Posted on 05/28/2007 11:09:15 AM PDT by Titanites
Several weeks ago, I learned through a mutual friend that Frank Beckwith was intending to return to the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, Frank learned that I myself have been moving in the direction of Rome for the last several years. I am very pleased to be able to announce that I intend to be received into the Church on May 26th, at St. Louis King of France parish in Austin. My own story is quite different from Frank’s, although our reasons for entering the Church of Rome are strikingly parallel.
I was baptized through the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, and I have been an active member of the church body ever since. As a Lutheran, I’ve never thought of myself as “Protestant”, nor have I ever embraced the kind of extreme sola-scripturism that has been much in evidence in responses to Frank’s announcement. I always recognized that the Scriptures are themselves the foundation of, and very much a part of, a divine Tradition. Although I believed that only the Scriptures were infallible, I nonetheless assigned great weight to the ‘rule of faith’ established by the continuous tradition of teaching by the Church, and as reflected in the writings of the Fathers and the decrees of Councils. Insofar as I accepted a form of ‘sola scriptura’, it took the form of insisting that all doctrines must have their source in the Scriptures as interpreted by the Church, or in the universal practices and teaching of the early church. This is the only sort of “sola scriptura” principle that can hold up to logical scrutiny, since the Scriptures themselves provide no definition of the canon and no clear statement of any sola-scriptura principle (both of these can be found only in the Fathers and Councils). Extreme sola-scripturism is, given these facts, self-refuting.
How, then, could I have remained Lutheran? I did so because I believed that the late medieval church (in the form of both the Scotists and the nominalists like Ockham and Biel) had distorted the doctrine of salvation or “justification”, embracing a kind of “Pelagian” error: that is, the notion that human beings can save themselves through the exercise of unaided human reason and will. I still believe this to be so (as do many, if not most, contemporary Roman Catholic theologians). I also believed that the Church erred in its brusque condemnation of Luther’s early protests (again, a view I still hold), and that the Council of Trent solidified a kind of apostasy from the true faith (this is where my current view departs from my former one). I believed that the teachings of the church popularly known as “Lutheran” or “Evangelical”, as codified in the sixteenth century Book of Concord, constituted the defining characteristic of the one Catholic Church in its fullness, in continuity on all essentials with the teachings of the Church from the first century until at least the twelfth. The logic of my position was a simple one: the modern Roman Church clearly embraced an erroneous doctrine of justification, which nullified its otherwise strong historical claim to continuity with the apostles (especially on the matter of ecclesiology, the theory of the Church), depriving modern Christians of any good reason to embrace late-medieval and modern developments in Roman Catholic doctrine (including the immaculate conception and papal infallibility).
Those of you who know more about theology and the history of theology than I did then can easily see how untenable a position I held (although I think this untenable position is one still held by many, if not most, thoughtful Lutherans and Reformed Christians). My confidence in this position was shaken by three blows: (1) new scholarship (primarily by Protestants) on Paul’s epistles, which raised profound doubts about the correctness of Martin Luther’s and Phillip Melanchthon’s excessively individualistic and existentialist reading of Paul’s teaching on justification by faith, (2) the fruits of Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogue on justification, expressed most fully in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1997, that greatly clarified for me the subtlety of the doctrinal differences between the two bodies, and (3) a more thorough exposure to the writings of the early Church fathers, especially those considered most “evangelical”: Chrysostom, Ambrose, and (above all) Augustine of Hippo. I began to realize that many Lutheran and Protestant polemicists have been guilty of two fallacies: a straw-man version of contemporary Roman Catholic teaching, and a cherry-picking of quotations from the Fathers, ignoring the undeniable contradiction between the teachings of those Fathers, taken as a whole, and the one-sided version of the faith-alone doctrine on justification embraced by the second generation of the Reformation (especially Martin Chemnitz). The Joint Declaration and the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church aided me in giving a closer and more charitable reading to the anathemas of the Council of Trent (which I still believe to be have been written in an unprofitably provocative way).
This is a very brief summary of the considerations that led to my theological transformation. I have available a set of private notes that began as a purely intellectual exercise: an attempt to exorcise my doubts about Lutheranism by putting them to paper and exposing them to critique (both on my part and on that of others). As it turned out, the more I wrote, the more reasons I found for changing my outlook. The notes can be downloaded HERE.
