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.

[LurkingSince'98]

BTW Samuel Clemens spent 14 years in France researching his book about the Catholic Saint Joan of Arc.

It is a great book and truly shows the depth if his researc and admiration of that young martyr.

AMDG

[daniel1212]

Did you check the link that verifies it?

I did not say it was not an actual statement, but that as used by itself it is out of context and misleading. And the link is to the comments. Going above them we see,

From these paragraphs, it should be obvious what Luther is driving at. It is the job of the True Church- those who believe and trust only in Christ's righteousness by faith, to call the visible church to repentance. The visible church will claim to be God speaking. The visible church may claim to be that authority which determined the Canon. But if the visible church is in rebellion against God, it is the task of the true Christian to point her back to her master.

Glad to see you affirm that, or did you paste this as if Luther was affirming Rome was to be submitted to as the stewards of Scripture? If not, just what purpose does this statement serve?

[BlueDragon]

Did you check the link that verifies it?

Did you check the link that dan supplied that verifies the quote is badly taken out of context --- thus not proving one whit of that which trotting it out seems to be trying to establish?

Excerpt (of summation) from the link daniel provided;

The quote as cited by Roman Catholics has nothing to do with an infallible Church declaring the contents of Scripture. The quote isn't discussing canonicity. The quote isn't discussing if Rome gave us an infallible list of biblical books. Rather, the quote is part of an argument based on Old Testament Israel persecuting God’s true people, and the Roman Catholic Church persecuting the Reformers. This is made clear as Luther continues. Old Testament Judaism had God's law. does this mean they were the ones who infallibly declared what that law was?

“But what is now our defense? And what is the ground on which we can hold our own against such offense and continue to defy those people? It is nothing else than the masterly statement St. Paul employs in Rom. 9:7: “Not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants.” Not all who bear the name are Israelites; or, as the saying goes: “Not all who carry long knives are cooks.” Thus not all who lay claim to the title “church” are the church. There is often a great difference between the name and the reality. The name is general. All are called God’s people, children of Abraham, Christ’s disciples and members; but this does not mean that they all are what the name signifies. For the name “church” includes many scoundrels and rascals who refused to obey God’s Word and acted contrary to it. Yet they were called heirs and successors of the holy patriarchs, priests, and prophets. To be sure, they had God’s Law and promise, the temple, and the priesthood. In fact, they should have been God’s people; but they practiced idolatry so freely under the cloak of the name “church” that God was forced to say: “This shall no longer be My temple and priesthood. My people shall no longer be My people. But to those who are not My people it shall be said: ‘You are sons of the living God’ ” (Hos. 1:10; 2:23).” [LW 24:304].

Luther realizes that even within the corrupt papacy, the true church exists:

“Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy. On the other hand, I know that most of the papists are not the Christian Church, even though they give everyone the impression that they are. Today our popes, cardinals, and bishops are not God’s apostles and bishops; they are the devil’s. And their people are not God’s people; they are the devil’s. And yet some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.” [LW 24:305].

“In the meantime we adhere to the distinction made here by Christ and do not regard as Christendom those who do not hold truly and absolutely to what Christ taught, gave, and ordained, no matter how great, holy, and learned they may be. We tell them that they are the devil’s church. On the other hand, we want to acknowledge and honor as the true bride of Christ those who remain faithful to His pure Word and have no other comfort for their hearts than this Savior, whom they have received and confessed in Baptism and in whose name they have partaken of the Sacrament. These are the true church. It is not found in only one place, as, for example, under the pope; but it exists over the entire earth wherever Christians are found. Outwardly they may be scattered here and there, but they meet in the words of the Creed: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, our Lord, who was born, suffered, and died for us on the cross.” In like manner, they pray: “Our Father who art in heaven.” They share the same Spirit, Word, and Sacrament. They all lead the same holy and blessed life, each one according to his calling, whether father, mother, master, servant, etc. Thus whatever we preach, believe, and live, this they all preach, believe, and live. Physically separated and scattered here and there throughout the wide world, we are nevertheless gathered and united in Christ.”[LW 24:309].

From these paragraphs, it should be obvious what Luther is driving at. It is the job of the True Church- those who believe and trust only in Christ's righteousness by faith, to call the visible church to repentance. The visible church will claim to be God speaking. The visible church may claim to be that authority which determined the Canon. But if the visible church is in rebellion against God, it is the task of the true Christian to point her back to her master.

[LurkingSince'98]

You must be speed reading because you missed the point completely.

Catholics all over the world contribute hundreds of millions to the poor yearly.

We also contribute directly to Rome and are t the least bit interested in Rome ‘selling everything’ to please some protestant.

AMDAg

[metmom]

Poverty, chastity, and obedience?

I’d say he did pretty well compared to his compatriots.

Your priests and popes measured up (or rather continue to measure up) just how again?

It’d be really funny if it weren’t so sad, at the hypocrisy of condemning Luther for STILL goes on in Catholicism even today.

After all, not being married is not a dogma.

Are you ready to comdemn EVERY, SINGLE PRIEST who ever left the priesthood to get married?

And what about the homosexual ones who have molested children who are STILL practicing priests?

LDS on full display......

At least he MARRIED a WOMAN.

[Resettozero]

You must be speed reading because you missed the point completely.

