Here I thought we had entered a new era of warm relations between Protestants and Roman Catholics. We are almost twenty years from the first iteration of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. The architects of that project, Richard John Neuhaus and Chuck Colson have passed from the scene but the George brothers (in name only), Timothy and Robbie, have extended the spirit of culture war cooperation with the Manhattan Declaration. Add to mix Mark Noll and Carolyn Nystrom’s Is the Reformation Over? and you have a setting in which the lines dividing Rome, Geneva, Wittenburg, and Wheaton are increasingly fuzzy. That could be a reason for Protestants to convert to Rome since the differences aren’t great. But it could also be a reason to remain Protestant. If the differences aren’t significant, why bother putting up with bad liturgical music when you can keep the lousy praise band in your own congregation?
And then along comes the ex-Prots who write at Called to Communion to remind all the partyers that a curfew exists and, oh, by the way, they also called the cops if we don’t break up the revelry. CTC’s heavy handed insistence on older Roman Catholic verities is laudable in many respects but comes as a complete surprise to the world of Protestant-Roman Catholic relations. If some wonder why objections to CTC have been so pronounced at Old Life of late, the reason has something to do with how out of synch CTC seems to be with the rest of the Roman Catholic world and the vibe Protestants get from that Roman universe. Instead of telling us how much we share in common with them the way most Roman Catholics do these days, CTC is there to remind us how far Protestants fall short of the fullness of glory that is Rome. Like I say, this bracing splash of alcohol on the wound is welcome at a time when differences between Rome and Protestants look increasingly like personal preference.
At the same time, the other wrinkle in CTC’s project is how little they seem to notice that Rome is not a monolith of fidelity to the teachings of the pope, magisterium, and church councils. The Jesuits, Roman Catholic higher education in the United States, and the nuns are all examples of Roman Catholics out of sync with official church teaching and practice. But when you search around at CTC, you find more about problems among Reformed Protestants than you do about the nuns. Perhaps it is a function of a poor search engine, but if you want to know about the deficiencies of President Obama receiving an honorary doctorate from the University of Notre Dame, you’re not going to find it readily at CTC.
CTC’s lack of attention to problems in the Roman Catholic Church has me wondering if CTCers’ insistence on infallibility in ways that would have made Benjamin Warfield’s head swim is responsible for this apparent hiding from Rome’s difficulties. Could it be that if you are so committed to an innerant church hierarchy, you’re predisposed deny errors in your communion?
To illustrate the point, I refer to the recent remarks at Old Life about development of doctrine and certain caricatures of Rome that may have surfaced. In one of my comments, I believe, I questioned the persuasiveness of an exegetical case for Rome’s view of justification since it didn’t seem to me that the Bible figures all that prominently in CTC defenses of Rome (minus Matt. 16:18 which is for CTCers what John 3:16 is for Free Will Baptists). Jason Stellman responded that this was a bit of a cheap shot since Roman Catholics care about the Bible do do exegesis. Only children who are ignorant make the mistake of saying that Roman Catholics don’t read and know their Bibles.
Well, that’s not what David Carlin says over at CatholiCity:
According to the poll, 25 percent of Evangelical Protestants read the Bible daily, as do 20 percent of other Protestants, while daily Bible-reading is done by only 7 percent of Catholics. Now this result didn’t bother me very much, since one can be very familiar with, and very greatly influenced by, a book without reading it on a daily basis. I myself don’t read the Bible daily; nor do I give a daily reading to Plato or Shakespeare; and it’s years since I read Matthew Arnold’s Culture and Anarchy. Yet I know that all these writing have had a strong influence on the way I look at life and the world.
Far more disturbing was the poll result that showed that 44 percent of Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, while this is true of only 7 percent of Evangelicals and 13 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants. The level of religious vitality must be very low in a Christian church in which 44 percent of the membership almost never bothers to read the Bible.
Carlin explains this phenomenon by appealing to Trent, and part to the sacramental nature of the church:
All this changed, officially at least, at Vatican II, which dropped the Church’s 400-year-old “defensive mode of being.” Lay Catholics were now at long last given the green light to read the Bible; indeed, they were encouraged to read it. Yet today, nearly a half-century later, 44 percent of American Catholics “rarely or never” read the Bible, and only 7 percent read it on a daily basis. How can this be?
