The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church

Open Book ^ | May 6, 2007 | Amy Wellborn

[NYer]

Dr. Francis Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church. (He was raised Catholic and received the sacraments of initiation as a child and young person). 

Most of the post centers on the tussle over ETS matters and leadership, (he has resigned from the presidency) but:

There is a conversation in ETS that must take place, a conversation about the relationship between Evangelicalism and what is called the “Great Tradition,” a tradition from which all Christians can trace their spiritual and ecclesiastical paternity.  It is a conversation that I welcome, and it is one in which I hope to be a participant. But my presence as ETS president, I have concluded, diminishes the chances of this conversation occurring.  It would merely exacerbate the disunity among Christians that needs to be remedied. 

The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors.  I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it.  Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.

(Comments are open over there, btw. Worth a visit to add your support, if you like!)

[Zionist Conspirator]

First of all, thank you for your very detailed response to me and for your patience in the face of my own emotionalism on these issues.

Here's a difference which might or might not be relevant: It is Protestants who think of the RC Church as looking for excuses to excommunicate, anathematize, torture, etc its members.

Since when? Where do you folks come up with this stuff? You actually think that most Fundamentalist Protestants think you're not liberal enough?

The reality is that the RC Church expects that a great portion of the laity will not agree with the Church's teaching, and smaller portion of priests and deacons will be frankly disobedient (The only deacon I ever talked theology with was a heretic, fer shur), even some bishops will be kinda out there. Popes themselves are not inerrant if they're not speaking iex cathedra. Benedict XIV himself recently put something out about which he made it very clear that this was more in the nature of what you might call private thought than anything official.

I cannot help but wonder why the Catholic Church is so reticent about plainly stating its unpopular but still "official" teachings? Is it because such vociferousness has come to be associated (like Biblical inerrancy itself) with "sectarianism?" As I understand it there was once a time when the Popes were fire-breathers. I suppose those Popes were sectarians? Why can't today's clergy speak with the same voice as their predecessors in this church whose teachings are "unaltered?"

Protestants seem to make faith a work which must be done properly, so that the Fides quae creditur must be correct if salvation is to be assured.

Protestant faith is fiduciary and does not refer to the belief in Biblical inerrancy or in any other intellectual belief of Protestantism. It is Catholic faith that is intellectual and based on an acceptance of teachings.

I could be wrong about this, but that's what it looks like to me. But the RC Church places a lot of confidence in the mercy of Christ

Again, the idea of faith as "confidence in the promises of chr*st" is a Protestant idea (specifically Lutheran). The Catholic Church at one time condemned "confidence in the promises" (defining it as "presumption") and insisted that one is not saved for good and all until after life is over (till then the individual Catholic walks a tightrope over Hell, which could explain why many "saved" folks aren't in the least tempted by it, for all its historicity).

and while it tries to be clear about what orthodoxy is,

The Catholic Church hasn't been clear about what orthodoxy is for a very long time.

it doesn't necessarily get the vapors if Mrs. MacIllicuddy has some pretty weird ideas about things. We trust God to straighten things out and are happy to entrust Mrs. MacIllicuddy to His forgiving and gentle care.

It's too darn bad that the Church can't have the same attitude towards people trapped in the "error" of Biblical literalism. I notice that the bishops don't have the forbearance for Biblical Fundamentalism that they do for homosexuals, Communists, evolutionists, higher critics, etc. In fact I believe the American bishops issued a pastoral letter condemning "Biblical literalism." Now you can go to any diocesan web page and find a link to a ministry for "homosexual persons." Why does G-d love "homosexual persons" so much more than "literalist persons" that the former are greeted with honey and the latter with a fly swatter? And why does the Catholic Church worry so much about literalists offending intellectuals and scientists but could care less if literalists are offended? There are web sites out there that crow with pride that "the Catholic Church is fighting the fundamentalists." Why can't it fight homosexuals, or Communists, or higher critics? Why can't it even require its priests to at least believe in the real presence? The only thing in the world the Catholic Church feels comfortable condemning is Biblical Fundamentalism!

Would you believe the official newspaper of my own diocese ran an article once saying that the Catholic Church would concentrate on converting intellectuals and leave simple people for the fundamentalist churches (so much for being "the church of all mankind!") and ran another article lamenting that higher Biblical criticism couldn't be taught to children in public schools????

