Posted on 03/16/2008 9:42:39 AM PDT by Gamecock
NOTE: This article was originally written in 1999 and revised on 30 August 2006 to reflect recent developments in the Roman Catholic apologetic community.
The unity Christ prayed for in the church is not, to begin with, an organizational unity.
When Jesus prayed that we all might be one, He was describing a spiritual unity. In John 17:11, He prayed “that they may be one, even as We are.” Verse 21 continues: “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us” (emphasis added).
That describes a very specific kind of spiritual unity that proceeds from our union with Christ. Christ Himself likens it to the unity between Father and Son. It is certainly not something as mundane and superficial as the homogenization of all churches under one earthly hierarchy of bishops in Rome or Constantinople.
Organizational unity cannot guarantee true spiritual unity, and the proof is seen in the Church of Rome herself. Despite all the Catholic finger-wagging about the lack of unity reflected in Protestant denominationalism, there may well be more disharmony within the Roman Catholic Church than there is in the typical Protestant denomination.
Take, for example, Catholic Answers, the apologetics organization headed by Karl Keating. Although Keating and Catholic Answers did not invent the argument that Protestant denominationalism disproves sola fide, they certainly have perfected and popularized it. Staff apologists from Catholic Answers are the chief ones who brought this issue to the forefront of the Catholic-Protestant debate.
Catholic Answers published the tract cited in the first post in this series. And Keating himself personally trained a number of pro-Catholic debaters to employ this argument in their dialogues with Protestants.
Catholic Answers has hammered this same theme for years. According to them, an infallible, magisterial interpretation of Scripture is the only thing that can assure true unity, and the continuing proliferation and fragmentation of Protestant denominations is living proof that there can be no unity under the principle of sola scriptura.
Suppose for the sake of argument we grant their premises and measure the Catholic apologists themselves by their own standard? Keating is arguably the most prominent of dozens of Catholic apologists on the Internet. All of them claim they have an infallible interpretation of Scripture, given to them through the magisterium of Rome. So how has the principle of “unity” fared in the Roman Catholic apologetics community?
Not very well, it turns out. To cite one well-known example, Keating has disavowed and waged war on the Internet for several years against one of his best-known former lieutenants, Gerry Matatics, a convert from Protestantism who now heads an organization of his own. The trouble began, it seems, when Matatics declared his preference for traditional Catholicism with a Latin Mass, while Keating is staunchly in favor of the innovations instituted by the Vatican II Council—including the new Mass in the vernacular.
In 1995, Keating said he considered Matatics “a sad example of how schism leads very quickly to heresy.” [The Wanderer, February 16, 1995 p. 7.] Keating has published a number of articles over the years in This Rock magazine warning other Catholics against his former associate’s influence. [e.g., Karl Keating, “Habemus Papam?” This Rock (July/August 1995).] Both sides took their case to the World Wide Web, posting articles and open letters, debating whether Keating or Matatics best represents the “Catholic” position. [See, for example, “An Open Letter to Mr. Gerry Wells in Defense of Gerry Matatics“]
The battle raged for several years while Matatics remained in full communion with Rome. Then in early 2005, Matatics embraced a view known as sedevacantism, which is the opinion that no legitimate pope has occupied the Holy See since the death of Pius XII. Ostensibly, this involves a kind of auto-excommunication. According to Dave Armstrong (himself a lay Catholic apologist), when Matatics renounced the current pope,
he incurred latae sententiae (automatic excommunication), based on cc. 751 and 1364 of the Code of Canon Law. The first states: the aforesaid canons defines schism as “refusal of subjection to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him”. The second states that the penalty for is automatic excommunication.
Matatics, of course, still considers himself a Roman Catholic—a truer Catholic than those who accept Vatican II. The ironic thing is that virtually every pope for the 450 years before Vatican II would have much more in common with Matatics than with Keating in their respective opinions about the Mass. (So much for semper eadem.)
And Matatics is not the only Roman Catholic apologist to wage a public feud with Keating. Robert A. Sungenis is still at it. Such feuds are symptomatic of several larger conflicts within the Catholic Church. Keating is a “conservative Catholic,” whereas Sungenis is a “traditionalist.” The Roman Catholic Church is home to vast differences of opinion about the Marian doctrines, confusion about supposed Marian prophecies, disputes over canon law, and other deep-seated disagreements about important doctrines. Various factions and sects operate within the walls of the Catholic Church, waging polemic battles as lively and intense as any that ever took place between Protestant denominations.
Add into that mix the scores of radical or liberal priests who blend their peculiar doctrinal and political preferences into the Catholic system, and you have a chaos of varying opinions that is at least equal to that of even the most variegated Protestant denomination.
The simple fact is that there is really no more unity of agreement among Roman Catholics than there is among Protestants. Even with an “infallible interpretation” of Scripture, it seems, the Roman Catholic track record on true spiritual unity is as bad as, or worse than, that of the Protestants.