Part of the answer, of course, is inertia. Four centuries of a certain policy cannot be changed immediately overnight – any more than an aircraft carrier at sea can make a turn of 180 degrees on a dime. Another part of the answer is the sacramentalism of the Catholic Church: To save your soul, it is more important to participate in the sacraments than to read the Bible. But a third part of the answer is, alas, that the leadership of the Church (I mean its bishops and priests) have not stressed the importance of Bible-reading for shaping the Christian mind and heart.
Carlin’s point about Trent’s defensiveness on Bible reading is confirmed by an article in the old New Catholic Dictionary (1910) on Bible Reading by Laity (the date is important because this is a description of the Roman Catholic Church prior to Vatican II:
The Council strictly prohibited the reading of all heretical Latin versions, unless grave reasons necessitated their use. The Council itself did not forbid the reading of the new Catholic translations, although even these later fell under the ban of the Index Commission which Trent set up for the supervision of future legislation regarding the Bible. In 1559 the Commission forbade the use of certain Latin editions, as well as German, French, Spanish, Italian, and English vernacular vereions. Two centuries later, however, it modified the severity of this legislation by granting permission for the use of all versions translated by learned Catholic men, provided they contained annotations derived from the Fathers, and had the approval of the Holy See. Our present discipline grows out of the decree, “Officiorum ac Munerum,” of Leo XIII. This decree states that all vernacular versions, even those prepared by Catholic authors, are prohibited if they are not, on the one hand, approved by the Apostolic See, or, on the other hand, supplied with proper annotations and accompanied by episcopal approbation. However, it contains a provision whereby, for grave reasons, biblical and theological students may use non-Catholic editions as long as these do not attack Catholic dogma.
This does not prove that Roman Catholics can’t or should not do exegesis. The point instead is about the conservative Roman Catholics who are more intent on showing Protestantism’s errors than the problems in their own ecclesiastical home. And I cannot help but think that an emphasis on infallibility produces a culture in which denial is a habit of mind if not a w-w.
91 Comments
Jason, if extra-biblical infallibility is possible, and if a Peter speaks sometimes inerrantly and sometimes he doesn’t, how do you decide which is the statement without error? This is what is hard to believe that CtCer’s don’t see. As if the pope can see it, with his charism. But then the pope doesn’t speak authoritatively all the time. So it seems like a rigged game. We are inerrant whenever we say we are and if you raise questions well, that’s just bad faith or poor submission. At least Muslims have to submit to God.
Word correction:
Every other example of Peter’s infallible speaking outside of Scripture is unverifiable.
to:
Any other example of Peter’s infallible speaking outside of Scripture is unverifiable.
Sabine,
“The difference is that Luther translated the gospel into German and Philip Neri translated it into his life.”
Can’t be. Luther’s gospel was outside of man thing, an alien message. For Neri it was an inside of man thing.
They had two different, and utterly antagonistic, gospels.
For anyone interested, I highly recommend Ross Douthat’s book “Bad Religion”. I think “Catholicism”, dare I say “Christianity”, for an American, is tantamount to saying “America”. What does that mean and why do I bring it up? What I mean is that our perception of Christendom — Catholic or Protestant — comes straight through an Americanist lens, diluted accordingly.
If Bavaria was a wreck at Luther’s time — as I think Karl Adam’s does a good job of showing — America has been a wreck for the last 40+ years (Protestant and Catholic). Therefore, no wonder there are so many former Catholics out there, and so many Joel Osteens (former main-line Protestants — in some sense). It makes perfect sense that both CTC would look like a novelty and a girl in Iowa would tell an unbeliever that you are “born into it”. And, for an American, all of this would look like “Catholicism”, because we see everything through our Americanist lens.
The question remains, what will happen of Catholicism and Protestantism in America? To borrow Douthat’s phrase, in a “county of heretics”, where will we find orthodoxy? Is there a principle in Protestantism or Catholicism that will portend a better future, or is decay and obsolescence (in America) inevitable?
JJS, forgive me if I implied the possibility of extra-biblical infallibility. I was simply demonstrating that “may” and “might be” are possibility-type language, which come cheaply in discussion.