Yes, I know you don't believe me. But the point is that the belief of people in the pew and even of some clergy is not necessarily identical with the teaching of the Church.

Wouldn't you agree that books with the imprimatur should be orthodox? Yet everything from Marxism to new age to German higher criticism has been published with the imprimatur that is supposed to indicate that the book contains orthodox Catholic teaching!

Even "conservative" Catholic apologists like the late Frank Sheed were evolutionists and higher critics. What does that tell you?

How do you come to know what the attitude of "practically all the clergy" is? I know only a few priests. You know practically all of them around the world?

Because I once joined your "unchanging" church and did a great deal of reading--and I mean a great deal of reading and learned that the Catholic Church had no use for people like me.

The "one true church" will never convert the "rednecks." Never. But then, it doesn't really want to, does it? Who else would serve as the scapegoat for for the crimes of the chr*stian middle ages? After all, Catholics are too liberal and too intellectual to be implicated in such things. Must have been a bunch of Southern Baptists in a time machine!

[jo kus]

Sola Fide does injustice to the Scriptures because they themselves tell us that we are not saved by faith alone. Anything that tries to twist the Scriptures is doing so to their own destruction (see 2 Peter 3)

Regards

[armydoc]

i believe those anathemas have been removed.....

Can you provide a reliable/authoritative link or reference to such?

He can't, because they have not been removed. V2 confirmed everything in Trent.

[GoLightly]

I’ve paid attention to a few of your posts & understand where you’ve gotten your positions.

[GoLightly]

I could be wrong about this

You are wrong about it.

[AnalogReigns]

Here is my response, posted on Beckwith’s weblog:

Dr. Beckwith,

I find it very sad you’ve chosen to “err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians” instead of staying with the Christians who are the most faithful to the very first generation of Christians, the authors of the New Testament.

The more I’ve studied the history of the Reformation, the more I am thankful for the work of the Reformers—rejected, excommunicated and utterly repudiated by your Church, if not burned alive.

May you influence the Church of the Bishop of Rome for the Gospel—and help reform that body.

Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria!

---

At the same time, I think it is important to remember the huge movement in the last 40 years, even in the last 20 of Rome. Officially Trent is still in effect, but unofficially yes, the anathamas are no more....

As you can see by my remarks above, I’m not defending the man, however, a mistake I see my reformed and conservative evangelical brothers make all the time is thinking Roman dogma is the same as it was in 1570, and even when Rome claims it is... it simply is not. I’ve even seen respected Roman theologians use the term “alien righteousness” the very same phrase coined by Luther, when speaking of justification. The Catichism of 1993 is MUCH softer on Protestants than anything which has come before—and it’s official Catholic dogma (the first universal catechism since Trent, I might add), largely written and approved by Ratzinger himself.

Yes Trent in all its horror is still on the books, but from Ratzinger on down, Rome is changing. Maybe Beckwith will help with such reform—we should pray for it.

[P-Marlowe]

I just watched a fascinating TV Show on PBS (of all places) called -- The Battle for the Bible. After seeing that show there is simply no way that I can understand how a Reformed Protestant can in any way even consider a "Return to Rome."

Too many people sacrificed their lives and fortunes in order to rebel against the Catholic Church's prohibition against bringing the Bible to the world and Beckwith's return to Rome is a slap in the face to all those who gave their lives to give us our Scriptures in our own language.

Just as Tyndale was betrayed by those whom he trusted, likewise Beckwith has betrayed Tyndale and all those who gave their lives to bring us the Glorious Reformation and the spread of the Gospel of Christ throughout the world.

Return to Rome? Yes it can happen:

(Proverbs 26:11 KJV) As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

(2 Peter 2:22 KJV) But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Thank you God for brave, honest and holy men like William Tyndale who were dedicated to bringing the Word of God to all people against the forces of Rome. I am not fit to tie their shoes.

[Mad Dawg]

You are wrong about it.

And a blessed Monday to you too.

I may be wrong about the reality but I'm the world's foremost expert on what it looks like from here. And what it looks like from here is a bunch of angry, hostile, and judgmental people dead set on not understanding (note: I did not say "agreeing with", I said "understanding")what we teach, eager to misrepresent what we teach, speedy to condemn us for not believing as they do.

