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
“why bother putting up with bad liturgical music when you can keep the lousy praise band in your own congregation?” – Hilarious!
I think William F. Buckely had a private priest of sorts who said the Latin Mass for him & his domestic help each week. Intellectuals and Pseudo-Intellectuals having their own, idealized version of Rome is nothing new.
We should be generous and admit that the most obnoxious Reformed people are the newest converts.
Acts 17:11 “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”
Those guys would be in big trouble if the priest found out…
Hebrews 6:1– “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God”
Hebrews 9:14–”How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
The problem with using works “done after you are in the family” to get assurance is that works done without assurance are not pleasing to God. But the light of the gospel exposes our “good works” as “dead works”. And “dead works” are sins.
John 3:19– “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”
Certainly God commands us all to be moral. But morality can be done in the flesh. But to doubt that you are justified or will be justified because of what you have done or not done is to take the focus away from Christ’s one-time-done death for elect sinners.
Re: “a new era of warm relations between Protestants and Roman Catholics.” try going to google images and typing in D.G. Hart. On the first page there are pictures of D.G., Pope Benedict, and Joel Osteen! I smell some kind of Reformed/Catholic/Prosperity Gospel synthesis plot being hatched…
‘ Those guys would be in big trouble if the priest found out…’
Never mind the priests Erik, it’s if your parents found out, that there was gonna be some wailing and gnashing of teeth, not to mention a sore backside
D.G.,
First, I don’t disagree with you that fidelity to the Magisterium is a problem within Catholicism. I haven’t heard anybody at Called to Communion deny this reality either. The problems within Catholicism and Protestantism, however, are fundamentally different. The Catholic Church struggles with a laity that sometimes ignores the authority of the Magisterium. Protestantism on the other hand, struggles with having no authority to listen to when it comes to interpreting Scripture. The laymen is just left puzzled hearing scholars and Ph.D’s argue over matters critical to the faith. Many conservative Protestants would love a Magisterium to listen to, but none exists.
You write;
How do you know this? Everybody I know personally at Called to Communion spends as much time, if not way more, working within their parishes, giving talks, leading Bible studies, evangelizing, ect.
I can only speak for myself, but I did not become Catholic because I saw a Church full of perfect Christians who do a devotion every morning. In fact, my experience with Catholics as a Protestant only made me more closed off to the claims of the Church before going to seminary. No amount of nominalism, however, changes whether or not the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ or whether or not the Holy Spirit has preserved the teaching of the Church from error.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy T: I can only speak for myself, but I did not become Catholic because I saw a Church full of perfect Christians who do a devotion every morning. In fact, my experience with Catholics as a Protestant only made me more closed off to the claims of the Church before going to seminary. No amount of nominalism, however, changes whether or not the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ or whether or not the Holy Spirit has preserved the teaching of the Church from error.
RS: But Jeremy, if grace is in the hands of the Church to give, it is no longer grace at all. Grace must always be in the sovereign hand of God to give as He pleases and to the hearts He has prepared rather than just dispense it. Your view of the Eucharist destroys any real teaching of grace and is takes grace and puts it into the hands of fallible men to dispense as they please. It takes (in conception) the body of Christ and gives it to those who have had no preparation of soul at all. Your view leads to the worship of human flesh rather than the living God that dwelt in human flesh.
Your view that the Holy Spirit has preserved the teachings of Roman Catholicism from all error is not the same thing as God preserving His Church with truth and actually illuminating His people with an increasing amount of the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness.
Dear D.G.
If you are interested you could read something I wrote about the Bible and Catholics at Called to Communion.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/bible-reading-catholics/
Thanks,
Tom Riello
Catholic Jeremy: “Protestantism on the other hand, struggles with having no authority to listen to when it comes to interpreting Scripture. The laymen is just left puzzled hearing scholars and Ph.D’s argue over matters critical to the faith. Many conservative Protestants would love a Magisterium to listen to, but none exists.”
Presbyterian Jeremy: Can you explain how this is different from Catholics throughout history who argued for a doctrine being orthodox before it was infallibly declared to be so? It seems that Catholics and Orthodox pre-1950 had no problem declaring the Assumption of Mary to be true (post-Dormition or not). 99.9% of Catholics died before Munificentissimus Deus, so of what did their certainty consist? More broadly, why do vindications of orthodoxy pre-eschaton need to remain unreformable? How is the Orthodox certainty in the Assumption of Mary post-Dormition different than the Catholic certainty in the Assumption of Mary pre-Dormition? What do the Orthodox lack due to their rejection of Munificentissimus Deus?
