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.

[af_vet_1981]

<< Why are Catholics so obsessed with Luther?>>

Because he is the poster child for protestants .... and protestants were the ones who made the poster.

If he does not reflect what you believe then why don’t you reject him?

The main issue is that he is the foundation of the Reformation. As a false brother, consumed by hatred for the least of Jesus' brethren to his dying day, he would demonstrate his fruit was evil and his revolt was not of God. He left legacies of vulgarity, hatred and violence are in his own words. His legacy includes the Peasants' Revolt, the persecution of the Anabaptists, the Thirty Years' War and the eventual the Holocaust based on his Seven Point Plan. The Germans claimed him as their inspiration for what they did to the Jews.

Some vociferously defend him. This is logical because he is foundational to Protestantism's faith and doctrine. Otherwise they could disown him. Instead, he is far too important and must remains the iconic source of inspiration, and even pride, for some of Protestantism. Another facet is that to admit he was wrong is to allow the Catholics were right, and for some sects that possibility must not be allowed under any circumstances.

[daniel1212]

Silly you. ‘Tradition’ brings out these unrecorded teachings. It is unlimited in rule making. Kinda like the 0bummer machine.

An amorphous source, out of which Rome channels doctrine, even "remembering" fables which lacks early testimony.

Ratzinger writes (emp. mine),

Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [or actual ancient reliable records] …But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word.” [invisibly but per Rome's say so, via amorphous oral tradition]- J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59.

[RnMomof7]

>>>>>> His legacy includes the Peasants’ Revolt, the persecution of the Anabaptists, the Thirty Years’ War and the eventual the Holocaust based on his Seven Point Plan. The Germans claimed him as their inspiration for what they did to the Jews.<<<<<<

St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre happened in 1572. Though that massacre included “Roman Catholic mob violence,” this isn’t what I find interesting. Rather, it’s the following from Alister McGrath:
Protestantism’s prejudices against Catholicism were reinforced by the bizarre reaction of the papacy to the massacre in France. Gregory XIII’s celebration of the massacre was as jubilant as it was undiplomatic: the bells of Rome rang out to mark a public day of thanksgiving, the guns of the Castel Sant’ Angelo were fired in salute, and a special commemorative medal was struck to honor the occasion. Gregory even commissioned Giorgio Vasari to paint a mural depicting the massacre. Such tactless actions could not fail to produce a reaction of total distaste and disgust, and the ‘anti-popery’ that subsequently spread throughout Protestant regions of Europe remained a persistent element of Protestant self-definition until very recently. [McGrath, Alister. Christianity’s Dangerous Idea (p. 131). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Now, here’s a little background on Gregory XIII, compliments of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Most remember him as the pope that strove to reform the Roman church. That included “trying to depose the queen by force of arms.” And also:
His youth was not stainless. While still at Bologna, a son, named Giacomo, was born to him of an unmarried woman. Even after entering the clerical state he was worldly-minded and fond of display. But from the time he became pope he followed in the footsteps of his holy predecessor, and was thoroughly imbued with the consciousness of the great responsibility connected with his exalted position.

Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia attempts to defend Gregory over the 1572 massacre, arguing “...he was probably not acquainted with the circumstances of the Parisian horrors.” Why sure... that’s why he had this painting commissioned (shown above). The author of the link previously cited claims the painting still hangs on wall inside the Vatican (I’m not sure whether that’s true or not). Probably the most interesting stretch from the Catholic Encyclopedia is that “But even if Gregory XIII was aware of all the circumstances of the massacre (which has never been proven), it must be borne in mind that he did not rejoice at the bloodshed, but at the suppression of a political and religious rebellion.”

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-peasants-revolt-vsthe-st.html

OPPPPSSSSSSSSS...remember pointing a finger at someone...4 are pointing back to Rome..

[af_vet_1981]

I think that poster wants a Mormon RM

I suppose we could have a Mormon RM, or a Jewish RM, as long as he faithfully adhered to the site owner's restrictions regarding Mormonism, etc.

What if he wants an unbiased RM who faithfully applies one standard to all behavior with no respect of persons (albeit we must allow Mormonism itself is not a protected religion on FR per the site owner's decision) ?

Should he, a Mormon(I presume by your post) be held to the same standard, as you, and you as him, or should there be different standards of behavior (not of content) based on one's religion ?

[Zionist Conspirator]

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?