Last night it occurred to me that if one's religion includes the assurance that one is right as a sign that one is saved, then one can expect a kind of brittleness and inflexibility in conversation. Entertaining the possibility that there might be something worthwhile in catholic Christianity would mean entertaining the possibility that one was not saved, which, according to some theologies would be sign that one was not saved.

No wonder conversation is difficult!

[Mad Dawg]

Since when? Where do you folks come up with this stuff? You actually think that most Fundamentalist Protestants think you're not liberal enough?

Well, yeah, actually. Some Protestants. There's been right much conversation and right many attacks fo the vapors and righteous and indignant fanning of the hot face over anathemas. Being accused of being too liberal is a nice change. It's like turning over on a bed of nails: not better, but different

Also I don't know about "you people". It's just me and my coffee here ....

I cannot help but wonder why the Catholic Church is so reticent about plainly stating its unpopular but still "official" teachings?

I just have a feeling that won't go away that I'm walking into something here. So I think I will just back off in a wary and gingerly manner. You have some concerns and/or experiences that I'm not clear about,a nd I don't want to say anything wrong.

BTW: I think some kids of higher criticism are useful, and I don't find all thinking about the evolutionary origin of species and the descent of man to be bad.

I don't want to argue about that. I only say it because you attribute these things to Frank Sheed and others as though they were self-evidently dreadful, and I want to be clear that to me it's more where they go with that thinking than the simple notions themselves, so I may not be having the reaction you expect.

[Iscool]

Every year, countless christians, searching for the "Truth", discover the Early Church Fathers.

Jesus says, "I am the Truth"...These countless christians you refer to must stumble right past Jesus Christ in their haste to get to your church fathers...

Could be this fella is smarter than God...And he certainly has a lot of free time on his hands to be able to write so many books and belong to so many organizations...

But not once in the article did the author suggest that he ever trusted Jesus for his salvation...Not once was any glory given to God for what this person feels he has achieved...

[P-Marlowe]

From Beckwith's Blog:

Because I can in good conscience, as a Catholic, affirm the ETS doctrinal statement, I do not intend to resign as a member of ETS.

Well here's the doctrinal statement:

Doctrinal Basis

The following doctrinal basis must be subscribed to by all members annually with the renewal of their membership in the Society.

---

"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."

The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone. The Bible Alone.

Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura.

No Catholic can subscribe to that statement since the Catholic Church places Tradition on an equal level with the Bible and The Catholic Church places the ex-cathedra declarations of the Pope above both the Bible and Tradition.

Mr. Beckwith is duplicitous.

(James 1:8 KJV) A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

[NYer]

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.

Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word. Scripture also mandates the use of tradition. This fact alone disproves sola Scriptura.

[Zionist Conspirator]

BTW: I think some kids of higher criticism are useful, and I don't find all thinking about the evolutionary origin of species and the descent of man to be bad.

I don't want to argue about that. I only say it because you attribute these things to Frank Sheed and others as though they were self-evidently dreadful, and I want to be clear that to me it's more where they go with that thinking than the simple notions themselves, so I may not be having the reaction you expect.

Nope, you're a Catholic, which means I expect you to reject the inerrancy of the "old testament" while hypocritically believing that a dead man came up out of the ground or that bread and wine becomes this man's body and blood. Never mind that science says both of these things are an impossibility; you reject the words of science on these issues while accepting them whenever they deny that the world was created in six days or that Methuselah lived 969 years or that the Red Sea parted. You're so threatened by "your" "old testament" that you have to turn it into a series of fables because if you didn't your chr*stianity would fall flat on its face.

BTW, those scientists you think so much of would gladly tell you that there is no such being as "St. Michael the Archangel." The fact that you persist in believing in this being when you won't believe anything in the "old testament" happened without these same scientists' permission illustrates your hypocrisy. But I'm sure you don't get it.

[Campion]

Your historical witnesses are only as good as the integrity of those charged with accurately preserving those historical records

And your understanding of the Scriptures is only as good as your understanding of the ancient languages in which those scriptures are written, the ancient cultures which produced them, and your exegetical skill in understanding the meaning of what is written.

IMO, you're not very good at any of those things.

