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.

[CynicalBear]

His invention of mechanical movable type printing started the Printing Revolution and is widely regarded as the most important event of the modern period.[1] It played a key role in the development of the Renaissance, Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the Scientific revolution and laid the material basis for the modern knowledge-based economy and the spread of learning to the masses. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Gutenberg#cite_note-2]

"An invention by a German goldsmith played a prominent role in the Protestant Reformation. Johannes Gutenberg is the inventor of the Gutenberg press, an innovative printing machine that used movable type. Gutenberg was born between 1394 and 1400 and died in 1468. His invention helped spread the ideas and beliefs of the Protestant Reformers fifty years after his death." [http://www.examiner.com/article/the-printing-press-the-protestant-reformation]

The Johann Gutenberg entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia describes his invention as having made a practically unparalleled cultural impact in the Christian era.

[sargon]

[Martin Luther's] Roman Catholic roots were certainly showing.

LOL...

[Mrs. Don-o]

"No salvation outside of the Catholic Church" does not mean that no one not visibly a pewsitting, registered member of a Catholic parish can be saved.

There was an priest in Boston, years ago, who believed it that way, damning all non-Catholics, and preached it. His name was Fr. Leonard Feeney. He was told his interpretation was erroneous and that he should retract his opinion; he defied this counsel; and he was excommunicated in 1953 for his obstinate persistence in this error despite repeated warnings.

We can know who is in the Church; we cannot know, with moral certainty, who is outside the Church.

[Salvation]

And to further enhance your post.

The first mass produced printed book was the Bible, a version based on the Latin edition from about 380 AD.. The Bible was printed at Mainz, Germany by Johannes Gutenberg from 1452 -1455.

Note the date!

[Mrs. Don-o]

I meant to give you the link to the abortion-enthusiast pastor story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3282884/posts

His local ekklesia won't correct him. I daresay most local ekklesias don't correct errant pastors. It's a problem.

As for Diocesan bishops foisting priest-abusers onto local parishes: the parishioners' "submission of mind and will" is not to pastor, bishop, or even pope: their "submission" is to Truth which Christ teaches us through the Catholic Church. Saints went head-to-head against dingbat clergy --- even the highest dingbat clergy --- about this.

[CynicalBear]

>>I didn’t realize that your understanding of Catholicism was divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit for you to know with a certainty that Catholicism is “appalling wrong”<<

It doesn't take "divinely inspired" to read Paul's words that anyone who teaches something they didn't was to be considered accursed and also know they didn't teach the assumption of Mary and the requirement to believe it like the Catholic Church does.

>>Kind of like your inerrant knowledge of Gutenberg’s bible.<<

I didn't say anything about Gutenberg's bible. I said his printing press and no one can deny the impact the printing press had on the Reformation.

[RoosterRedux]

By that logic, Jews don't worship "the same god" as Christians. Are you sure you want to go there?

I want to go there. Jesus wasn't a Roman Catholic, he was a Jew. And His father is Jehovah...God of the Jews.

We Christians are grafted onto the Jewish vine...not the Roman Catholic vine.

We become Jews...not Catholics.

[RoosterRedux]

In all due respect to you and Mr. Don-o (I respect you both immensely)...Jesus was not a Roman Catholic. He was a Jew.

He calls us to Jehovah...the Jewish God (who is the Creator of the Universe).

[Salvation]

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.

[HossB86]

Oh... you mean this from the CCC:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

"those too may achieve eternal salvation" -- does this mean there's a chance, or that the Church allows it? There are still references to "his Church" -- is that the invisible Church -- all those saved by God's grace through faith alone in Christ alone -- or the Catholic Church?

The fact it was stated at all is damning enough for the Roman Catholic Church.

Hoss

[Lee N. Field]

Why are Catholics so obsessed with Luther?

Spiritual OCD?

[CynicalBear]

>>Our hope is in the Lord, Who made heaven and earth.<<

"Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope."

"I love thee, most lovable Lady, By the love which I bear
thee, I promise ever to serve thee,
and to do as much as I can, that thou be loved by others also.
I put all my hopes in thee, all my salvation. Receive me as thy servant and cover me
with the mantle of thy protection,
thou the Mother of mercy!
Amen.

"You are, indeed, our sweet Queen and our only hope."

"O, our sweet Hope, make us feel thy power over the amiable Heart of Jesus,"

"Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, in this tragic hour of the world's history, we entrust and consecrate ourselves to your Immaculate Heart, our only refuge, our hope, our salvation."

" Time and time again, you have proven to be the Refuge of Sinners, the Hope of the Hopeless, the Consoler of the Afflicted, and the Comforter of the Dying."

"I love you, O my very kind sovereign, and for your love, I commit myself to serve you forever, and tend all my efforts to make you loved by others too. I place all my hopes and all my salvation in you."

All taken from prayers to Mary found at http://www.marypages.com/PrayerstoMary.htm. There are many, many more. Not only is she their hope but their salvation as well. In fact, they have replace the Holy Spirit as comforter with Mary.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Certaily Jesus was a Jew: on His mother's side.

So were his 12 apostles, his 72 disciples, and in fact all of the early Church.

As He is the founder of the Church, He can be said to be a "member" of it, in the sense that He is the Head of His Body, the Church. Which was, at the time, the Jewish Christians: as Our Lord told the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well, "Salvation is from the Jews."

To say "Roman Catholic" is something of an anachronism. The Church was "Catholic," tout court. It was only after the 16th Century that the term "Roman Catholic" gained any currency: there was a party of Anglicans who liked to call themselves "Anglo-Catholics," and they launched the correlative term, "Roman Catholics."--- to pin on the Catholics, who called themselves Catholic.

The Anglicans in England also called the Catholics "The Italian Mission." These terms were meant to be put-downs. That's not necessarily true now, but it was then.

[RoosterRedux]

I know they lived as one community. I don't doubt the Eucharist, but can you give me a link.

In spite of all the prot/rc fighting...I know we are ultimately on the same side.

On His Side.

May God bless you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, by the way, for a good contribution to the discussion.

[CynicalBear]

>>What if his local group disagrees with my local group?<<

Read the seven letters to the seven independent "churches" found in Revelation. What some other assemblies do has no reflection on what the one you meet with does. Christ didn't warn one church about what a different church was doing.

[CynicalBear]

What that pastor or “church” does has no consequence for what we do in our assembly. We could warn them as Paul did to the individual assemblies and as Christ did to the seven “churches” but it’s up to them to comply.

[RoosterRedux]

Thank you for your response Mrs. Don-o.

I guess my point, however simple, was that we Christians are grafted onto the Jewish olive tree.

We become Jewish and worship the Jewish God (er, G-d):-).

I for one always feel very Jewish when I read Scripture. Not Roman Catholic or Protestant...just Jewish.

I know the Jews eyes have scales on them for our sakes...and those scales will be dropped at some point.

But we are grafted onto the Jewish vine...both Catholic and Protestant.

[CynicalBear]

LOL! Or something like that.

[RoosterRedux]

Much love and respect from here for you and the mister.