My implied comment at the end, that fortunately the Scriptures have not left us with your suggested possibility, might need to be more explicit. I believe Scripture is clear that men in themselves are fallible (see Gal 1:8 and some comments on Darryl’s newest post about James) and no man is outside that scope. It is always the message itself that is infallible, though God is pleased to used fallible men. But no man, nor office is infallible, except the office which Christ took.
And if we are going to speak in possibilities, why only limit it to Peter and not extend the possibility to Paul, John, Luke, etc.? I presume it’s because of an interpretation of Mt. 16:18? If so then I think our difference is clear.
Jason,
But what about apostolic succession? Or when you say Peter, are you assuming the Petrine office as well?
BTW, who’s the head case over at CCR? Some EO cat? And you thought I was mad! Yeesh.
…that would be CCC. Fogerty is an angry guy too, from what I hear.
Brent,
Has it ever been worse than right after pentecost? Both inside and outside the church? Hasn’t the principle always been the promise of a God who will build His church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it? Please don’t go Petrine office as fulfillment of that promise, please. Particularly if, according to your assessment, the petrine office isn’t making much a dent in America. Decay and heresy and doom are always at the doorstep aren’t they? That’s why we posit a church-militant, because there is no other type this side of glory. Assailed on every side, seems to be a recurrent theme in the history of the church.
I think, is the Petrine ministry underrated and overrated at the same time.
Peter was not a scribe, and the Gospels are recorded his roller coaster rides with Jesus. One moment he is on top, says exactly the right thing and in the same breath, he blew it all and he turns it into a pattern. At the end of John’s Gospel, almost I want to beat him for his stupidity.
There is a charcoal fire, what we know from the courtyard somehow. Peter gets the opportunity to do un-do his betrayal, his office gets confirmed he and he states a very clear commitment to Christ. And after that insted of doing something great, he turns around and asks: What about the guy there? If Jesus had asked me, I would not have given the office to Peter. Mary Magdalene would have been a candidate on my list, not one of the guys. I mean really, look at her. She looks like a giant of faith, while the guys do not even venture out the door.
So I think it is a gross misunderstanding of the Petrine ministry, if you believe that a Pope should not be criticized or rebuked. We see Peter in his office, as he is rebuked and popes throughout history were rebuked again and again. Have you read Catherine of Siena’s Letters to the Pope? Then you know what I mean.
To expect that the men who hold this office, are sinless and always make the right decisions – such as Protestants, it seems to expect-is wrong.
On the other hand, it is quite clear to me that Peter has a very special office. His sermons may not be long, but they are effective. And even if he has trouble giving up Jewish customs, if he has to give testimony, he speaks the truth and becomes a bold preacher of the gospel. And he keeps the flock together. This is just as important as the key. Those who reject the Petrine ministry, are depending on the state or shatter into thousands of sects.
The Petrine ministry restricts people not. The Office of the Pope freed the church to do so, where is she called to do.
While the reformers built up huge thought structure and made faith almost a mental sport performance, nothing changed. Previous to the Reformation they had to obey the bishops, after the Refomation they had to obey the Prince. What brought the reform, except for an expansion of secular power? Now, everyone could read the Bible in German, and what happened? Even the lives of the Reformers were pretty bourgeois and average. Where are the great inspirational figures that made the gospel visible, touchable?
People are very quickly tired of words, what they want to see is the live.
The main reason for the current crisis. Because you can be a full citizens without going to church every Sunday and moral values now dependent on majority vote, faith made is obsolet or on the same level as self-help groups for struggeling middle class people.
Go into a Christian bookstore. What do you find there? Seven Biblical principles that increase your income. 30 prayers that make you feel better about yourself. Biblical gifts test – How you find out job that suits you.
Monty Python made a few jokes about the Gospels in the “Life of the Brain”, than these authors with their Christian books.
And in the U.S. it is really noticeable. In Europe, no one does not try to look pious. We know that we are not religious. But in America, people still run to churches -that look like movie theaters or warehouses- and think they are Christian, because they said a single rather unbiblical prayer or went forward for an altar call without an altar.
And the blogs are in a rush, because someone has become a Catholic?
Yeah, come to his help and rescues him from the false teachings of the Pope, which forced my ancestors to build incredible beautiful cathedrals, threatened them the punishment of hell, when they don’t take care for the poor and sick, and claims that both Philip Neri and Ignatius of Loyola is in the same heaven – this claim could really raise doubts about infallibility.