In Catholicism today there appears to be one and only one hard and fast rule: it is taboo and "un-Catholic" to accept the literal facticity of the Biblical narratives; especially Genesis, Daniel, Jonah, and Esther. Acceptance of higher Biblical criticism is a de facto defining point in determining that one is truly Catholic.

The fact that higher criticism was invented by Protestants is utterly lost on Catholics and Orthodox today.

[af_vet_1981]

I think that poster wants a Mormon RM

I suppose we could have a Mormon RM, or a Jewish RM, as long as he faithfully adhered to the site owner's restrictions regarding Mormonism, etc.

What if he wants an unbiased RM who faithfully applies one standard to all behavior with no respect of persons (albeit we must allow Mormonism itself is not a protected religion on FR per the site owner's decision) ?

Should he, a Mormon(I presume by your post) be held to the same standard, as you, and you as him, or should there be different standards of behavior (not of content) based on one's religion ?

[daniel1212]

I see from this that official documents have used the term "Roman Catholic." I stand corrected. But the term remains ambiguous. For instance, Pope Francis just honored St. Gregory of Narek as a "Doctor of the Church," although he was ("technically"?) an Armenian Orthodox, not even a regular "Eastern Orthodox." He was not "Catholic," and it's quite possible he never met a Catholic in all his life. Nevertheless, he never wrote anything at variance with Catholic doctrines. In fact, current Catholic canon law (1983) allows Orientals to receive Communion in a Catholic church. So are they "in communion"? Hmm.... I guess that was the assumption on Pope Francis' part, that if a guy is eligible for Catholic Sacraments, and not personally a proponent of heresy (not even "miaphytism,"), he's good to go. I'm not a canon lawyer, but I would say from the Peanut Gallery that it's not quite as cut-and-dried as some people suppose.

Plus, anyone who has been Baptized --- anywhere, by anyone--- has entered the Catholic Church, as long as water and the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 were used. So there's untold hordes of Christians out there, of various denominational flavors, who are regarded (by us) as "certainly, but imperfectly, Catholic." That's you, buddy. :o) In any case, God's action is not limited to, or by, the Sacraments. As the axiom has it, "We are bound by the Sacraments; but God is not bound by the Sacraments." He can do as He pleases.

Wow. There is enough there to get you in trouble with the local FR Inquisition! Such as have asserted such statements as all those statements about Prots now being born again and part of the body of Christ, are misleading

And
thanking God the Spanish Inquisition was up to the job,
that Protestantism is belief in one’s self, and
absolutely alien to Christianity, and that,
Protestants are mostly biblically illiterate,
intellectually dishonest,
evil fruit, who
don’t have the Holy Spirit, and
are not part of the Body of Christ, and
who have no foundation for their understanding of Christianity, and
will not be saved unless they becomes a member of the Catholic Church, and
are by inclination vandals who should be purged from the face of the earth,

But that Catholics never put down or challenge beliefs from protestants, and that,
there never has been a bit of anti-protestant bigotry on FR,
and that they have never seen a Catholic teaching proven false.

However, you have V2 on your side, but what is important is that we are on God's side, which is my prayer for you and all. And may your many infirmities work toward that and growth therein, but that you be made whole as well. 1Jn. 3:2

[daniel1212]

Indeed that was an ecclesiastical gift give to the NT church, a gift that allows for excommunication from the church ... But if for the sake of argument it referred to the forgiveness of sin ...no where does Christ tell the apostles that these gifts could be passed on ... Just one more note.. there was no such thing as "confession" to a priest until 1214... so the apostles must have "missed that

There was never a "priest" in the Cath sense in the NT church, but i do believe God can have regard to intercessory prayer, including having mercy on those chastened for sin, and thus healed, and in which pastors are to the primary recourse, though Ja. 5 also includes the fervent prayers of holy believers in general, and which signifies repentant submission if it was an issue.

[af_vet_1981]

It seems to me your assertion is that there really was no holy catholic apostolic church, so one can presume to found his own. When their works are shown to be evil, just blame the Catholics who came first, and press the restart button once again.

The obvious problem is all the faith communities, denominations, sects, and cults are historically illegitimate, which is precisely Islam's assertion, predating the Reformation by almost a millennia. Yet still the holy Catholuc apostolic church endures, confessing the Messiah, and the Jewish people endure, awaiting the Messiah, both groups hated by the world.

[daniel1212]

So when you reject some of what Luther taught, was it because you are ‘divinely inspired’ to reject some of what he, Luther, was ‘divinely inspired’ to reject??

