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.

[dsat4life]

Thank you. The writer challenges the authority of the Catholic Church. And in so doing, sets up his own article as authoritative.

“Liberal” Catholics don’t have the right views in his opinion.

“Conservative” Catholics don’t have the right views in his opinion.

And the “third type” are off as well.

The only thing that is “right on the money”, in his opinion, is what he writes in this article.

Relativists just don’t get it.

[Salvation]

 

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

[Salvation]

Opinion and generalization

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/3263766/posts?page=667#667

[chajin]

There's only Catholicism. There ain't Liberal Catholicism or Conservative Catholicism. Just as there is only right and wrong.
Just as there is only one approved flavor of ice cream, miss marmestein. There is no other flavor than your favorite that will gain your approval. Just the one you like is right and others are wrong.

Axiological Lesson For The Day :-)

There are two branches of axiology, ethics and aesthetics. Ethics is right and wrong ("charity is right, stealing is wrong"); aesthetics is like and dislike ("I like club soda, I dislike Mountain Dew").

One of the hazards of having a society where all religion is voluntary and all religious institutions have to go out for business is that there is often a conflation of the ethical and the aesthetic.

On the laity side, people often choose churches on the basis of aesthetics, what the sanctuary looks like, what music is in the service, the level of liturgical folderol (to use a WFTD from this week :> ). This is because the congregant is going to believe that s/he wants to believe--at best, because s/he is led by God to believe, at worst because s/he wants to believe what s/he wants to believe.

On the clerical side, this creates a dilemma: what compromises for the sake of marketing are aesthetic and adiaphora, and what compromises would be ethical and leading to heterodoxy or heresy. There is, e.g., a huge difference between a church deciding to compromise with society and allow altar girls, or whether to compromise with society and support Planned Parenthood. A church that compromises with society on Planned Parenthood does not deserve to be called Christian, regardless of what other label it carries. But whether a church has only altar boys, or allows altar girls, or only the clergy, or maybe even decides not to have an altar--though I'm willing to quibble on that one--that is the type of question where the dilemma of American voluntary churches arises.

[hosepipe]

Ah.. so what happens at Notre Dame is right twice a day..
Probably accurate..

[GreyFriar]

As a 1969 graduate of St. Joseph’s College of Indiana, and a Protestant, I can see how Mr. Walls would write this, ten years after Vatican II. Vatican II created “a great disturbance in the force” of Roman Catholicism. That was just beginning when I was at St. Joe. Most of the Catholic students there would have fallen into his category 1 and perhaps some into his category 3, but they were faithful to their faith, although they had some “Protestant-like” reservations.

Category 2 liberals whom Mr. Walls saw, I did not see, of course the total “sea change” by both Vatican II and also the rise of liberation theology (communist inspired and planted into South America) was evident in 1978. The liberation theology was also evident in 1968 amongst the Maryknoll priests in South America.

Of course most of my friends were in the History and Education programs, the theater program and also many seminarians. I worked on campus during the summers to help pay my tuition, thus got to know the seminarians then. A good group of fellows, who were serious about their faith.

[HossB86]

Yes, those Catholics should join the billion plus protestants. Oh, that’s right. After 500 years, the Protestants keep splitting and are in aggregate still much smaller. I guess the “gates of hell” have not prevailed, but we do have plenty of diversions from preachers that handle snakes, to Bill Clinton claiming (Sola scriptura, as “everyman is his own priest” Bill sees it) that fellatio isn’t a sin or adultery, to a million other crackpot theories. It seems the only thing holding some of these people together is their contempt for Christ’s Church.

Oh, hey -- look everybody!!! Nearly ALL of the Catholic straw men together in one place! Come look quick!

Let's see here....

Preachers that handle snakes. Hmm. Exactly how does this fit? I don't handle snakes. I do believe in the word of God though. So why not tell me a little about what you believe... do you believe CCC 841? It states Catholics and Muslims believe in the same "merciful God." So do you believe in the same "God" as Muslims? If you're a properly catechized Catholic you're supposed to. Do you?

What does Bill Clinton have to do with anything? Didn't realize he was some sort of theologian. However, I did know a lot of Catholic Cultists in college that thought you could perform/receive fellatio and then go to confession and be absolved. So how does that fit? Those folks were, according to their statements to me "Devout Catholics."

As for the contempt for Christ's Church... well, if you mean Christ's Church to be all of those elected, called and saved, well, no one in that group holds contempt for itself (me included); however if you're making reference to the false assertion that the Roman Catholic Cult is "Christ's Church" -- well, I DO hold that falsehood in contempt... because it is false.

Hoss

[GreyFriar]

Well said to your post 14.

[HossB86]

What the author cannot change is Church teaching, which remains constant regardless of whether people follow it

Yup. Like CCC 841 that teaches Catholics believe in the same "god" as Muslims. Sounds like really sound teaching to me,

Hoss

[CynicalBear]

>>What the author cannot change is Church teaching, which remains constant regardless of whether people follow it.<<

So they still sell indulgences?

[CynicalBear]

Romans 3:2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

The Holy Spirit through Paul. He trumps Luther all day long.

[Mrs. Don-o]

>>Perhaps this is just another sign that the Reformation is–despite the pope's best efforts–finally taking hold within the Roman Church.<< Now that outa make some heads spin!

It's undoubtedly true. That's one reason so many nominal Catholics are pro-contraception, pro-gay-marriage, pro divorce/remarriage, etc. Living like other Americans, voting like other Americans (within a 2% margin plus or minus), reading Scripture by their own lights and doing what they think best.

[CynicalBear]

Are you one of those “personally offended” making it personal about yourself?

[CynicalBear]

You mean they don’t submit their “will and intellect” to the magisterium like they are required to do to be good Catholics?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Precisely, CB. You get the gold star for today.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Isn’t here a scene from Monty Python where 20 crusaders are about to be wiped out by a horde of Muslims. A fight breaks on between a Dominican and a Franciscan monk.

“Free will” “No predestination” they yell as they roll on the ground choking each other.

As this fight breaks out the horde on the hill starts charging.

This reminds me of that.

[Resettozero]

Clerics worry too much about propriety and what time is for tea.

I prefer they be released from their obligations to me and mine.

Clerics need to get a real job.

[Campion]

Like CCC 841 that teaches Catholics believe in the same "god" as Muslims.

It never uses the term "the same god," sorry. That's you're interpretation.

[Campion]

Perhaps this is just another sign that the Reformation is–despite the pope's best efforts–finally taking hold within the Roman Church.

He seems to be saying that the theology of the reformation is all about picking and choosing, disobedience to the faith one professes (and continues to profess), and conforming to the spirit of the age and the spirit of the world.

If I were I Protestant, I would find this article ... rather insulting.

[RoosterRedux]

CCC 841: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Huh?