Not at all. I got all your points entirely, understood them thoroughly and responded precisely correctly.

Add insulting to your RCC pride and arrogance.

Wanna try to improve your standing? Be nicer.

[ealgeone]

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.

Are you tithing 10% on the gross or the net?

A 2008 study from barna showed the following:

The study also showed that Protestants were four times as likely to tithe as were Catholics (8% versus 2%, respectively).

Christians tend to be the most generous group of donors. An examination of the three dominant subgroups within the Christian community showed that evangelicals, the 7% of the population who are most committed to the Christian faith, donated a mean of $4260 to all non-profit entities in 2007. Non-evangelical born again Christians, who represent another 37% of the public, donated a mean of $1581. The other 42% of the Christian population, who are aligned with a Christian church but are not born again, donated a mean of $865. Overall, the three segments of the Christian community averaged donations of $1426.

The Christian giving was divided between Protestants (mean of $1705) and Catholics ($984).

https://www.barna.org/barna-update/congregations/41-new-study-shows-trends-in-tithing-and-donating#.VTxOTD9OW00

You know...everytime a catholic makes these kinds of statements, the facts just shoot them out of the sky. Will they ever learn??

[ealgeone]

So today Luther's back on the good list???

You catholics never cease to amaze.

[Salvation]

Where did I say that?

[LurkingSince'98]

You obviously dont understand what breaking a vow made to God means -unless you are divorced.

I dont think you get that it doesnt matter who breaks their vows - they are BROKEN.

Luther was excommunicated and became anathema because he deserved it.

Ag Majoram Dei Gloriam

[Resettozero]

Care to comment any more about the article that began this thread?

[metmom]

And it did not escape my notice that the questions I asked were not answered.

Nor do I expect the to be, as they usually are not in the first place and I have yet to see more than a handful of Catholics ever even say anything even negative about their church, much less condemn the blatant and gross immorality that exists and has existed within it.

All I ever see is excuses, denial, blameshifting, and red herrings.

[Resettozero]

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.

I wonder how many more cash cows Rome has suckered in. Rome is the inspiration for some sleazy money-grubbing televangelists that Catholics love to point to.

[ealgeone]

Ok....you post a quote from Luther saying it was the papists who gave us the Bible and then you try to make like you're not endorsing him....today.

Very embarrassing behavior.

[BlueDragon]

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.

I take it that you and your husband both have long been among those who freely give prayers for others.

We all owe God Himself who's own goodness (what there can be of that in humans) is the Source itself.

Some of us either don't know that (that we are debtors, yet are free)
or else do forget, the consciousness of that being oftentimes overwhelmed
by things beyond our own control, or even comprehension.(Ephesians 6:12)

So ---- be free.

...if ya'll can excuse me for horning in

[Gamecock]

The issue here is that Salvation has only posted half of Luther's quote. (And I have pointed that out to Salvation at least three times on other threads.)

From that point in the quote Luther goes on to launch one of his accurate, blistering indictments on Rome.

Do you care to share the entire quote Salvation, or only the part that is convinient to you and you fellow adherents?

[BlueDragon]

"...I think your protestant contributions are just a fraction of Catholicism contributions,..."

Braggadocio here often? ...

...

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

Well now it's time to say goodbye to Jed and all his kin
They would like to thank you folks for kindly dropping in
You're all invited back again to this locality
To have a heaping helping of their hospitality
(Beverly Hillbillies, that's what they call 'em now,
Nice folks Y'all come back now, ya hear?)

[Resettozero]

I know it’s late...

But what in the world does any of your post mean?

[LurkingSince'98]

We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church.

And Catholic Charities is supplemented by a panoply of other Catholic-affiliated groups, Gautier said, including “St. Vincent De Paul societies, social justice committees, soup kitchens, food pantries, and other similar programs organized independently by thousands of Catholic parishes each year.”

For a variety of reasons, it’s difficult to quantify exactly how big Catholic-backed charity is, but we tried our best to sift the data with the help of the National Center for Charitable Statistics, a project of the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.

The first question we asked is whether the sum of all Catholic-sponsored charity amounts to half of all charitable activity by private groups in the United States. We started with the biggest, Catholic Charities USA, then worked outward.

In 2010, Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes an annual list of the 400 biggest charities in the United States, ranked by the amount of donations they receive. This enabled it to rank near the top of the 400 list, behind two major social-services charities — the United Way and the Salvation Army, neither of which is affiliated with the Catholic church.

Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work.

Let’s assume that other Catholic groups that didn’t crack the top 400 list spent six times what Catholic Charities USA spent, a multiplier that experts we contacted thought was reasonable. That would make the figure about $26 billion.

Then if you suppose that the 18,000 Catholic parishes spent an average of $200,000 on the needy every year beyond what they contribute to any of these charitable organizations, a number also considered plausible by our experts, that would add another $3.6 billion to the total.

All told, this would equal about $30 billion. So how does that slice compare to the entire pie?

National Center for Charitable Statistics researchers tallied up expenditures by nonprofits in the broad category of “human services,” which includes nutrition, employment assistance, legal aid, housing, disaster relief and youth development. In 2010, the most recent year available, they came up with total expenditures of $168 billion in that category.

[Resettozero]

Yep, Rome has found a daisy of a cash cow on planet Earth.