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]

nice spin

that is definitely not true because the RM removed the post where I detailed my complaint

AMDG

[rwa265]

that number dropped to 11 who were really followers.

---

Where does Scripture say that the number dropped to 11 who were really followers?

[ealgeone]

12 disciples minus Judas = 11

[Resettozero]

nice spin

that is definitely not true because the RM removed the post where I detailed my complaint.

Perhaps you are right and perhaps I am mistaken. But let's chat no more.

[rwa265]

Where does Scripture say that the number dropped so that just the 11 were “really followers”?

[Gamecock]

And how many people voted for 0bama. Twice?
(And he carried a majority of Catholic voters too!)

[Springfield Reformer]

Why do they put any emphasis on Mary?

I'm doing research on Roman culture for a book I'm hoping to write.  It's been an eye-opener.  There are lots of things going on in Roman culture that revolved around the goddess religions.  They had for example a female deity called Regina Caeli, which means "Queen of Heaven."  Virgo was another, which by name means "The Virgin."  The Vestal Virgins were priestesses of the female deity Vesta, who were sworn to an oath of celibacy, and had been practicing this for about three quarters of a millennium before Christianity appeared.  The structure of the college of cardinals corresponds nicely to the organization of the Roman senate, and Caesar could speak on occasion with the authority of a god on earth, as the pope also claims, when speaking "From the Chair," Ex Cathedra. I could go on and on.  The parallels seem endless.  

The point is, this is the culture into which Roman Christianity was grafted, and it was pervasive.  Every last person who became a Christian in Rome, unless they were imported from other lands and cultures, had all these templates for religion (and many, many more I haven't even mentioned) baked into their worldview.  The interesting thing is that during the first two centuries, Christianity in Rome was largely held by the "riff raff,"  the social outcasts, who were largely imports from other lands, many slaves captured and brought in to supply Rome with an inexpensive and disposable workforce.  It was exactly as Paul said, not many wise, not many noble.

And for those first two centuries, while Christianity remained largely a curious cult not popular with the upper class, the assemblies remained diverse, without any discernible central leadership, and little impacted by the pagan influences surrounding them.  The later developed lists purporting to show a continuity of popes during that early period has proved to be impossible to support from primary sources.  See for example Peter Lampe's landmark work, "From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries:"

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-extended-review-of-peter-lampes-from.html

According to Lampe, the early congregations were diverse and decentralized, with no single "Bishop of Rome."  What did happen is that toward the end of the Second Century, power began to concentrate in those individuals in Rome who gathered the ecumenical funding for charitable projects outside of Rome, and it is from these late roots that a more traceable papacy would ultimately emerge.  Their claim to the "Throne of Peter" was retroactive, but not based on demonstrable history.

Then, when the tide finally began to turn at the beginning of the Third Century, Christianity, again according to primary sources dug up by Lampe and others, began to be more accepted in the upper classes of Rome, where full on cultural Romans set themselves to reconcile this curious new cult with the pagan religious atmosphere that dominated Rome at the time.  It is easy to see how the Christian stories could supply them with a rich supply of material that to them seemed an honest correspondence with the pagan deities, practices, and ecclesiastical structures in which they had been immersed for centuries.  They were going to "adopt" Christianity and dress it up in Roman attire, because that was what they knew.  In hindsight, it would be a hard error to avoid, as we all have a tendency to see divine truth through our own culturally tainted lenses.

Peace,

SR

[Gamecock]

Interesting analysis.

Rome has always had a habit of practicing syncretism. I guess when you get in that tar pit it is hard to get out.

[Elsie]

While the gospels do not rise to the level of absolute certainty about the perpetual virginity of Mary, neither is there evidence that proves the belief is incorrect

It could happen!

Since there's NO 'evidence'; either way; you'll just HAVE to accept what the Church teachers about this!

Even though it goes against human nature, biblical principles and common sense.

[Elsie]

Call it whining if you want, but please recognize that the following comments in your post are very hurtful:

Really?

That is so sad.

I used to get picked on a lot as a kid by the thugs down the street.

I had to walk two blocks out of my way just to avoid them.

[Elsie]

Love is not boastful. It keeps no record of wrongs.

It is patient, kind...

[Elsie]

And now we've got ol' Brucie.

Poor confused, possibly possessed, Jenner.

Media's newest darling of the 'oppressed'!

And we worry about FLORIDATED water?

It seems that CLORINATED water is not good for you!

[Elsie]

Yes, just how many Muslims are there?

I'd rather think...

Yes, just how many potential Christians are there?

[rwa265]

I was thinking more along the lines of:

Brothers and sisters, live by the Spirit
and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh.
For the flesh has desires against the Spirit,
and the Spirit against the flesh;
these are opposed to each other,
so that you may not do what you want.
But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Now the works of the flesh are obvious:
immorality, impurity, lust, idolatry,
sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy,
outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness,
dissensions, factions, occasions of envy,
drinking bouts, orgies, and the like.
I warn you, as I warned you before,
that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, generosity,
faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Against such there is no law.
Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified their flesh
with its passions and desires.
If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit.

I wish more FReepers, Catholic and otherwise, would be more inclined to follow the Spirit in their postings.

[ealgeone]

Brothers and sisters, live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, lust, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit.

And this selection is from where??

[rwa265]

Sorry, I forgot to provide the reference. Galatians 5:15-25. I should have included verse 26 - Let us not be conceited, provoking one another, envious of one another.

Here is the King James version:

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

[metmom]

If you would take the Roman Catholic plank out of your eye and reread what Metmom posted you will see a huge distinction, that being what a regenerated heart wants to do.

That's because a person can't understand the desires of a regenerated heart unless they have one.

[caww]

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

Actually there's 'something' about Mary that starts at the top of the catholic hierarchy...

[CynicalBear]

>>You may admit, though, that Protestants often lift Luther up in posts.<<

I haven't seen that. I have seen them refute Catholic statements about him. It's the Catholics who bring Luther into the conversation.

>>Do you see the emerging church as still evolving or progressing ?<<

The what??? Doing what??? This concept of "church" being some organization brings some really weird comments.

[CynicalBear]

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

The ekklesia of Christ is unfathomable to them. They have created a religion that certainly is not what the apostles taught.