Peace out girl scout,
Presbyterian Jeremy
D.G.
That’s a nice rhetorical image, but it does not correspond to the substance of anything we have said or written.
Again, I don’t think we have *insisted* on anything. We’ve laid out some arguments, and evidence, but we don’t “insist “on anything; we don’t need to.
Exactly which of the claims we have made is contrary to the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
If you had been reading CTC since we started in 2009, you would be aware of many articles in which what we [Protestants and Catholics] have in common is laid out very clearly, as the mutually recognized starting for beginning to talk about what still divides us. You’re coming into a discussion that has a certain order and progression, and so you are only seeing the present focus on what still divides us.
As for the problems within the Catholic Church regarding dissenters, that fact (and it is a fact that no one denies) does not change the identity of the Catholic Church, and therefore it does not change the Church’s ecumenical hope, prayer and effort to pursue the restoration of full visible unity among all Christ’s followers. It is, obviously, a stumbling block, but ultimately it is a red herring, because the presence within the Church of persons who dissent from the one faith of the Church does not ipso facto make the Catholic Church into something other than the Church Christ founded. Jesus told us that there will be tares among the wheat, and the notion that discipline is a mark of the Church is a distinctively *Protestant* presupposition. In the Catholic paradigm, the four marks of the Church are “one, holy, catholic and apostolic.”
So likewise, the identity of the Catholic Church as the Church Christ founded, does not depend on the percentage of persons within her who read the Bible daily. That too, ultimately, is a red herring. It does not answer the “what to do about the problem of schism” question, because the answer to that question is not “Find the group of Christians having highest percentage of daily Bible readers.” That’s just not one of the four marks of the Church.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
On the subject of churches gone astray: A “friend” of mine has spent many years in Reformed churches but has decided to explore evangelicalism to “see what’s out there”. This past Sunday morning they were going to go with a friend to “feed the homeless”. Something fell through and they ended up pulling weeds. I’ve heard of “Deeds not Creeds”, but “Weeds not creeds”?
Whenever Bryan responds to D.G. why do I envision in my mind a scene of a large fish chomping down on a juicy worm?
I guess the conversation is not actually between Bryan and D.G. but between the members of their camps who can still be persuaded.
Bryan,
I’d also like an answer to the previous question I asked Jeremy (RCC) if that’s OK.
I agree with you that pointing out disobedient Catholics doesn’t really mean all that much unless we can also prove that they are actively tolerated, but when you say “the four marks of the Church are ‘one, holy, catholic and apostolic’” you might need to be clearer about what you mean by “marks of the church” lest you just beg the question. I don’t think the RCC uses the “marks” the same way we do. We Protestants would just say that the Roman Catholic Church is not one (lots of doctrinal variety, but of course not officially), holy (Pope covering up pedophilia), catholic (papal infallibility was a big F-U to the Orthodox, and Benedict continues to say they are defective and that Prots don’t have churches), or apostolic (RCC has rejected the teaching of the apostles). The four marks don’t really get you anywhere.
Of course, I know you’d either dispute those examples or just say that none of this disproves that the RCC has these marks in some way. You could say that God will preserve a remnant through the infallible-but-not-impeccable Magisterium. But you didn’t seek out finding something that is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” and decide on the RCC did you? If the Magisterium gets to define how it meets the four marks, isn’t that an invitation to corruption?
Peace out girl scout,
Jeremy (PCA)
Richard Smith,
You wrote;
If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
(John 20:23 ESV)
So, was this no longer grace?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy T., I wasn’t commenting on what the individual of CTC do. How could I possibly know what they do in their parishes or what their parishes are like? I was commenting on the basis of what they write about at CTC.
As for an authority as authoritative as the magisterium — ahem — I put the word of God above the early church fathers any day. Now of course, you don’t think the magisterium needs to be interpreted and of course you know that I think this is poppy cock since I know plenty of Roman Catholic historians who interpret their church all the time and come to very different conclusions from CTC. So your authority is interpreted and so is mine. But at least my authority is divine.
Hi, Brothers, Old Bob here for first time in a while. Used to comment from time to time, but find I am not critical enough of good Brothers to join the majority contributing to OLT.
