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.

[Mark17]

"Catholics have no hope..."

Why do you say things like this, which are not true and which you couldn't possibly know?

I don't know about others, I just know about my OWN experience. I did not have much hope. I do now.

I hope you are getting more healthy with each passing day.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for your kind wishes. I AM getting healthier. I find I can only say the Rosary or the Divine Mercy chaplet when I'm walking, so that provides the kick-in-the-pants of motivation that gets me going. I'm walking around the neighborhood without my quad cane, looking at dogwoods and dandelions and trying not to trip over sidewalk cracks and broken pavement.

I am obviously slow and not well-balanced, but just to breathe the air is a Good Thing.

Being on a ventilator for 16 days was horrible, even though it saved my life.

That, and about a million prayers from FReepers, friends and family. Man, I owe a TON of prayers.

It's given me a lot to think about.

[Faith Presses On]

That’s what that sentence means - Catholics and Muslims adore the same God. And that is the problem with Catholics needing to defend their church as perfect at the expense of truth. God is perfect. God’s Word is perfect. But none of the churches in earth are. The evidence has shown that. It is infinitely better to admit flaws and imperfections that are truly there than to falsely deny them. God is truth and wrong-doing is to be confessed, not covered up. God’s church, made up of those who truly believe in Him (believe the Gospel) belongs to Him, but it is not Him.

[Faith Presses On]

It was mistake. I’m posting from my phone and forgot I wasn’t posting directly in reply to the person I wanted to say a few things to.

[metmom]

Yeah, Imagine that.

Luther wanted to see the church he was part of and loved be cleaned up of the corruption and immorality that was rife in it.

The nerve of some people.

[metmom]

Clinton would have a challenge on his hands to get as low as some priests.

Honestly, *every man his own priest*.

What a hoot.

[metmom]

I noticed how your extensive history that you posted got blown off.

[LurkingSince'98]

The Roman Catholic Church has stated our beliefs IN WRITING for over 1900+ years.

So you, belonging to a ‘church’ that is at most 500 years old have been ‘divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit’ to discern that the beliefs of our Catholic Church are in error.

So your 500 year old beliefs are correct and our 1900+ year old beliefs are wrong.

Well that is so special, you must be so proud of all your ‘so correct’ discernment.

BTW, have your ever heard the phrase ‘Vincible Ignorance’? No?

Well good luck with that.

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam

[Resettozero]

Thank you for the explanation. 8>)

[LurkingSince'98]

Yeah sure the ONLY thing Luther wanted was to ‘see cleaned up the corruption and immorality’ which is why he broke his three sacred vows to God of poverty, chastity and obedience, took up with a nun and became the charmer that several previous posters have quoted.

He became corrupted just like what he wanted to see cleaned up, which is precisely why he was excommunicated and became anathema.

He was just such the innocent ‘reformer’

For the Greater Glory of God

[daniel1212]

Once more a out-of-context misleading parroted papist post

All your devotional threads does not stop you from engaging in such dishonestly, as long as it serves Rome, or is this more ignorance?

[daniel1212]

There's only Catholicism. There ain't Liberal Catholicism or Conservative Catholicism. Just as there is only right and wrong.

Then you serve a mythical Catholicism, since the real RCC counts, calls and treats even Ted Kennedy type RCs as members in life and in death. And as a RC you have been told that your job is to simply follow the pastors.

[Resettozero]

Yeah sure the ONLY thing Luther wanted was to ‘see cleaned up the corruption and immorality’ which is why he broke his three sacred vows to God of poverty, chastity and obedience, took up with a nun and became the charmer that several previous posters have quoted.

He became corrupted just like what he wanted to see cleaned up, which is precisely why he was excommunicated and became anathema.

Maybe he wised up and changed his tune after reading up on the history of RCC popes and others in the hierarchy? Didn't want to miss out on the good stuff they all had enjoyed and continued to enjoy?

(Sell some of that artwork and other properties, give proceeds to the poor, then get back to me about those RCC vows of poverty.)

[Salvation]

Did you check the link that verifies it?

[WVKayaker]

So your 500 year old beliefs are correct and our 1900+ year old beliefs are wrong.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

Satan has fooled so many for so long... and that includes your 1900 year old cult! He was here before your cult came onto the scene and has made fools of too many.

Scripture stands solid in contrast to the movable goalposts of Roman Catholicism! Popes come and go, but the Holy Spirit/Jesus/God is the same today, yesterday, and forever! (Hebrews 13:8) His Word will endure forever. (Isaiah 40:8)

[LurkingSince'98]

I did not contribute my hard earned money so that it went to the poor.

I contribute to Peter’s Pence so that it precisely goes to Rome, because I want it to go to Rome.

Obviously why should Rome do with its money, what some protestant, like you, wants it to do?

I think your protestant contributions are just a fraction of Catholicism contributions, but I think you are not contributing near enough to fight abortion, contraception and pornography.

I would be up for matching donations for every $ protestants donated to EWTN and Relevant Radio!

AMDG

[daniel1212]

Yes, those Catholics should join the billion plus protestants.

Actually the most conservative RCs have, as they do not simply follow their pastors but pick and choose from V2 what is binding, based upon their interpretation of what Catholic teaching based upon historical documents.

Thus their denial of Prot salvation.

Meanwhile, comparing what RCs call Protestantism, which includes multitudes of churches which deny the most basic defining distinctive of the Reformation, with one church which exists inn sects and schism and a limited and largely paper unity is not a valid comparison.

A valid comparison would be between those who hold most strongly to Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired word of God, not the liberal revisionism which Rome has been teaching for decades, with the overall fruit of Rome.

[LurkingSince'98]

“defining distinctive of the Reformation, with one church which exists inn sects and schism and a limited and largely paper unity is not a valid comparison.”

Only in your protestant dreams.

Ad Majoram Dei Goriam

[daniel1212]

Only in your protestant dreams.

You have only affirmed that you do not have an argument.

[Resettozero]

Braggadocio here often?

Wow.

Think my post struck some hidden nerve in you.

(More RCC Pride and even more Arrogance in your next post, please?)