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.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

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

You are the second Protestant here to acknowledge that Protestant interpreters of Scripture are just men, and that their interpretations of Scripture are not infallible.

Yes, I understand you believe this to be true of the pope as well.

But if you believe the Bible to be historically accurate, and if you believe that Jesus is God, then you must believe that Peter and the Apostles (and their successors in office) have indisputable teaching authority.

"...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." --St. Paul

"If he won't listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector." --Jesus

The Church has the power to "bind and loose." What does this phrase mean?

"Binding and loosing is an originally Jewish phrase which appears in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage to bind and to loose mean simply to forbid by an indisputable authority, and to permit by an indisputable authority." --Wikipedia

"Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus, "became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind." --Jewish Encyclopedia

Jesus affirms the teaching authority of the Pharisees (their power to "bind and loose.")

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do." --Jesus

Jesus, to Peter:

"And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” --Jesus

Jesus to the Apostles:

Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. --Jesus

+ + +

Jesus does not ascribe the power of "binding and loosing" to Scripture.

+ + +

Petrine primacy and Apostolic teaching authority did not end with the deaths of Peter and the Apostles:

Apostolic Succession (Acts 1:20 KJB)

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take."

Papal Succession

St. Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

[CynicalBear]

>>The Church has the power to "bind and loose."<<

Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them,

[ealgeone]

How many catholics do you personally know who suffered martyrdom?

[Gamecock]

**the Bible warns us of following traditions of men.**

Reads like that is your opus and you are leaving Rome!

[ealgeone]

Clearly the religion moderator is a protestant.

Proof required for your statement or you pull it and admit you are wrong.

[RnMomof7]

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.

Surely a GOOD Catholic like yourself knows priests DO NOT TAKE A VOW OF CHASTITY??

You church saved that vow for the little women that become nuns.. can't have them having sex can we ??

But priests take a vote of celibacy ...ummm that allows a little room to play around huh?

[caww]

...” you must believe that Peter and the Apostles (and their successors in office) have indisputable teaching authority”....

No.. I don't have to believe that any successors of the Apostles have indisputable teaching....Peter was an apostle right along with the others I do not give him the position catholics do...nor will I.

As for binding and loosening the authority of the Pharisees was the very thing which Jesus spoke against...so that carries no weight regarding the matter today.

The Pope and Luther were just men....as were those you referenced further in your post........We have the Spirit of Christ to teach us... we have Gods very Word who guides us, active and powerful....We also have 'fellowship' with other believers and learnered men that we share and discuss these matters we choose....but none of them have the authority of God thru Christ and His written Word, and that of the Spirit he has given us to “guide us into all truth”.

It would do you well to put a whole lot more emphasis on what God says over the men of history so often referenced.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Catholics have the infallible Teaching of Christ's Church.

Protestantism has the fallible teaching of men.

It's difficult for Catholics to see what Protestantism offers that Christ's Church doesn't already offer.

The Protestant "Reformation" was really the "Protestant Revolution," that took Christendom backwards into a Dark Age of Error.

[caww]

....”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?”....

Context is significant for 'all'....the problem becomes then how one applies it thereafter.

Catholics by nature will always “apply” scripture ‘to’ their traditions and dogma rather than allow scripture context to stand on it's own in order to ‘test’ their tradition and dogma.....there is a difference .....

.... So they cannot not know the truth 'as it is' because, for them, it must always be filtered thru their magesterium, their traditions etc. so they will always come up wanting, and is why they "feed themselves" further on historical authors etc., occupying themselves with rituals and various other distractions in order not to feel that emptiness.....never satisfied.

..... It's just the opposite of what God would have them 'do' to know the 'fullness' He would otherwise give them.

That's exactly, BTW, what Luther eventually found out for himself.

[caww]

....”It’s difficult for Catholics to see what Protestantism offers that Christ’s Church doesn’t already offer”....

Well your mistake is thinking that ‘Protestantism’ is the alternative...it’s not the answer you need. Your own writings reflect that you’re arguing between the two “organizations” as if each has their own specific set of rules and beliefs one must adhere to and each laying claim to Christ.

What is central , rather than as you wrote, is.... Catholics have a Church they rely on...Christians have Christ as the only authority by which any man can rely on for truth and or salvation.

[Elsie]

There are exceptions, of course, like the lovely Trisham.

And ME!

[Elsie]

The Protestant "Reformation" was really the "Protestant Revolution," that took Christendom backwards into a Dark Age of Error.

And the COUNTER Reformation.

What was that?

[MHGinTN]

Oh my, you post the favorite Mormon diversion, but do you really know of whom Jesus was referring with His statement about their fruits? ... False prophets, like the one at the heart of Mormonism. It seems every Mormonism apologist at FR uses that incorrectly applied passage. It must be a Mormon thing ...