How much “unity” can there be, for example, between, say, Father Andrew Greely and Mother Angelica (to name two of America’s best-known Catholics)? Greely is a liberal priest and novelist, who once said on “Larry King Live” that he believes the Catholic Church eventually will not only ordain women as priests, but also elect a woman as pope. Mother Angelica is a traditionalist Franciscan nun who has used her televised talk show to criticize other Catholic leaders, including Cardinal Richard Mahoney, for their non-traditionalist stance on liturgical matters.
Do Catholic critics of Protestant denominationalism seriously imagine that their Church embodies a pure, visible, organizational, and spiritual unity comparable in any way to the unity within the Trinity?
In fact, with so many who profess loyalty to Peter’s chair waging battle among themselves over church politics and key points of truth, it should be painfully obvious to all that Roman Catholics are really no better able to agree on their own Church’s “infallible interpretation” than Protestants have been able to agree in exhaustive detail on the meaning of Scripture itself.
Clearly, an external, organizational unity cannot guarantee the kind spiritual unity Christ was praying for. It would be a serious mistake, and a serious blow to real unity, to imagine that the answer to our denominational division is the abandonment of denominations altogether, and the union of all who profess Christ into one massive worldwide organization where we affirm only what we all agree on. No real agreement whatsoever would be achieved through such means, and thus we would have no more true unity than we already enjoy. Meanwhile, the cause of truth would suffer a severe blow, and that would ultimately prove fatal to all genuine unity.
But the unity Scripture calls us to is a unity in truth. Paul wrote, “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). He did not counsel the Corinthians to grasp for a superficial unity by setting truth aside and embracing an organizational unity without regard to sound doctrine. Nor did Paul order them to abandon their differences and simply place a blind and implicit trust in his apostolic magisterium. He was urging them to work through their differences and strive to achieve unity in both heart and mind. Such unity is possible only when people are themselves in union with Christ. “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16).
That is precisely the kind of unity Christ was praying for. There is nothing superficial about it. It is a unity of spirit. It is a unity in truth. And that is why, in the context of his prayer for unity, Christ also prayed, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth” (John 17:17).
It struck me as I read this that the first three folks I pinged to this post come from three distinct corners of Christianity from me, yet each would admit that the other is a Christian and “saved.
That, to me, is a clear example of what the author is putting forth in this article.
at least, it does where faith is not without works.
that image is a real affront.
Spoken in the spirit of Christian unity.
Maybe you can share with us what is so affronting about it?
So, you seem to be implying that daring to call the image an affront, which it is to me, is somehow a violation of some principal of Christian unity?
Absence of reason makes unity of any kind impossible.
You have eyes. Figure it out for yourself.
I don't see anything offensive about it. You claim that it is an affront. Please explain why you think it is so offensive.
You have a keyboard. 'splain it to me.
read later
AMEN.
PREACH IT BRO.
THX
The image represents the thesis put forth in the article.
Just out of curiosity, did you read said article?
The guy mischaracterizes the RC notion of unity and the magisterium and our understanding of the Church and Her authority and then says the the thing he misrepresents AS he misrepresents it is a bad thing.
Further, in asserting unity in Truth but divorcing Truth from articulable propositions of faith TENDS (but only tends) toward the contempt of reason implied in the notion that persons can be redeemed and in a vital relationship with truth while disagreeing about "mere" objects of thought.
I'm sure it's not intended to be so but from the RCC POV this article is sophistry piled on Sophistry crowned with an insulting depiction of a person many of us love and revere. Protestant "thought forms" centering Salvation about a particular kind of experience and (grace-enabled) act of will, these can, I imagine, support a weltanschaaung in which disagreement about Arminianism, dispensationalism, and all the other things about which Protestants disagree among themselves are not seen to make an important difference in Spiritual Unity with the Truth Himself.
And of course this means that for Protestants unity in Christ is more important than the articulations of reason but not important enough to lead to a real, live unity, "on the ground" for greater effect in preaching, teaching, and evangelizing. From a RCC point of view the differences which this articles characterize as lacking fundamental importance have brought about a scandalous waste of real estate and building space. The unity is enough, to bring them together in Christ, but not on Sunday.
Let me do just one more. The writer says:
Despite all the Catholic finger-wagging about the lack of unity reflected in Protestant denominationalism, there may well be more disharmony within the Roman Catholic Church than there is in the typical Protestant denomination.Yes, eagerly do I stipulate that there may be more disharmony within the RC Church than there is "in the typical Protestant denomination." But that's because we do not go off and start offshoots as readily as Protestant denominations. I don't mean to pick on the Presbyterians with any special animus, but how many different denominations calling themselves "Presbyterian" are there? So if one doesn't like what is said here, but wants to remain Presbyterian, one can do so. The lithe skipping among denominations and sub-denominations in Protestantism just makes me shake my head in wonder. There are at least 3 or 4 different ways to be an Episcopalian these days. You can have "with gays" or "without gays", with "thou and thee" or with only "you", hardhsell Calvinist Episcopalians, "Speaking in Tongues" and "More Catholic than the Pope" or "Kinkier than San Francisco" Episcopalians. So there's far less need for a particular Protestant to put up with opinions He doesn't like in his current denomination. SO of COURSE there's more unanimity in the pews in these small denominations.