When I read Darryl’s latest (8/6) jabs at Richard John Neuhaus, Charles Colson, the George “Brothers”, ECT and the Manhattan Declaration, I knew I’d have to join in. As Winston Churchill famously said “Never (repeated about 12 times)…NEVER give up”! He also said, (not exact quote) “The TRUTH: You might not believe it, you might not like it, you might not know about it, but THERE IT IS”! Well, I don’t really know if any of these guys I have named are “in the Lamb’s Book of Life”. Above my pay grade! I can’t use the word “Christian”— has joined C.S. Lewis’ growing list of ruined words. I think C.S. is another brother not appreciated by DGH and most of his fans. I AM convinced that SOME of the signers of the MD are REALLY among God’s elect. Like Pete Lillback, J.I. Packer, Ravi Zacharias. I named many in former comments who have been great blessings to Old Bob. I was greatly saddened by the treatment (many OLT guys) of Dinesh D’Souza. Wife and I love WORLD mag— Olasky, Belz, etc. Easy choice when other “news” mags are TIME and NEWSWEEK! One quick story about our (Wife of 60 years and I) @ local Chick-fl-A favorite eating spot. Sorry CFA didn’t seem to be appreciated by most @ OLT. It was “Kiss In Day” last Friday, by CFA haters! Wife and I thought we’d join in. What a sight! Real Biblically MARRIED couple mingling in with all those kissers —–with a long time of legitimate kissing and hugging! Enough of that! Darryl has chided me about auto-bio stuff. All that I said, so far, leads up to a principle I seldom see at OLT. Once verbalized by that nice lil rabbit, Flipper. Y’all know it. I used it over and over in every election I took part in since Eisenhower, 1952. Was he perfect? No, but at least he didn’t have Adlai Stevenson’s sick views— tolerance toward USSR, etc. I guess we voted mostly AGAINST bad guys for next 60 years! Certainly will on NOV.6. Is Mitt perfect? Nope, but has a lot more views than Obama, in common with Biblical ones. Do I have to say in more ways that I heartily wish OLT guys like Charter, McCulley Sean, Zrim, Richard Smith, etc. all good guys, but not perfect (like DGH 
would praise the good things. Old Bob sure ain’t perfect! But can’t we say more about what is good about true Brothers, and even those who are probably not Brothers, but yet have SOME things RIGHT? Love, OB.
Bryan, no insistence? pshaw.
The catechism is not the mainstream of the Roman Catholic Church. How could it be. It is 680 pages long.
But the point of the piece is that your INSISTENCE on papal infallibility — I dare say you harp on it — creates an attitude where it would be very difficult to discern or acknowledge real error in your church, not to mention that it flies in the face of the promise that Christ will protect the church from error.
As for wheat and tares in the church, how would you be able to tell since baptism makes everyone a saint and purgatory catches all those who might look like tares.
The point is that Rome has all the authority to look like it could institute real discipline within the church. But its invincibility on error and its soft universalism make rooting out error almost impossible.
McJeremy, now your sounding Protestant.
Assume for a moment that the conservative Reformed guys who post here set up a website called “Called to Geneva”. We touted the Heidelberg Catechism, the Westminster Confession of Faith, John Calvin. etc. Then when a potential convert showed interest we told them”find a Christian Reformed Church in your area” or “We’re in luck, you live only a few blocks away from a Presbyterian Church – USA congregation”. The potential convert would go there and find very little of what we had been touting on our site. We don’t do that, however, we say “Find an Orthodox Presbyterian Church” or “Find a United Reformed Church”. We can point to actual churches that are doing their best to adhere to our creeds and confessions. If people who are officers in those churches depart from those creeds and confessions we discipline them. In some cases if church members depart from those creeds and confessions we discipline them.
Compare this scenario to Called to Confession and the Roman Catholic church. Can CTC guys honestly say they are not guilty of false advertising when they tout certain aspects of Catholic doctrine and practice and then direct people to their local Catholic church where those aspects may or may not be present? My point is, maybe the focus of CTC should be getting the product to line up with the advertising vs. selling a product that does not live up to what is being sold?
As Protestants we have the ability to shape our product to match our advertising. Can Catholics say the same thing in dealing with Rome?
Erik,
Actually, a “Called to Geneva” web site ain’t all that bad an idea. I nominate Zrim to start it.
But shouldn’t the web site be named Effectually Called To Genva?
typo fix:
Effectually Called To Geneva
Yeah, Catholics were not allowed to read the bible prior V2? So how is it possible that the hymnbook of my great-great-grandmother granted indulgences for daily Bible reading? It is from 1882 and that is clearly pre-V2, isn’t it?
And btw, have you ever seen an old Protestant Bible? I mean a really old one? Least most of the German translations didn’t make a difference between the comments and interpretations of the translator and the biblical text. The text and the comments were printed in the same font. If someone didn’t know the bible by heart he or she couldn’t distinguish one from another.