Not only more than a pope is in supposing to speak infallibly, or that you are in rejecting (maybe) certain teachings of papal bulls and encyclicals.

So which human is responsible for arbiting whose ‘divine inspiration’ was more right than the other?

Since this was not the case it does not apply. But is your argument than an infallible magisterium is essential to correctly discern what is of God versus what is not, which the historical stewards of Scripture are, and thus dissent from them cannot be justified?

But

"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)

Such is the eternal failure of protestantism - you all get to choose what part of Luther you like and what part you reject.... and what parts of Scrpture mean what....and whether you are pre- or post- or whatever millenial you are.

And so (follow your logic) souls cannot correctly discern what is of God, and your alternative is perpetual ensured magisterial veracity, and thus your answer to my question above is yes?

[Faith Presses On]

The ultimate mission of Christians isn’t political victory, though, but sharing the Gospel and making disciples of Jesus Christ. And on that, the Roman Catholic Church isn’t a partner. It holds many unchristian beliefs. Ultimately, those beliefs are actually contributing to the destruction of cultural and political Christianity (I come from an 80% Catholic city in the Northeast and it’s been “post-Christian” for decades), and means the Catholic Church won’t be able to defend biblical morality because it’s built on the wrong foundation. Should we abandon preaching sound doctrine for political cooperation then? No, that’s not the answer, and Christians will not be silent because the Holy Spirit compels us to speak God’s Word. You mention liberals, homosexual activists and Muslims. Those in the U.S. heavily tend to vote Democrat, but it doesn’t mean they’re laying down their differences. Evangelicals can and absolutely should cooperate with Catholics without being quiet about the many errant beliefs of the Catholic Church. That is spiritual health.

[daniel1212]

You have to watch out for these "mystery meat" quotes.

And Rome has made good use of forgeries (Donation of Constantine ; Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals , etc.)

[ealgeone]

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.

You were the one bragging about how much more catholics give than protestants. Guess you just blew it for all catholics.

Man, you gotta love that catholic logic.

A simple question was asked if you tithe to substantiate your claim of catholics giving more than Christians.....not that I asked how much.....rather that if you tithe do you do so off the gross or the net.

When you come to this kind of forum you best be prepared to be able to back up your statement.

You know what they say on the playground....put up, or hush up.

[LurkingSince'98]

AD Majoram Dei Gloriam

[Faith Presses On]

The Roman Catholic Church is very different from the church of 1900+ years ago. Over time, due to human unfaithfulness, it evolved into something else. The original Church apparently chose, by inspirtation of the Holy Spirit, not to preserve knowledge of a lot of things, including, for example, much about the lives of the original apostles and Jesus’s known family, including His brothers and Mary, His mother. If God had intended it, He could have made sure that knowledge was preserved, including preserving a “royal line” of Christians coming from Jesus’ relatives, as it’s likely some reproduced. We could have the same with the original twelve disciples. But we don’t have that. Just on the matter of Mary and Jesus’ brothers, it’s an inescapable conclusion that the Church consciously and deliberately opposed preserving knowledge of their lives here on earth, including after Jesus’ resurrection, and the reason for that is that Jesus alone is God and everyone was wholly devoted to Him alone. That is clear in the New Testament from the first to the last. But there is still a human tendency to get into such things, and while it was opposed in the original church, it crept back in over time, over many centuries.

[LurkingSince'98]

Who do the protestants tithe to when they ‘church themselves’ at home?

AMDG

[amihow]

Logic escapes you I think. Argument ad hominem your strong point Frau Blue?

[amihow]

Logic escapes you I think. Argument ad hominem your strong point Frau Blue?

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"Why do Catholics have such perverted views on sex?"

The Catholic view (Doctrinally) is that it should be between one man and one woman, married to each another, with no foreign objects involved. Perverted? I think not.

"Who the heck spends time thinking about stuff like this?"

When people mess with natural, normal marital relations, it has be pointed out as wrong. Or should we just ignore everything and say it's all good?

"What is wrong with Catholicism that it leads such places in the mind?"

What is wrong with people, who invent ways to pervert natural law? Again, as long as people sin, they must be admonished.

Really mom, a very sad attempt indeed.

[Resettozero]

Who do the protestants tithe to when they ‘church themselves’ at home?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't your post get pulled the last time you tried this end run tack?

You make presumptions about people by the timing of their posts and give not a whit of concern about what their circumstances may be.

You've done as much damage on this thread to your church organization's reputation as any RC I've seen posting here. I hope you continue to post here often.