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]

“So what”

My answer was not to you but to the canard ‘ the Church should sell all its gold and give it to the poor’

How simplistic!

How minimally thought thru!

If the Church liquidated all of its wealth, a protestant dream, they may have 5 - 10 years of largess to ‘give to the poor’ then it would be dissipated.

Whereas just one segment of the the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities, gives $3.69 Billion dollars (2014 data) in one year to the poor. Source CARA ibid.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

“So what”

My answer was not to you but to the canard ‘ the Church should sell all its gold and give it to the poor’

How simplistic!

How minimally thought thru!

If the Church liquidated all of its wealth, a protestant dream, they may have 5 - 10 years of largess to ‘give to the poor’ then it would be dissipated.

Whereas just one segment of the the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities, gives $3.69 Billion dollars (2014 data) in one year to the poor. Source CARA ibid.

AMDG

[LurkingSince'98]

My question from lost 351 was never answered.

But whatever the answer I can only say, being a Romanist: thatsa nice.

Going to the park with the kids I wish all you protestants a great ‘Good Shepard Sunday’!

AMDG

[RnMomof7]

Whereas just one segment of the the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities, gives $3.69 Billion dollars (2014 data) in one year to the poor

That and a subway token gets you no where

[BlueDragon]

[Religion Moderator]

Hit the abuse button with the post# if you see a violation of the Religion Forum guidelines.

[amihow]

Go through every “example” posted in #351and determine whether concerning faith, morals or discipline and science or math or astronomy or climate change or on and on. The faith and morals group may be infallibly taught by the Magisterium. The rest is not infallible.

[BlueDragon]

I'm not going to bother answering questions which have already been answered to extents that the suppositions and questions posed in that post #351 are less than valid -- in that it demands mirror or counterpoint, to then have conceptual *fuzzy infallibles* weigh in quacking about "faith and morals", Herr Inquisitor.

[ealgeone]

Whereas just one segment of the the Catholic Church, Catholic Charities, gives $3.69 Billion dollars (2014 data) in one year to the poor. Source CARA ibid.

whoa again there, lurking....this is not money given by catholic charities.....the $3.69b is the value of those services.

We can go to the website and prove this....and you know I've been there.

The tax return for 2013-2014 filed by Catholic Charities, USA, form 990, reports revenue of $31,800,473. Actual contributions and grants were 25,511,072.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/261483129/Fy2014-Form-990-Ccusa

As you noted in this thread we have no idea how they valued those services or how much was contributed.

This article may be of interest to other readers. It doesn't paint this organization in a very positive light. http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7587

btw...still waiting on your answer to if you tithe, and if so, is it on the gross or the net. your silence is telling.

[LurkingSince'98]

You will never get a straight answer to #351.

Whatever response will be the protestant equivalent to fuzzy logic.

And whenever my two young men finish their deep discussion on Wallace and Grommit and finish loading the dshwasher we will be off to what the boys call ‘the wood park’...

Merry meddling to all

For the Greater Glory of God

[LurkingSince'98]

Whatever

Leaving for the park

AMDG

[ealgeone]

If the Church liquidated all of its wealth, a protestant dream, they may have 5 - 10 years of largess to ‘give to the poor’ then it would be dissipated.

Maybe if the rcc taught tithing this would not be a problem.

Maybe the rcc should come clean and reveal the value of its resources.

[af_vet_1981]

<< Clearly the religion moderator is a protestant.>>

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

I remember a similar complaint, but in that story the RM was supposed to be Catholic and biased in favor of Catholics. Since that complaint was ignored by the RM, I expect this one will be ignored as well for there must be one standard for all.

[RnMomof7]

whoa again there, lurking....this is not money given by catholic charities.....the $3.69b is the value of those services.
We can go to the website and prove this....and you know I've been there.
The tax return for 2013-2014 filed by Catholic Charities, USA, form 990, reports revenue of $31,800,473. Actual contributions and grants were 25,511,072.

Also worthy of note is that Catholic Charities gets lots of federal and state monies .. to help "pay" for those services ....

[daniel1212]

Apparently the term "Roman Catholic" was first invented in the 17th century --- by Anglicans. I don't think it's used in official Catholic church documents.

I guess you only skimmed my chart . Search "Roman."

My inclination, though, is that "Catholics" in the West should simply be called "Catholic". I trust I have made myself sufficiently obscure?

You are not censuring us for using it, as some RCs do! But related to this is the assertion that the EOs are not Catholic, made by some RCs, while they say otherwise, and thus Roman Catholic is justified when making a distinction.

However, i also often use RC to save typing, and the corrections i must make about every 3 words due to my arthritic fingers. Thank God He uses them, glory to God.

[RnMomof7]

I think that poster wants a Mormon RM

[Crim]

You mean me?

Nope I’d settle for someone unbiased.

I’d prefer to not see christians at each others throats at all..

Too much to ask I guess.

Meanwhile...the death march of Islam continues.

SMH

[LurkingSince'98]

I was taught that if you received any recognition on earth for your charitable giving then you have lost recognition for that charitable act in heaven.

In addition I fully subscribe to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity and act accordingly.

Maybe your mama never taught you basic manners, but polite company never questions anothers charity.

.

AMDG