But no one must not reach into the early days of Protestantism, in order to understand Catholic prohibitions. I own a Bible printed in 1998 with a copyright from 1983 by the International Bible Society. The so-called “Hoffnung für Alle”. This translation has been used in many Protestant independent churches in the 90s in Germany. I have never read such a misleading gospel of John bevor. This translation reflects the uncertainties of this Protestant environment and avoids a clear commitment to the divinity of Jesus. Specifically, the prologue is painful, if you know the Greek text.
Well, yes it would be nice if we could talk more about our common ground.
However, I think it is tactically disadvantageous to begin discussions with allegations.
It would be easier to ask: How do you read the Bible? Instead of presenting statistics, half-truths and prejudices, which must be disproved before you get to the actual topic.
My wife and her identical-twin sister became Christians in college. I asked her the other night if a Catholic had reached out to her if she might have become Catholic instead of protestant. She grew up in an irreligious family on the south side of Des Moines with a lot of Italian Catholics. She said she asked her Catholic high school friend about going to church and the friend said, “You’re either born into it or you’re not.” She was introduced to the gospel the next year by some Baptist Student Union members at Iowa State and the rest is history.
Jeremy Tate:
“No amount of nominalism, however, changes whether or not the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ or whether or not the Holy Spirit has preserved the teaching of the Church from error.”
Strange that people who get Christ fed to them are so nominal. Your priests dispense a pathetic Christ.
Again:
“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 20:23 ESV). So, was this no longer grace?”
Not even close. Forgiveness is removed by future sin in RC theology. Frogivenss, grace, love, merit – is all a test. If you stay good enough, you get forgiven. If you fail too much, you lose forgiveness.
Your grace is pathetic too.
Sabine, the half-truths I presented came from Roman Catholic sources, older and contemporary. Don’t get huffy with me. Take it up with the hierarchy though I can imagine it might take a while to get a response.
Ted, as much as I appreciate criticisms of Rome, I’d like yours and everyone’s punches to be above or near the belt as much as possible.
D.G.,
You write;
This particular tu quoque has been discussed at great length at CtC. Put simply, there is a basic difference between people and books. The Magisterium can always answer 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order clarifying questions. The Bible cannot do this, hence the confusion in Protestantism. See here The Catholic and Protestant Authority Paradigms Compared.
You write;
I think you may be missing the point here. True, the Bible (as interpreted by you) is your authority, but the Bible (as interpreted by the Catholic Church) is very much my authority as well.
Finally, you write
Isn’t this what we’re trying to discuss? The Catholic claim is that Christ “divinely” established a Church as a visible and unified body. Since the Church is a divinely established body it cannot be re-created by men (hence the failure of the Protestant experiment to have historical consistency within particular denominations). As a divinely established body, she has authority.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Ted,
You write
Again
If I find real grace will I exhibit the fruits of the Spirit in the same way as you when you write? I sense a great deal of bitterness/hate for a man who claims to have found such profound grace. Let’s both work to “speak the truth in love” my friend.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy Tate quoting Richard Smith: ” But Jeremy, if grace is in the hands of the Church to give, it is no longer grace at all.”
Jeremy: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 20:23 ESV)
So, was this no longer grace?
RS: Let me give you a literal translation that is more to the point of the tenses of the original.
John 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
The language points us to the fact that when sins are declared to be forgiven or retained here, they have already been forgiven or retained by God. In other words, they could only pronounce what God had done by grace. So the view that the Church dispenses grace indeed makes grace no longer to be grace.
See, D.G.,
if I choose carefully from Calvin or Luther’s writings and wipes the historical context aside, I can easely demonstrate, that Luther was a misogynist and anti-Semite, and Calvin was a madman, who claimed to be a prophet like Moses, who founded a spy state and sold Anabaptists into slavery in oder to fund this state.
Look at the writings of Caritas of Nuremberg and her struggles against a oppressive Protestant City Council . Look how she tried to protect the women in her convent from abduction,forced conversion and forced marriage.
Look at the destruction, land theft, the lynchings that took place in Protestant areas. Not to mention the anti-Catholic laws in Protestant areas. It is easy to show the all the well-meaning reformers were a bunch of power-hungry tyrants who were concerned about everything except the Gospel. There are historians who put Luther and Calvin put a par with Hitler and Stalin, and do they do so, by selectiv reading of Luthers and Calvins writings.
Jeremy, this isn’t about whether a Protestant who converts to Rome has been Protestant like in her conversion. This is about the notion — even evident in Rusty Reno’s conversion account — that the magisterium stands as an objective fact compared to Scripture which permits many interpretations. The magisterium is as much a matter of interpreting the Bible, church fathers, and theological construction as is any doctrine proposed by Protestants. But CTC says the magisterium is more reliable than sola Scriptura. If you read Roman Catholic historians you know that is not true.