Finally someone has brought up the very relevant Monty Python movie, The Life Of Brian.
“What have the Romans ever done for us?!”
(John Cleese)
Jack,
And how do you know that those two epistles are Scripture? There certainly wasn’t anonymity about them in the post-apostolic church.
No, the only reason YOU know Peter spoke infallibly is from Scripture. But Catholics aren’t limited to reading Scripture in a traditionless vacuum.
No, the only reason YOU know Peter spoke infallibly is from Scripture. But Catholics aren’t limited to reading Scripture in a traditionless vacuum.
Sean;
False dichotomy.
I’m not the one dichotomizing Scripture and Tradition.
JJS,
Neither are confessional protestants, they simply don’t regard them as equals
Neither do I. But to say that Scripture is the only possible way to know whether Peter did or said X is precisely to drive a wedge between Scripture and Tradition, as well as to beg the question by assuming Sola Scriptura.
JJS,
It’s not the only possible way. But that wasn’t the issue under consideration, the issue as I recall it, was whether he spoke(traditionally) without error.
It’s not the only possible way. But that wasn’t the issue under consideration, the issue as I recall it, was whether he spoke(traditionally) without error.
Indeed…
JJS, it seems to me we could grant that Peter spoke infallibly as well as writing infallibly. But so what? Isn’t the real question whether everybody else after him did and does? If nobody after him wrote infallibly, so why presume that anybody after him spoke and speaks infallibly?
Zrim,
OK, if Peter may have written and spoken infallibly (under certain conditions, of course), the question arises as to how he did this. Was it some talent he had, or was it due to some form of divine protection of him from teaching heresy? I trust we’d agree that the answer is the latter. Thus, contra Darryl, it is conceivably possible for a sinful person to exercise a divine gift of infallibility without in any way circumventing his own sinfulness.
The Catholic does not “presume” that anyone after Peter exercised this gift of infallibility. Instead, he finds evidence in both Scripture and Tradition that indicates that divine protection from error is (1) something Christ’s church has been promised, and (2) something that the post-apostolic church believed it possessed.
Your question will be, “Show me the evidence,” which is the right question, I think. But I’m just trying to highlight that the claim of infallibility is not a question-begging presumption, but rather is something Catholics believe is borne out by the biblical and patristic evidence.
JJS – What is the Biblical evidence? Matthew 16.18? What else? Can’t anyone come up with about anything based on a single verse?
Yes, Erik. The entire papacy is based on one verse. And I, for one, am SO glad you have come along to point this out! And I can’t believe that trillions of Catholics who’ve gone before us could have been so duped by such a slim amount evidence!
Get the word out, seriously. Because I really think your research on this matter can clear up a lot of confusion….
JJS – I am being serious. What is the other biblical evidence for the claim of infallibility? D.G. seems to say it is pretty much just Matthew 16.18. You say the claim is “borne out by the biblical and patristic evidence.” What is the biblical evidence beyond that one verse?
If you are that sarcastic with people who ask you questions it is probably for the best that you quit being a minister. I dealt with a sarcastic minister for quite a few years and now that I’m older I can pretty much look back and conclude he was a jackass.
Jason, and you are putting tradition into a lock box of truth. It cannot err, right? It’s hard enough reconciling some of the tensions in Scripture. Now you’re going to have to reconcile Origen and Augustine? There’s no interpretation in that?
BTW, you’re not serious about a church council giving us the canon, are you? That’s like saying that the Westminster Assembly gave us Calvinism. For a bunch of Christians that put a lot of emphasis on historical development, the idea that a council determined the canon is woefully historically wooden. It could be that the council was reflecting a consensus among Christians, not determining which books to put in the Bible.
BTW, you know that according to New Advent, the councils of Hippo and Carthage, between 391 and 419, the ones usually credited with arriving at the canon, are not regarded as ecumenical councils. Which raises the question of how you know which council is authoritative and which ones aren’t? Did a council determine which councils are reliable?
