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.

[Mark17]

Blessed Mary Ever Virgin

I used to believe that when I was a catholic. I am not anymore. You can believe whatever you like. That's on you. I just don't believe it myself. On the other hand, the fact that Mary had a ton of kids is irrelevant. The only thing I care about. The only thing that matters in all creation is, what is your plan of salvation? All these other less important issues, do not matter a hill of beans, if one does not get THAT right. I guess when ole Gabriel blows his horn, we will all know for sure, won't we? Some will welcome Gabe's trumpet, some won't. See you at the pearly gates.

Elsie, how many kids did Mary and Joseph have? I forgot the exact number. 🇵🇭😀😃😄 A fella can hope eternally, can't he? 🇵🇭🙊🙉🙈😄😃😀

[Faith Presses On]

That, though, contradicts what the Bible teaches.

Are you a good person, would you say?

Doesn’t the Bible teach that Christ died so that we could be forgiven for our sins? But why did He have to die? Why can’t God just forgive us? Because God is just, so sin has to be punished. Jesus therefore took our just punishment for us. He died, and suffered God’s wrath and the separation from His Father in Hell for us. This is a point that Muslims don’t get when they speak of their merciful, forgiving Allah. They have no answer for how God can be just and forgive sin.

And if Jesus had to die and suffer as He did, even if He had to lay aside His Godhead to come here and take the form of a man, and bear with human beings and all their evil, how serious must our sin be against God to require such a sacrifice on the part of His Son. That is sin against a holy God. Maybe our sin can seem understandable to us, so “not so bad,” but so often we can get a glimpse of the wrath of God’s just nature against sin when we see the rebellion against God in others. We are sinners ourselves, so our wrath is hypocritical if we don’t remember that, as we tend not to, but we can gain a sense of God’s just wrath towards sin.

But the long and short of it is that we are absolutely guilty before God, deserving of His eternal wrath, but for His undeserved mercy. If you truly recognize that truth, then you can never credit yourself for recognizing it.

That seems to be a cardinal difference between evangelical and Catholic belief on justification. The evangelical belief, that matches what the Bible teaches, is that we don’t deserve to take credit before God for recognizing our sinfulness and moral poverity. That’s like saying if I have nothing to be proud of, I can at least be proud of being humble. Well, no one should be proud of that. That ceases to be humility.

The Bible teaches that we cast ourselves on God’s mercy out of desperation and self-interest, not because there is some good somewhere in us. We are like the prodigal son. He rescues us out of love despite our being His enemies, as the Bible tells us. It tells us He died for us when we were yet His enemies. It is His love in the face of our hate towards Him that can change hearts and resurrect souls. We are not the sources of it, but the receivers.

Each of being the cause of sacrifice of God’s Son as sinners against a Holy God, we have no claim to goodness. We have no right as sinners against God to eternal life. We all must depend on His mercy, purchased for us by Jesus’ sacrificial death. Paul I believe wrote that we were “bought with a price” so are not our own. Jesus’ death purchased eternal life for us if we accept that gift.

If you look at the parable of the two men who went up to pray, the Pharisee and the publican, the Pharisee acknowledged God but believed God had made him better than others, and reminded God of his works. The publican, though, only pleaded with the Lord, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” And Jesus said that man left justified, rather than the other man.

But imagine if the publican had pleaded with God to be merciful to him as he did, but then added, “but remember, too, God, at least I know I need your mercy. Give me credit for that.” How sincere would have been his initial plea if he added such? Human beings are hardened criminals in God’s eyes, naturally with hearts of stone rather than of flesh, in the spiritual sense, as the Bible says.

Remember too the parable of the man who was in great debt to his master, and his master freely forgave him when he begged for mercy. We owe an unpayable debt to God.

And remember, too, how when Jesus directed the fishermen disciples to where they should put their nets, after making their miraculous catch, Peter responded to Him, “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.” When coming face to face with God, he was in terror because of his sin. It would be surprising if he hadn’t done a lot of good in his life, but it was his sin that he thought of, and that is the right response if you truly grasp God’s holiness and the magnitude of our sin and rebellion against Him.