But of course, you will claim that your understanding is guided by the Holy Spirit, while denying that anyone else's, like that of the ECFs for example, possibly can be ... which is precisely the solipsistic nonsense at the heart of the Protestant error.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I may be wrong about the reality but I'm the world's foremost expert on what it looks like from here. And what it looks like from here is a bunch of angry, hostile, and judgmental people dead set on not understanding (note: I did not say "agreeing with", I said "understanding")what we teach, eager to misrepresent what we teach, speedy to condemn us for not believing as they do.

Last night it occurred to me that if one's religion includes the assurance that one is right as a sign that one is saved, then one can expect a kind of brittleness and inflexibility in conversation. Entertaining the possibility that there might be something worthwhile in catholic Christianity would mean entertaining the possibility that one was not saved, which, according to some theologies would be sign that one was not saved.

No wonder conversation is difficult!

For what it's worth, I am not a chr*stian of any kind and do not consider myself "saved" (in fact, I reject "salvational" religion as fraudulent).

I was a member of your church for six years and was finally asked to leave or my "un-Catholic" beliefs: ie, my belief that the Bible in inerrant. How dare you imply that I have never given your church a chance? I submitted to your church and bent myself out of shape to do it, but the fact that I still believed in the total inerrancy of the "church's" Bible made me suspect.

Meanwhile the church is full of "good Catholics" who are liberal politicians, homosexuals, Marxists, etc., but I suppose the fact that they are evolutionists and higher critics makes them "good Catholics."

I advise you to refrain from criticizing someone when you have never stood in his shoes.

Go back to your blasphemous mythologizing.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I just watched a fascinating TV Show on PBS (of all places) called -- The Battle for the Bible. After seeing that show there is simply no way that I can understand how a Reformed Protestant can in any way even consider a "Return to Rome."

Once the Word of G-d is translated it is no longer the Word of G-d--it is merely a translation of the Word of G-d.

I find it interesting (and I am not saying this about you) that many Fundamentalist Protestants who attack the Catholic Church for using the Latin Vulgate are today insisting that the King James Version is "the real" Bible and it must never again be translated. The fact is that this is merely a repeat of the process the Catholic Church went through as the Vulgate went from being a popular translation to being "the real Bible." In other words, the KJV has become the American Fundamentalist Protestant Vulgate/Septuagint/Targum/Peshitta.

To read the actual Word of G-d (and not merely a translation of it), learn Hebrew. This will give you access to the very letters dictated by HaShem to Moses with all the myriads of meanings hidden within them.

[Campion]

He can't, because they have not been removed. V2 confirmed everything in Trent.

The formal penalty of anathema (which was a formal, public, liturgical excommunication) doesn't exist in the current code of canon law, so the penalty portion of the Tridentine canons ("... let him be anathema") is inoperative under current law.

The errors which were condemned remain errors. However, while Trent's exposition of Catholic doctrine is preserved from error by the Holy Spirit (and thus infallible), their understanding of the Reformers' doctrine(s) is not, so the possibility exists that, on some points, they condemned things that the Reformers did not in fact believe, or did not believe in the way Trent thought they did.

Vatican II said next to nothing about soteriology.

[Campion]

No Catholic can subscribe to that statement since the Catholic Church places Tradition on an equal level with the Bible and The Catholic Church places the ex-cathedra declarations of the Pope above both the Bible and Tradition

The underlined portion of the above is completely false.

[Campion]

I just watched a fascinating TV Show on PBS (of all places) called -- The Battle for the Bible.

You, a conservative, trust PBS to give you the truth on any topic?!?

[P-Marlowe]

Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word.

Beckwith continues to insist that it is. He has sworn fielty to the doctrinal statement of the ETS and he apparently has ALSO sworn fielty to the doctrine of the inerrancy of Papal Declarations and to the equality of Tradition with Scripture.

Beckwith is duplicitous in his theology. He can't swear allegiance to scripture alone and then swear allegiance to the Pope and all the Catholic theology which disputes the idea of Sola Scriptura.

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written..

The Bible Alone. Not the Bible and Tradidion. Not the Bible and ex-cathedra Papal Declarations. Not the Bible and the teachings of the Early Church Fathers. The Bible Alone. Or in Latin: Sola Scriptura.

Beckwith apparently either doesn't believe that or he doesn't believe the Catholic Church.

Of the Five Solas, which ones has Beckwith abandoned to cross the Tiber? Apparently he is claiming that he has not abandoned Sola Scriptura. Maybe he just redefined it.