Jason, what makes my view different from yours is that I believe the canon of Scripture was divine revelation and that it is closed. But if you want to hold that others after the prophets and apostles can speak infallibly, fine. But how are they different from Scripture? It looks like your old view of Scripture now extends to your new view of the pontiff. In which case, why go to the councils about determining the canon of Scripture? Why is Scripture any different from what the pope does when he speaks infallibly (which according to Eamon Duffy only happened once — in 1950 — over the assumption of Mary).
Jason, sarcasm aside, what is the evidence in biblical scholarship? I did post yesterday about differences among the church fathers, which I learned from a Roman Catholic commentary, on Paul’s relationship to Peter and James and John. On the papacy roundup over at CTC, the section on the papacy in Scripture and history has six posts, only two of which were on Scripture. One was on Matt. 16:18 (suprise!), and the other was pretty thin. One of its points is that Peter is always listed first among the apostles. Well, not so in Galatians 2.
Your sarcasm seems a little disproportionate.
Darryl,
That misunderstands the Catholic position (which is much more nuanced than you give it credit for—in fact, you seem to always fault the CC for making things too simple, and then get annoyed when we say it isn’t). Catholicism doesn’t teach that everything an ECF said is inerrant, nor that there is no interpretation involved. So both your charges are false.
I never said that a church council “gave us” or “determined” the canon. I asked someone how they know that II Peter is canonical, but that’s a pretty reasonable question to pose to someone who thinks that every single council potentially taught error.
No one ever argued that the councils you refer to are ecumenical, so I’m not sure what your point is. And as for which councils are universally binding, it has always been the church’s understanding that binding decrees are those ratified by the bishop of Rome.
Cont’d below….
… Cont’d from above.
Again, this is just you oversimplifying things to provide a “gotcha!” If, instead of telling me that it looks to you like my “new view of the pontiff” entails that his words are on par with Scripture, why not just ask me if I think that? That’s what a person who is sincerely engaging in dialogue would do. And if you did that, I would explain that the words of Scripture are God-breathed, which extra-canonical statements are not. And I would probably point you to the section in the CCC that explains this in greater detail.
You seem to be implying here that Catholics think the pope speaks infallibly all the time or something. They don’t think that, but are constantly trying to explain to Protestants that the exercise of the pope’s full authority is a very rare thing, and much less scary than Protestants assume when they don’t really understand the issue.
Darryl, I hope you realize that this is a huge question that just can’t be answered well in a context of a blog combox. I’ll try to give a brief sketch, as long as you realize that it is but that.
1. The idea of there being successional offices in the covenant community is not new, but goes back to OT times.
2. One such office was the man ordained to be the prime minister of the king of Israel, which Isa. 22 tells us was characterized by his holding the keys of David’s kingdom.
3. Isa 22 seems to be the OT background of Jesus’ instatement of Peter in Matt. 16, where he gives him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, meaning that Peter was assuming an office akin to prime minister, one which is marked by succession like Shebna’s was.
4. Peter is clearly the prime apostle, as evidenced by Jesus giving him the keys solely, Jesus warning him that while Satan had asked for all twelve, Peter was to strengthen the others, and Jesus commissioning him excusively to feed and tend his sheep.
5. When Judas died, he left behind a vacant episcope.
6. When Peter said that this office must be filled, there was no need to argue that position, but it seems to be something that was assumed.
7. Throughout Acts and the pastorals, we see the apostles ordaining successors through the laying on of hands, and charging them to speak with all authority (which derived from the apostles’, which derived from Christ’s, which derived from the Father’s).
8. And this brings us to the patristic testimony.
Is there a verse that says there’s a papacy? No, just like there’s not one saying there’s a Trinity. But like that doctrine, the papacy is the result of an overall story the Bible tells about ordained offices and how they function. It may not persuade you (but hey, this is a sketch about which volumes could be written, and have been), and that’s fine. Although I think the real challenge here is for you to explain how that the church you worship in has an ecclesiology that would have been unrecognizable to anyone, East or West, for the first 1500 years of church history, because you have no bishop with sacramental succession to an apostle, thus failing the dictum of “how shall they preach unless they are sent?”
Jason, if you’re going to appeal to what ECF would recognize, we’re all on thin ice. I seriously doubt that Paul would recognize your claims to infallibility, much less your interpretation of the OT regarding succession of offices. He was pretty good at interpreting the OT, no? Plus, the early church, dominated by the East, was by no means regarding the bishop of Rome the way you do.