With all that said, the Bible is clear from first to last that no one is to approach other people as they do God. That’s God’s first commandment. And the early Church took care to prevent that by not retaining the knowledge of the lives of Jesus’ relatives. According to human nature, it would have been natural to do that, just as people bow before “important people” today, and just as it would have been natural if the Bible had reported more on the disciples and what Jesus looked like and what His life was like between 12 and 30. But God, in His wisdom, not only reveals, but conceals for a time, and that knowledge about Jesus’ family was concealed. The early church apparently was driven to downplay the natural relationships for the sake of glorifying only Jesus and being devoted to His Heavenly Kingdom and family. The natural human tendencies are always there, though, and over time those sorts of fleshly concerns - which then focus on and elevate mere sinful humans - were allowed back into what became the Catholic Church.

[Faith Presses On]

Where responsibility comes into it was the warnings were about “what churches were doing.” Jesus said he found them to be doing wrong and was warning them to repent. If you were in school as a child and another student got yelled at for doing wrong, the yelling warned you, but it was not actually directed to you.

[ealgeone]

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the “brethren of the Lord.”

Actually you can point to this passage from Matthew 13:55-56 to show this.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

We can also point to Paul who recognized James as the brother of Jesus.

Much to chagrin of the catholic, when read in context the Bible shows that Joseph and Mary had other children.

As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

The Protoevangelium of James was so important to catholics that they didn't include it in the canon....not even when they had multiple chances.

Why?

The early Christian church recognized it for what it was....

The first mention of it is by Origen of Alexandria in the early 3rd century, who says the text, like that of a Gospel of Peter, was of dubious, recent appearance and shared with that book the claim that the "brethren of the Lord" were sons of Joseph by a former wife.[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

So again, a catholic belief has been shown to be incorrect.....again.

BTW....Josephus knew Jesus had brothers and sisters.

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “Antiquities of the Jews” in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xvi.ii.iii.xvii.html

Man...it's embarrassing to have to keep correcting these selective quotes on this false roman catholic teaching.

[metmom]

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.

Birth control is birth control, whether it uses *foreign objects* or " natural" family planning.

It's pride and arrogance to sit in condemnation towards people who use one form of birth control and not another just because the church approved method of birth control is "natural".

[LurkingSince'98]

you just don’t get it.

If you were the last person on this forum I wouldn’t give you the time of day.

go badger someone else.

AMDG

[MamaB]

I knew a minister who had an affair. He was kicked out as soon as it became known. He can not be a pastor in the SBC any longer. I also knew a young man who moved out of town. He got up in front of his new choir, told them he was a homo. He was kicked out that same day. The SBC takes care of situations like these. They do not let them move to another church. The Catholics and others should do the same. No one is perfect, though.

[ealgeone]

When you learn to cite the Bible in a recognized format, I'll respond to you.

An accepted form is below.

(John 16:33 NASB)

Perhaps you should find a reference book on how to properly cite the Bible.

[ealgeone]

Catholics seem to have thin skin when confronted with the truth.

[metmom]

What you apparently fail to see is the distinction between the fact that Chrisitians don’t need to go to church because they aren’t being told that it’s a sin if they don’t, and what they actually do.

Apparently the only motivating factor in church attendance for Catholics is the threat of hellfire.

Not attending church is not a sin for most non-Catholics. At least, it’s not labeled or listed as a sin in Scripture.

So guess what?

Christians go to church casue they WANT to.

Can you imagine that? They aren’t attending simply because of the threat of losing their salvation.

This falls into the same category as the question recently asked that if Christians have assurance of their salvation, why do they pray or obey the Ten Commandments.

Obviously Catholics can see no other motivating factor that threats to get the desired behavior put of them by the church, and if the RCC didn’t threaten them with hell, they wouldn’t do any of those things either.

What a sad religion it is that coerces desired behavior out of those who follow it.

[metmom]

Where are we commanded in Scripture to interpret it?

Do you have any idea what we are to do with Scripture?

And again, is God going to give us a theology test when we die to see if we “interpreted”. Scripture “ correctly” to see if we qualify to enter heaven?

[ealgeone]

426 is still there.

[Religion Moderator]

Stop picking at the scab