[daniel1212]

Matthew 18:17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.

Which is a judicial part of the binding and loosing power while the spiritual aspect extends to all righteous believers (Mt. 18:18,19; Ja. 5:16-18) which is not new in principal, but flows from the OT in which (as pertains to the judicial aspect)

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: (Deuteronomy 17:8,9)

And Westminster affirms,

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)

The question is whether dissent from which is ever justified, or when and why did they become excluded?

And when and why did employing the sword of men to punish theological dissent become sanctioned by Scripture?

And thank God for attempt at your civil demeanor.

[daniel1212]

Thanks for the prayers—but don’t pray for me to give up my Roman Catholic faith, the beauty of its liturgy and its traditions, the priestly tradition, the beauty of Mary and her answer; the papacy. Pray for my arthritic hip;

Certainly the physical infirmities need prayer, but the Lord reproved the Jewish leaders for their false doctrines, the beauty of the liturgy and traditions notwithstanding, as if not Scriptural then they are ugly to God.

the priestly tradition, the beauty of Mary and her answer; the papacy.

Yet none of them is Scriptural: There simply is not even on NT pastors (besides Christ) who is ever given the distinctive title of hiereus (priest from preost), but they are only called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) whiich denotes on office. (Titus 1:5-7)

Nor are any ever shown changing bread into human flesh and or dispensing it to others in order to obtain spiritual life. But instead of dispensing bread as part of their ordained function the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4) "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." (2 Timothy 4:2) More .

And while I am sure while the only Queen of Heaven in Scripture was beautiful, the Mary of Catholicism is not that of Scripture, with the multitude of virtues powers and position which parallel Christ, and are unique to Him, and Scripture knows nothing of the uncensored adulation of Catholics, including popes, such as

an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

• whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

• who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

• and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

• and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

• for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

• "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

• so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

• and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

• for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

• Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

• and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

• including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

• whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

• and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

• and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation." Sources and more.

Nor does Scripture teach perpetual assured infallibility of church office as per Rome, or as necessary for preservation of truth, nor that that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.

Or that all the churches looked to Peter as the bishop of Rome as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

Nor did it ever record or teach any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or that any apostolic successors were elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff) Instead, presbuteros were made overseers of the church. (Act 20:28)

[daniel1212]

For instance, a lot of what Pope Francis says is just opinion. Nothing more.

Not so, as souls look for the interpretation of what is officially said by how the preachers of it explain it and translate it into actions, and Christ and James taught that what one does and effects constitutes the evidence of what one really believes. (Mt. 7:20; 23; Ja. 2:18)

The scribes and Pharisees could deny that they would kill the OT prophet as their fathers did, but they testified otherwise by their words and actions.

And RCs in particular have been taught that

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),

And every time Rome honors a Teddy K//Menino publicly known liberal RC as a member in life and in death then it effectually teaches how it understands canon law. And such treatment also implicitly conveys to the average liberal RC that he/she is OK with Rome. And the liberal revisionism taught for decades in Rome own officially sanctioned Bible interprets past statements to the contrary.

V2 interpreted historical teaching that damned Prots as meaning properly baptized SS faithful Prots were part of the body of Christ, and Francis giving the high five to evangelical tells others that this is how RC teaching is to be understood.

TradRCs who reject the above based upon their understanding of historical RC teaching, even if they are correct, are charged with being Prots, since they do not follow the leaders as they are, but instead rely upon their interpretation of their supreme source for what Truth is, even though they censure Prots for doing the same.

That is the problem with sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme authority rather than unchanging Scripture, for when the leadership of the former goes South, either in requiring extermination of heretics or going soft on immorality or liberal teaching, then the laity overall follows.

In contrast, those who hold most strongly to the authority of Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are the most conservative.

[daniel1212]

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

But it does indeed matter what kind of vows are broken.

But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her. (Numbers 30:5)

But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her. (Numbers 30:8)

No vow which is contrary to Scripture - which requiring clerical celibacy (save for certain converts) is, an which presumes all have that gift - is, has already been disallowed by God the Father and Christ for His church.

If you want to try to argue with me that clerical celibacy was required and normal for the apostles and NT church, then go ahead.

[daniel1212]

By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies

Yes you also have Catholic charities:

Catholic Relief Services gave over $13 million to pro-abortion group in 2012

How Catholic Charities Lost Its Soul

Catholic Charities—and the same could be said about the Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies or the Lutheran Services in America—has become over the last three decades an arm of the welfare state, with 65 percent of its $2.3 billion annual budget now flowing from government sources and little that is explicitly religious, or even values-laden, about most of the services its 1,400 member agencies and 46,000 paid employees provide. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=758