The problem with your brief account is that you don’t take into account the sources I cited in yesterday’s post. Acts after Peter’s last appearance and Paul’s interaction with Peter, James and John in Galatians. If Peter were so primary, you would expect to see that in the epistles, right? After all, we do see references to ideas behind the Trinity in the epistles. The primacy of Peter seems to drop with a precipitous thud in the second half of the NT, a time in which planting of churches and succession of pastoral ministry was precisely at issue.
As for simplifying your position, that is what blogs do. But sometimes blogs also address the implications of your ideas, ones that you didn’t see coming. Sure you can deny the implication. But don’t say the implication is silly if it is something that is plausible on the brief grounds you’ve given.
As for interpretation or not, I saw at your blog before you went on this journey that in response to Bryan’s Tu Quoque you said “I agree that, all things being equal, an appeal to historical facts is less subjective than an appeal to an interpretation of biblical data.” That is the sense that repeatedly comes across at CTC. Historical data is more objective that Scripture, as if historical developments aren’t interpreted. They just are. But Scripture is interpreted. That seems patently crazy to someone who interprets history for a living, as if history is clearer than Scripture. And again, this is what comes through repeatedly in CTC’s appeal to the ECF (who disagree but never mind), or to the magisterium which just is (but was actually an interpretation of historical events and texts), or to infallibility which again just is (but also relied on a lot of interpretations besides people who had the papal charsm). BTW, I know that not everything a pope says is infallible or does is impeccable. My point was that in a major history of the papacy by a relatively conservative Roman Catholic historian says that only one time after 1870 has the pope exercised “infallible magisterium” and did so to define the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary (Duffy, Saints and Sinners, 267). If you have all that authority and all that inerrancy why not use it more? Or if it has been used so little, what’s with the CTC claims that its everywhere in the early church and the tradition. Who’s right? CTCer’s or Eamon Duffy? Isn’t this sort of like saying who’s right? Mike Horton or Joel Osteen?
So the “how do you know” question applies to you as a Roman Catholic (whenever it goes into effect) and to me as a Protestant. We’re both trying to figure it out. You can appeal to an infallible pope who rarely speaks infallibly and I can appeal to an inerrant Bible that lots of people get wrong. My point is that the certainty that you seem to find in Rome is a veneer and really does resemble QIRC.
JJS – I follow your logic. A few follow up questions: (1) On what basis do you think the authority of the apostles continued beyond those who had personally known Jesus? (2) Why is the Bishop of Rome the most powerful? (3) Why do you have confidence that the line of succession has been kept pure for 2000 years? (4) How much confidence do you put in the teachings of the church that are not found in the Bible? If the pope only speaks infallibly on rare occasions to what degree can you be sure that things that have arisen from tradition are pure and/or correct?
To quote The Big Lebowski, “Once the plan gets too complex, everything can go wrong”. One of the things that appeals to me about Protestantism is the list of things I need to affirm is smaller. I’m not a Mormon because I’m really not down with affirming that Joseph Smith found those gold plates in the 19th century.
“Who’s right? CTCer’s or Eamon Duffy? Isn’t this sort of like saying who’s right? Mike Horton or Joel Osteen?”
Ouch. Low blow. I think I would actually go with the CTCer’s over Osteen…
Sean,
We will see if the Petrine office is making a dent..and we will see how the petrine-less thing goes, I agree. I wasn’t trying to make a point, only an observation and a book recommendation that might help to contextualize the “Roman Catholic” problems we both agree upon. Though I’m apt to think birth-rates have a lot to do with it, and for the Christian community, it would appear only fundamentalists and practicing Roman Catholics will be around. Just sayin.
In other words, the Fr. Morrell’s are disappearing. It is what Catholics call Pope Benedict XVI’s “biological” option.
God love you!
You mean, except sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, Erik?
Just to clear the one-verse-thing . At the very end of the Gospel of John passage which alone could justify the papacy, I think. Matthew refers clearly to the kingship of Christ, but John recourse to Isaiah and Ezekiel is also very meaningful.
However, I still do not know why the infallibility is a problem at all.
Seriously, how many times were dogmas declared without the consult of College of Cardinals?
