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.

[WVKayaker]

Keep up the good work!

They have nothing, so it becomes personal or "fingers in the ears" time. They have done nothing to refute the article, but have all tried to impeach the source of their controversy...

Keep dropping the truth. It is eternal.

[papertyger]

It is quite telling that there is no cogent refutation or intellectual response to the premise of the post. Instead, there is a continual dodge and punting to Rome's alleged veracity, while trying to make any valid Scriptural corrections to their weak or personal attacks.

There's only so much you can do with a student that insists "x + y = z" is a violation of the laws of math, because he's only familiar with arithmetic.

[WVKayaker]

Food for thought.

Your screed seem incorrect in my view. Most of the Protestants here are preaching Christ. The Roman cult is offering their version of "food".

I note you didn't state which side you represent. Are you Christian or Roman Catholic?

[papertyger]

They have done nothing to refute the article....

What need be refuted? Please be specific.

[WVKayaker]

There's only so much you can do with a student...

Ah, first error!

Maybe they aren't enrolled in your "teaching" or see your role in improvisational comedy! I didn't sign up for a class in Roman Catholic distortion and half-truths!

When Roman Cultists proclaim Mary to be co-redemptrix with Christ, they have left the reservation and descended into Satan's foolishness!

Good luck with that!

[papertyger]

Most of the Protestants here are preaching Christ.

Indeed!

[papertyger]

When Roman Cultists proclaim Mary to be co-redemptrix with Christ, they have left the reservation and descended into Satan's foolishness!

Please refer to post 262....

[Springfield Reformer]

Couldn't be she's only quoting the relevant part, could it?

No, since the verbiage quoted is not what Luther actually said.  It is a reconstruction, a minimalist paraphrase that omits critical bits of context, structuring it to infer things Luther never came close to suggesting.  Luther was not sanctioning Rome as the originator of Scripture.  He was assessing that just as Israel had possessed Scripture, and taught it to many, yet went afoul of it, and had to be rebuked, so too Rome could be regarded as having once been conservators of Scripture, but now having strayed from the same, must be opposed by those who would remain faithful to God.  Luther's verbatim message does not conform to the Roman narrative, and so it was "reconstituted" to better suit the narrative.  

As far as "relevant part" is concerned, the reason in serious dialog you always point back to a full and primary source whenever possible is that the relevancy of any given part is a judgment call, and you owe it to your opponent as a matter of transparency to let them make up their own mind about whether you handled the text fairly.  Persuasive argument is not autocratic.  It fully engages the reason of the other, and hopefully leads them to a conclusion they would arrive at on their own if they has the same information as you.

You who are so quick to accuse, please tell me where your authoritative doctrines regarding the characteristics of sin and it's deceptions can be found.

And answering "the Bible" is an evasion. There is no verse teaching the qualifications of the Virtures, or the "Deadly Sins."

Well, if you wish to prevent admittance of the only evidence capable of deciding the issue authoritatively, them we must all remain agnostic on the issue.  Only God's opinion of the "characteristics of sin and it's deceptions" matters a whit.  Not your opinion or mine.  And contrary to your statement, the Scriptures are overflowing with evidence concerning the nature of sin and its power to deceive.  God's word will not accept a muzzle:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
(Jeremiah 17:9)

But just for the record, I do not think anyone here is engaged in premeditated deception. It's more like "truth-slaughter," where in the eagerness to make a point, a seemingly friendly source is used that has a poison pill of falsehood in it.  This does serious harm to the truth, but it is not malicious.  More just reckless.  And frankly the sort of thing to which we are all tempted, being the fallible creatures we are, and burdened with sinful hearts.  Praise God we have a Savior who forgives us. :)

Peace,

SR

[WVKayaker]

So, Catholic cultists equate the Gospel of Christ to maggots?

No surprise, and it also no surprise that they can't seem to find adequate graphics to represent them.

I posted it and then one tried to copy and yes, indeed, it does represent the Roman Cult.

Indeed!

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

[Crim]

Clearly the religion moderator is a protestant.

A bit of truth sets you idiots off.

The world is on fire under the sword of islam....and you sit and quibble about what you think God’s will is...as if you had a clue.

The religion forum is poison....you and the rest suckle it like a teet...and preach about “true christians”.

Maggots is the correct pic...but not for the reason you think.

[virgil]

Something I notice is that Protestants here almost always simply ignore any evidence proving their beliefs wrong.