Bear in mind that I am no professional theologian, and I claim no special authority for my conclusions. I welcome feedback to these notes, but I would ask that my readers take a look first at John Henry Newman’s book, An Essay on the Development of Doctrine (1845). Newman’s book is essential background reading for my notes, because he provides the decisive rebuttal to the argument that the supremacy of the Pope and other contemporary, distinctively Roman Catholic doctrines constitute objectionable “innovations”. Newman convincingly argues that the recognition of genuine development in Christian doctrine is inescapable, as anyone who knows the history of the doctrines of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ must recognize.
One more thing about my notes: they were written with an audience of one (myself) in mind. In writing them, I gave no thought to being diplomatic or irenic. My only point was to try to sort out which of the two traditions was more likely to be the fullest expression of the Gospel. They are deliberately one-sided: there is much that I could have said about the virtues of the Lutheran tradition and the need for the reformation of the 16th century Church not included here.
Please bear in mind also the distinction between the reality of justification and our theological theories about that reality. As a Roman Catholic, I will trust no less in Jesus as my Savior, nor more in my own works, than I have as a Lutheran. I’m certainly fallible and thus capable of trading in a better theory of justification for a worse one, but I urge my Protestant brethren to remember, before making any judgments about the state of my soul, that sinners are justified by trusting in Jesus and not by believing a theory of justification.
The Church is the Body of Christ. I received that gift, faith, with no merit of my own, from Christ, acting through the Church, which is His Body. Although I am aware of defects in the human members of the Church, I see no advantage to condemning the Church; after that, there is anarchy.
I agree.
Well, you have to know and assent to what you believe but you still don't have to be a scholar. You don't have to read the early fathers, you don't have to know the whole history of the church, you just have to know what it believes and assent to that belief.
What happens with those who don't know & can't assent? Think we're supposed to send them away hungry?
I don’t know exactly what you mean by that. Are you talking about the mentally challenged or those who haven’t heard the Word or those who haven’t felt and/or responded to Grace?
I see no advantage in condemning the Church either. I would only worry about anarchy if I didn't know that God is in control.
Those who havent felt Grace, though they claim to be open to it.
They are always welcome to attend any Catholic Church, they can't receive the Sacraments unless they have been baptized and assent to the beliefs of the Church but if they haven't felt Grace then why would they seek the Sacraments? Why would they believe in the Sacraments if they can't accept the Grace of God? Faith in God must come first in someone past the age of reasoning because the Sacraments are nothing without God.
A Convert's Pilgrimage [Christopher Cuddy]
Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church
Patty Bonds (former Baptist and sister of Dr. James White) to appear on The Journey Home - May 7
Pastor and Flock Become Catholics
The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church
Famous Homosexual Italian Author Returned to the Church Before Dying of AIDS
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge
Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome
Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi
I agree. I’m a former Presbyterian. I’m grateful to my mother for the Christian formation I received. I learned to read the Bible with pleasure when I was growing up, and I learned wonderful hymns that I still appreciate. I don’t recall a single bad experience of Protestant Christianity; however, after my “existentialist period” in my late teens, I believe the Lord called me to the Catholic Church.
save for later
Maybe they are confusing faith with absolutely knowing with their own intellect and really have it but think it should feel different. They might feel that they should KNOW things and FEEL things or that their faith experience should be like being struck by lightening. Faith through Grace comes in many ways, we don’t all get a Road to Damascus experience, but He gives us what we need.
Uh, oh. I think I started something. :-)
Yes, it was definitely toungue in cheek. And I do rejoice when someone finds their home (though I believe “home” is in the Body of Christ - I do believe that God’s hand guides us as to exactly where we must be at one time or another).
I rejoice the most when His Church grows, and don’t consider any migration one way or another across the Tiber to be a net gain or loss for His Church, though I recognize many disagree.
For example, my brother found his way back to the RC church, and of course brought his wife and kids with him to be baptized. He was Free Methodist before then, and in the Unity Church (or Church of Today, whatever it is called now) before that. Well, I’m not particularly keen on the Unity Church, but as a Free Methodist in a very conservative congregation I felt he was well grounded, as I feel in my conservative evangelical church. When he went back to the RC I encouraged him to follow what he considered God’s calling, even if I chose not to go that way myself.
They claim to be atheists, so I have the feeling that the big guns are gonna have to come out to bring them to their knees.
Again...
I know what you mean, one of my brothers fits that category. JMO, but he feels like he is sinning and he wants to keep sinning and so he needs to believe there is no God and no justice, just the here and now and death is the end.
That could be it, but it could also be a certain amount of fear of association with the “ignorant hicks” that never outgrew believing in faerie tales.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.