That the a council makes is able to make binding decisions, is quite clear, isn’t it?
So, what’s the problem?
The Protestant reformers saw themselfs as infallibile in matters of faith as the popes did.
If this had not been the case , why didn’t Luther seek a compromise? Why go to war over a opinion?
The same ist true for Calvin. If he did not believe that his teaching was the only correct interpretation of Scripture, why condemn opponents?
And the same self assumed infallibility spilts up the Protestant communities today.
In Europe, this splitting process was prevented by the state, but look at North America.
It is disturbing that in every medium-sized city has at least a half dozen different Churches. The mainline Protestants, the true Reformed, the really really Reformed, Reformed Baptist, Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, and as if that were not bad enough, these communities are split again according to race and social status. That’s disgusting, really. I do not think the leaders of these communities are all anti-Christs, but it looks very much like anti-church.
Sabine: “You mean, except sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, Erik?
???
If you are offering me some wine I prefer beer. Otherwise I missed what you are responding to.
Sabine – Every medium-sized North American city does not have a really really Reformed church, but we’re working on it…
Brent – You forgot about Muslims. There will be lots of them, too. Especially in Europe. Us Conservative Reformed folk will still be here. We’re kind of like Siamese fighting fish. Just give us a small container and a little food and we’ll keep going.
Brent,
I know a lot of ‘practicing roman catholics’ who don’t exactly see what’s wrong with contraception. Something about; ‘I’m not taking advice from guys who aren’t married and don’t know.’ Sister Simone seems to have her own version of this thought process when it comes to her ‘social consciousness’ as well. I mean, when the religious aren’t gonna toe the line………………………..
Speaking of Fr. Morrell, last I saw him he was literally rushing out the door to catch a flight to Zimbabwe. It’s seems to be the resort du jour for the Oblates anymore. I can remember when it wasn’t thought of so fondly. Over there apparently, they’re ‘holy men’ and get treated with deference. Live like a king!……….. ‘cept you’re in Zimbabwe. Oh well, trade offs everywhere we turn I suppose.
Eric,
Sabine: “You mean, except sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, Erik?
???
If you are offering me some wine I prefer beer. Otherwise I missed what you are responding to
Sabine is responding to my comment further up the page:
“Finally someone has brought up the very relevant Monty Python movie, The Life Of Brian.
“What have the Romans ever done for us?!”
(John Cleese)”
Erik,
Yup, there are Muslims, but I was talking about the Christian community. I like the fish analogy! Calvinists are like little ninjas!
Sean,
If Sister Flip-Flops or Mr. and Mrs. 1.2 Children are practicing Roman Catholic, then Jimmy Swaggart is a practicing Calvinist Protestant.
If you willfully and knowingly dissent from Church teaching, then you aren’t practicing “the faith” anymore. You are practicing, “your faith”. The fact that you knew Church Teaching, and then showed that some church going Catholic was dissenting just proves that the difference between “the faith” and a “my-personal-made-up-dissenting-faith” is easy to spot. Even for non-Catholics.
The problem in America, and the West in general, is that a lot of priests and bishops have subscribed to a “my-personal-made-up-dissenting-faith” too — and in this case the cart was pulling the horse and the horse was pulling the cart. Kind of like at the time of Arius, or at the time of Luther. But, things change. The tide is turning. The damage done by this movement in mainline Protestantism is irreversible. That doesn’t seem to be the case for the Catholic Church in America.
So, let’s let time tell.
Brent,
Or maybe the ‘deposit’, think Vat II particularly, allows for a lot more diversity and interpretation than CTC or the traditionalist want to admit or agree to. Which, quite frankly, seriously calls into question the ‘unity’ that adheres because of an infallible magisterium. Modern Rome has no more unity of thought than mainline protestantism.
JJS, yes, I do understand that. But I would like to know from someone who has been convinced of the evidence: If one now has two sources that are infallible, Bible and church, and if one of those isn’t always infallible (the church), then what keeps the other (the Bible) from always being infallible? You can see my Protestant dilemma, I trust. A source cannot be infallible today and fallible tomorrow, since that seems to undermine the whole idea of infallibility altogether. When do you know the church is infallible and when it’s fallible? As a Prot, I hold that that the Bible is always and ever infallible, and that the church is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.