I can say exactly the same thing by just changing the word Catholic to Protestant. These threads are stupid.

[BlueDragon]

Ah, the “I know you are, but what am I” gambit.

How refreshing.

It's no gambit.

If one were to understand where Luther and the Reformers were actually coming from, rather than viewing things only from RC apologetic vantage point, then what may seem to be contradiction is no contradiction at all.

Besides... I need not rely strictly upon Luther, in fact rarely read much of his writings at all.

In the end, as things have turned out, that man (although not without flaw) was and is not alone in those things he was correct enough concerning.

[papertyger]

He was assessing that just as Israel had possessed Scripture, and taught it to many, yet went afoul of it, and had to be rebuked, so too Rome could be regarded as having once been conservators of Scripture, but now having strayed from the same, must be opposed by those who would remain faithful to God.

Now THAT is an insightful comment. I thank you.

Nevertheless, I fear Luther initiated a "cure" that rivaled the disease; my own experience prior to Catholicism forming that conviction.

Well, if you wish to prevent admittance of the only evidence capable of deciding the issue authoritatively, them we must all remain agnostic on the issue.

Disagree. That Scripture is the only authority insofar as you are concerned only means you have placed a restriction on the philosophical basis of authority that precludes analysis of the very thing in dispute.

Only God's opinion of the "characteristics of sin and it's deceptions" matters a whit. Not your opinion or mine. And contrary to your statement, the Scriptures are overflowing with evidence concerning the nature of sin and its power to deceive.

Again, disagree, 1 Peter 5:5 not withstanding. In many places the Scriptures demonstrate a Church hierarchy, by age if by nothing else. That would, by default, include "opinion," and if not, what would it include?

Further, the Scriptures allude to the nature of sin, no doubt. But there is precious little in the way of documentation of same with the clarity and utility of something like "The Screwtape Letters."

Professing "The Holy Spirit takes care of that" is as doctrinaire, not to mention dis provable, as the "In Jesus' Name" formula for granted prayers.

If one can not define what would indeed prove them wrong, they will not recognize it when it actually happens. Therefore, free form textual criticism is no basis for determining the validity of Scriptural interpretation.

But just for the record, I do not think anyone here is engaged in premeditated deception. It's more like "truth-slaughter," where in the eagerness to make a point, a seemingly friendly source is used that has a poison pill of falsehood in it. This does serious harm to the truth, but it is not malicious. More just reckless. And frankly the sort of thing to which we are all tempted, being the fallible creatures we are, and burdened with sinful hearts. Praise God we have a Savior who forgives us. :) Peace, SR

Amen, Amen, with the sole caveat that I believe conceit and vanity play a large role in the acrimony.

[WVKayaker]

Clearly the religion moderator is a protestant. ...

It is proper to ping someone when you post about them, especially when you are disparaging them.

I am quite sure there are more than one RM, and that some of both persuasions exist here. I have been tagged more than once for minor offenses, intentional, and not! There is a lot of bluster and derision, but little coming from Roman Catholics which would persuade.

I see diversion to replace refutation, but if this forum is "poison" to you, why are you here?

Look! Squirrel! (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain TRUTH!)

[WVKayaker]

These threads are stupid.

But, here you are!

[Crim]

Oh right...turn to rules lawyering while christians are being beheaded...

By their fruits you will know them....

I see your fruit....and it’s rotted to the core.

And yes I fully expect the mod to rush to your aid...proving my point.

My next Donation to FR will be by check...and it will include a long letter to JR in order to be able to bybass the mod.

Have a nice day....bless your heart.

[Crim]

BTW I’m HERE on FREE REPUBLIC...and this SUB-FORUM forum is becoming a cancer I will not ignore.

[virgil]

But you don’t see me posting pictures of maggots and then say I’m preaching Christ. All you’re doing is creating atheists.

[WVKayaker]

My next Donation to FR will be by check...and it will include a long letter to JR in order to be able to bybass the mod.

I'm a monthly and never see a check. Electronic all the way!

I guess you want to say things about us "others" and can't say it to our faces. Of course, the drivel already posted is enough to question how many times you have raised a cup tonight.

Have a safe trip...

[Crim]

Funny...everything I said in here to your face got magically deleted.

Still trying to figure how how it violated the “rules”.

Hell I didnt even call anyone a cultist.

But by all means...keep quibbling, mocking, and scoffing...it shows who you really are.