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.

[roamer_1]

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.

Will you please stop using psuedepigraphal nonsense to try to support your claims?

The Protoevangelium of James, according to Origen (the first to mention it), was a recent work as of his writing in early 300ce. And contrary to your using him in favor of the book by his quote further down, He did not endorse it. In fact, he says the 'gospel of James', and the 'gospel of Peter' both are dubious at best.

It's first lie is in it's attribution to James - The very title - So why should one believe anything at all thereafter?

In truth, these books arise, by their content, precisely to pimp their content - Roman church syncretism, revisionism and propaganda at it's best (which isn't saying much) - This is precisely why your church fathers can hold no weight whatsoever.

[MamaB]

Eve was supposed to be sinless until she did what God told her not to do. Since that time everyone was born with a sin nature. Even Mary said she needed a Savior..

[roamer_1]

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

Nonsense.

The first and foremost objection is this:
If Yeshua instituted ANY new rite or sacrament, he would have violated Torah.
That he supposedly added a sacrament involving drinking blood of any kind is a second violation of Torah.

If this is what he did, then he cannot be the perfect atonement, having sinned, nor could he be a true prophet, having violated Torah in an official capacity.

[Gamecock]

Catholics seem to have block when it comes to "following man"

Their entire faith is based on following the musings of a man who lives in an apartment tucked inside one of the largest, richest museums in the world.

That we don't do the same is unfathomable to them.

[ealgeone]

Also recall that the catholics never put these book as canon when they had the chance. If this was as rock solid as they claim, and as widely believed by the early church as they claim, then why weren’t these included?
<p.
Because the early church knew they were not legit.

[roamer_1]

In the New Testament, the new Ark is not an inanimate object, but a person: the Blessed Mother.

This is by far the most hideous of blasphemies. Yeshua, in his human self, is The Ark. The 'container' is his own human form. That requires no perfect womb in a sinless woman, else every other Yeshua touched would have had to be perfect too. What is the perfect is his self - Not his body, not his mother's body, not his grandmother's body.

Equally hideous is this incestuous 'new eve' meme, which, without the need for a 'perfect virgin', becomes wholly untenable. Eisegesis in spades. The New Eve is Yeshua's Bride.

[metmom]

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Past tense. WERE.

No longer accountable for the sins, because we are not under the Law any more. God canceled the record of debt that stood against us.

[RnMomof7]

It is my belief and that of the Catholic Church first recorded in about the firet century AD that Mary was Ever Virgin.

Could you provide some evidence of this ? See scripture indicates she had other children ...

[RnMomof7]

Regenerate people WANT to go to church and be with Abba. Roman Catholics, based on your post, go to mass to avoid Hell. You can stay on the Roman Catholic treadmill, which is just spinning faster and faster, or you can rest in the finished work of Jesus. His burden is light. Which is it? It matters for eternity.

The Sabbath was a type of Christ..where man could rest from his work( Hebrews 3 & 4)

We do not go to church for fear of going to hell if we do not.. We go to church to celebrate Christ.. to learn more of Him and to worship Him with other believers....

[MamaB]

The New Ark is Jesus not Mary.

[metmom]

The previous questions of why do we pray and obey the Ten Commandments if our salvation is secure, just blew me away....

What a revelation into the mindset of the average Catholic......

[RnMomof7]

The Ark was a type of Jesus.. but Rome needs a goddess and so they replace Christ with Mary whenever they can

The ark was the center of worship.. the blood of sacrifice was poured on the mercy seat... Mary has no mercy to give..

Just thinking how little God would love Mary if he sent her out in front of the troops in battle and allowed her to be kidnapped by pagans

[Gamecock]

**The Ark was a type of Jesus**

All of Scripture is about Jesus. Types. Shadows.

Roman Catholics make it like there’s something about Mary in all of Scripture.

[MamaB]

Why do they put so much emphasis on Mary when Christianity is all about Jesus? I just do not understand..

[Gamecock]

Why do they put so much emphasis on Mary when Christianity is all about Jesus? I just do not understand..

______________________________________________________

Why do they put any emphasis on Mary?

[MamaB]

You are right. Thanks.

[MamaB]

I think they have a love-hate relationship with Jesus. They seem to want someone other than Him to get all honor, praise and glory.

[MamaB]

GG is right. Numbers do not matter.

[Gamecock]

about a billion and a quarter Catholics think otherwise.

________________________________________________

Argumentum ad populum.

For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Matthew 7:14

[MamaB]

Yes, just how many Muslims are there?