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.

[BlueDragon]

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

Aw, cut it out.

Yer killin' me, doc.

[antidisestablishment]

Good post, if a little timid. Allowing altar girls and supporting PP defines two distinct spectrums easily. I find issues like divorce and birth control a bit harder to define—at least from our American perspective.

There is a third choice—in this case the American way—cowardice. We just won’t address it. After all, we wouldn’t want to offend some of our most generous pew-warmers. Seeker-friendly churches are the epitome of this ungodly synchretism.

As a protestant, I find much to disagree with our Catholic brethren, but I find just as much on the Protestant side of the aisle without resorting to snake-handling. All of them are filled with sinners.

[WVKayaker]

1 Corinthians 2: 6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—

10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.

[Crim]

LOL...good one!

[BlueDragon]

thank you for having a sense of humor.

but what to do with this forum -- I dunno.

[Crim]

It breaks my heart to see my fellow conservatives and my fellow christians at each others throats.

There is a storm coming....and it’s pure evil.

[HarleyD]

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, ...

Many of today's Catholic teachings no longer shows up in the Word of God. As many of our Catholic friends here have point out to us, these new teachings come from "traditions"-not from scripture.

As John Calvin pointed out...

Man's mind is like a store of idolatry and superstition; so much so that if a man believes his own mind it is certain that he will forsake God and forge some idol in his own brain

[Biggirl]

Catholics 1, Protestants 1.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Our neighbors have both the white and the pink dogwoods. Seeing dogwoods with a background of brilliant blue sky, or with a red Japanese maple behind them: exquisite!

But even the humble dandelion pleases me, and the little violets. It rained a LOT last night, so there’ll be even more today. Thank you Lord!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thanks -— yours are words of wisdom. Like I said, so much to think about.

[CynicalBear]

Oh come now. Your short changing the Catholic Church. Some of those written beliefs go back a lot farther than 1900 years. That “queen of heaven” concept was spoken of way back in Jeremiah’s day.

[metmom]

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?

They do it with Scripture so why not everything else?

[metmom]

Yup.

[metmom]

Context is only important when Prots are claiming something.

Then Catholics demand it and it’s essential.

When it’s Catholics doing the claiming, who needs any stinkin’ context?

[caww]

Maybe they would do well putting up one of their Popes quote’s to oppose Luther’s rather than argue over Luther. After all both are just men , then compare what they’re saying to what God says in His Word.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Where do we go to find infallible Protestant doctrine?

Why should we follow Luther? He's not mentioned in the Bible. And the Bible warns us of following traditions of men.

[metmom]

Hey, it’s YOUR church that makes that claim.

[metmom]

And yet here you are, spreading love and understanding with your endearing post.....

[metmom]

Is God giving us a theology test to get into heaven?

[metmom]

No, we follow no man.

Born again believers follow Christ, not man, a concept that, it seems, no Catholics can simply wrap their mind around.