changes times and laws..

[Salvation]

Acts 4:32-37

The community of believers was of one heart and mind,
and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own,
but they had everything in common.
With great power the Apostles bore witness
to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,
and great favor was accorded them all.
There was no needy person among them,
for those who owned property or houses would sell them,
bring the proceeds of the sale,
and put them at the feet of the Apostles,
and they were distributed to each according to need.

Thus Joseph, also named by the Apostles Barnabas
(which is translated “son of encouragement”),
a Levite, a Cypriot by birth,
sold a piece of property that he owned,
then brought the money and put it at the feet of the Apostles.

[goodwithagun]

Thank you for your post #154. God bless.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't think you're ready to understand this, since it requires a deep meditation on the full significance of the Incarnation of Christ our Lord, true God and true Man. By this I mean, His human nature which He got from His mother. It is all predicated on "He Who is mighty doing great things" for Mary as the maternal source of His flesh and blood, His incarnate nature.

He assumed a human nature from her for vast, deep purposes: one of which was to make us partakers in His divinity as He was a partaker in her--- and our -- our humanity.

This makes all the faithful, cooperators in the salvation of the world: even you, dear, Cynical Bear!

But I won't argue with you about this. It is beyond anything I could say to you--- on this forum, especially. Simply: Mary's maternity is the source --- on the human side --- of the Incarnation.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Christ didn't warn one church about what a different church was doing."

John did; Paul did too. And I believe Scripture is the word of God.

[CynicalBear]

>>John did; Paul did too.<<

Please show where Paul or John held one assembly responsible for what other another assembly did.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you. I always felt an affinity -— better, an affiliation (being made a daughter of) — Abraham, and of the People of Israel.

[CynicalBear]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. They didn’t really mean what they said.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I didn't say John or Paul held one assembly "responsible for" what another assembly did. I didn't advert to the idea of "responsibility" at all.

I was responding to what you said:

"Christ didn't warn one church about what a different church was doing."

On he contrary: John did; Paul did too. And I believe Scripture is the word of God.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But they did. They did in regard to Mary as the human (flesh and blood) source of the Incarnation of Christ, which she became because "He Who is mighty" had done great things for her.

[MamaB]

Thankfully.

[Faith Presses On]

http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm

Anti-semitism had been well-established by Catholicism long before Luther came along.

[Resettozero]

Cue the Twilight Zone!

I've decided that you show less respect for non-Catholic Christians than most RCs who post here, except for verga and a few more RCs.

Also, I think I show more respect for you as a FReeper than you do for any non-RC Christian on FR RF...and certainly for me.

You do realize that it's not you but rather, it's Catholicism, don't you?

[Faith Presses On]

That’s what that sentence means. And that is the problem with Catholics needing to defend their church as perfect at the expense of truth. God is perfect. God’s Word is perfect. But none of the churches in earth are. The evidence has shown that. It is infinitely better to admit flaws and imperfections that are truly there than to falsely deny them. God is truth and wrong-doing is to be confessed, not covered up. God’s church, made up of those who truly believe in Him (believe the Gospel) belongs to Him, but it is not Him.

[Resettozero]

That’s what that sentence means. And that is the problem with Catholics needing to defend their church as perfect at the expense of truth. God is perfect. God’s Word is perfect. But none of the churches in earth are. The evidence has shown that. It is infinitely better to admit flaws and imperfections that are truly there than to falsely deny them. God is truth and wrong-doing is to be confessed, not covered up. God’s church, made up of those who truly believe in Him (believe the Gospel) belongs to Him, but it is not Him.

You offered the above in response to post 41. What sentence do you mean? What is the meaning of this paragraph posted to me? Just picked a random post to reply to anyone in general for no particular reason?

[Roos_Girl]

That doesn’t matter, because the pope, who led the anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church is infallible. But Luther was just an anti-Semitic apostate. The whole anti-Semitic issue is ridiculous on both sides, as both sides *were* guilty of it and both sides have denounced those previous behaviors. And as pointed out up thread the muslims, homosexual and liberals are pounding at the gate while free person argue about why their version of Christ is the only one that is correct and everyone else is going to Hell.

[Mark17]

That is to be a scriptural answer..not a Roman one...Catholics have no hope.. they have no idea of their eternity until they stand in judgement

When I was a catholic, that was my unanswered question. Why, if I was supposedly in the only true church, was I sure I was going to Hell? I went to my parish priest with this question. I could tell he would have rather have been doing something else. I never got an answer, till I started reading my catholic family Bible. Then, I got my answer. I don't understand why anyone would refuse to accept assurance of salvation. It's a beautiful thing. Oh well, we keep on truckin.

[rbmillerjr]

“The Reformation is over. Catholics 0, Protestants 1 “

Correction...

The Reformation continues, splitting into disunity.

[Faith Presses On]

Something I notice is that Catholics here almost always simply ignore any evidence proving their beliefs wrong. So all they ever notice is anytime they show a Protestant to be wrong about anything In the same way their church is infallible to them because they can rationalize away anything wrong done by it. And because they acknowledge no faults in their church, they can then see it as perfect and flawless next to other churches. What would their church look like to them, though, if they judged it according to the same standards that they judge other churches?