But this whole paragraph is bogus. We're not wagging our fingers about disagreement within ONE BRANCH of Wesleyans. We're just remarking upon the number of different and distinct branches and groups which all call themselves Methodist or Wesleyan and have churches right next door to one another (or very nearly).
The paragraph misstates our complaints and then makes a jejune attempt at a refutation of it.
For me though, to maintain a spiritual unity which does not overcome our inability to stand the sight of each other on Sunday morning is to promote notions of "Spirit" and "unity" which do not obviously commend themselves, at least not to me.
These are just the sophistical highlights. There really are too many for me to touch on each one.
Okay, so it wasn't a short response ...
Poor. Very poor, especially this day and this week.
Have a blessed holy week.
that image is a real affront.
++++
Many, who try to convert me, do that same thing a lot of the time.
And, when it is brought to there attention, they seem to be happy about doing it.
Or they tell you to grow up and get as life, it is no big deal.
Fair enough a query, let me try to answer.
There are 10 that I can identify. Of those:
The Cumberland Presbyterian and Cumberland Presbyterian in America are Presbyterian in church government only. They broke of from the larger Presbyterian church during the Second Great Awakening and have abandoned the Westminster Confession of Faith.
So we are down to 8.
The PC(USA) as a result of Theological liberalism ordains women, is pro-abortion, pro gay rights. Are you really willing to categorize those who leave as doing so in a spirit of disharmony?
That takes us down to the Associate Reformed Presbyterians, The Presbyterian Church In America, the Orthodox Presbyterians, which are considered to be the three most conservative Presbyterian Churches, and the evangelical Presbyterians, which are just a shade on the left of above three.
All three were offshoots of the larger Presbyterian church. They broke off at different times, but for the same reason, theological liberalism. They also broke of at different geographical locations, which if you think back 50, 75 years ago it would have been harder to have a unified effort accross the country.
Anyway, the ARP, OPC, PCA and EPC send pastors to the same seminary, can call pastors across "denominational lines," share online bookstores. Whats more, members can move effortlessly from on to the other, which is a good thing as mobile as our society has become. What's more, representatives from each attend the other's General Assemblies.
I would say that the Conservative Presbyterians, and the slightly left leaning EPC, have much more in common than you may think.
It may also interest you to know that Reformed Seminaries (non-Presbyterian) educate not only the Dutch Reformed Community, but also Presbyterians as well as Reformed Baptists.
Sooo, just to open it up a bit, I would say there is a lot more unity among conservative Presbyterians than you think, and among the Reformed Community than one would expect.
I'm pinging a few with an interest in Presbyterianism to see if I have misstated a point or left out an important point.
Oh, I really don't know enough about the remaining 3 to comment on them.
I think we can see a trend here. It's stupid article accompanied by a gratuitously offensive depiction of J2P2 and it comes up in or very near Holy Week. I think we can dope out without hints whose work this is.
But it's just a snake with a broken back spitting venom (not YOU, Gamecock -- you're better than this nonsense, the dope who wrote this and produced the image) angry because he knows he's lost.
I don't have a theory about how close various groups of Protestants are. (We had that chart a few threads back. Looked like a primitive circuit board design.) They're far enough apart not to want to take the trouble to reap the efficiencies of being united organizationally. My point is if the differences are important enough to split on, then what exactly is the nature of their unity? Or if they're so all fired unified on what's really important, then why don't they get unified on the unimportant stuff? The suggested answer is that the unimportant stuff is more important then they're letting on, or unity is not important enough to lead to action.
If you look at my post to you, I think what the factors that influenced the Presbyterians has influenced many others, geography and time. But across the larger church you have to add mother languages, which goes a long way to addressing Lutherans, the Reformed, Anglicans, etc.
Our unity is in Christ.
Because I move constantly I walked into many churches and felt welcome because of who I am in Christ. A few weeks ago I was in Liberia and was warmly welcomed by Christians once I was identified as a believer.
Amen, Gamecock. Great article. Who are men to judge another's conscience? If we have been given liberty by Christ's atonement, we are free indeed.
the unity Scripture calls us to is a unity in truth. Paul wrote, "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). He did not counsel the Corinthians to grasp for a superficial unity by setting truth aside and embracing an organizational unity without regard to sound doctrine. Nor did Paul order them to abandon their differences and simply place a blind and implicit trust in his apostolic magisterium. He was urging them to work through their differences and strive to achieve unity in both heart and mind. Such unity is possible only when people are themselves in union with Christ. "For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16).
That is precisely the kind of unity Christ was praying for. There is nothing superficial about it. It is a unity of spirit. It is a unity in truth. And that is why, in the context of his prayer for unity, Christ also prayed, "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth" (John 17:17).
Amen.
"If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." -- John 8:36
What a gift. 8~)
I see. So the image does carry a message, after all; and clearly that message is part of your message.
I'm sure I could post images that would offend you, but I don't.
Double standards are the billy clubs of the spineless.
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.