Sabine, so? What do you do with the Renaissance popes? If Calvin was wrong my world doesn’t collapse. If a pope erred you’re in a heap of trouble. Maybe RC’s could learn from Protestants that God works through ordinary, flawed creatures. If RC’s read the Bible more, they’d know that. Can you say Jacob? Sure you can.
Jeremy Tate:
“f I find real grace will I exhibit the fruits of the Spirit in the same way as you when you write? I sense a great deal of bitterness/hate for a man who claims to have found such profound grace. Let’s both work to “speak the truth in love” my friend.”
With appreciation to DGH, I know my words were caustic. They are not aimed at you as a person, but at a religious system you support. I truly believe you are lost and very far from the Christ who died on the cross, and words like “peace in Christ” would be a travesty.
Martin Luther and many through history have spoken far worse of the Pope and the Roman system, and not without just cause.
Jeremy Tate:
“f I find real grace will I exhibit the fruits of the Spirit in the same way as you when you write? I sense a great deal of bitterness/hate for a man who claims to have found such profound grace. Let’s both work to “speak the truth in love” my friend.”
RS: Jeremy, when you read the words of Jesus in Matthew 23 (given below), do you think of them as truth in love? Jesus kept the second Greatest Commandment perfectly at all times (or He could not have been the lamb of God and He could not have had a perfect righteousness to be imputed) and was truth Himself. In other words, what Jesus said in Matthew 23 is in line with truth and love. Could it be that in our day love has been replaced with niceness and truth with political correctness?
Matthew 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
14 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’
17 “You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?
18 “And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’
19 “You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering?
20 “Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it.
21 “And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it.
22 “And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.
23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24 “You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26 “You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.
28 “So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’
31 “So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
D.G.
Which claims by Catholic historians show that the magisterium is no more reliable [in the respect in which we say it is] than sola scriptura?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan – What do you make of Gary Wills’ “Papal Sin”?
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/06/11/reviews/000611.11rortyt.html
Erik,
I say something quite similar to what St. Augustine said to the Donatists in the fourth century.
From a Catholic point of view, there is a genuine difference between impeccability and infallibility. To appeal to papal sin as an alleged refutation of the doctrine of magisterial infallibility is to set up and knock down a very easy straw man.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, see today’s post for starters (Eamon Duffy).
The Renaissance popes? Well, what do I do with them? I differentiate. If you want to talk about the Renaissance popes, you should think about the Renaissance. Slightly more than 100 years that were marked by political tensions, city-states and small principalities with unstable political and economical alliances, long-lasting wars, a strong south-north gradient, the constant threat of the plague, social upheaval, religious fanaticism, rampant superstition and the flourishing of the arts and sciences. In this time the new ideas emerge, humanism, as well as the national idea and of capitalism. America was discovered and a teenage girl led the French army. Luther in Wittenberg, Erasmus in Amsterdam, Savonarola in Florence, Henry’s Act of Supremacy in England, Il Sacco di Roma and the Turks in front of Vienna.
Yeah, but the papacy was the biggest problem people had. Really?
Certainly, the church needed a reformation. And the reformers came. St. Teresa of Avila came and St. John of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Charles Borromeo, St. John of God, St. Philip Neri, St. Camillus of Lellis, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Laurentius of Brindisi, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Angela Merici, St. Peter Canisius, St. Francis de Sales …
And you think Catholicism is all about the Pope and Orthodoxy is all about quoting verses?
The fundamental difference between Protestants and Catholics is not an infallible Pope as authority. The difference is that Luther translated the gospel into German and Philip Neri translated it into his life.
Bryan Cross: From a Catholic point of view, there is a genuine difference between impeccability and infallibility. To appeal to papal sin as an alleged refutation of the doctrine of magisterial infallibility is to set up and knock down a very easy straw man.
RS: In other words, the popes have sinned a lot and so they infallibly sin. The Protestant Reformers did indeed get the doctrine of depravity correct. But then again, it takes the Gospel of God that the Reformers set out to deal with sinners of such greta magnitude. The popes were great sinners and yet they can speak infallibly at some points and can charge money to forgive sins (indulgences). I think I can see why Luther had his struggles in that system and began to look to the real head of the Church who suffered and died for sinners so that He could save them by grace alone. Only a spotless Lamb of God can die for sinners and only a sinless Mediator and a sinless Priest can stand if for sinners and pronounce an actual forgiveness.
Sabine: And you think Catholicism is all about the Pope and Orthodoxy is all about quoting verses?
The fundamental difference between Protestants and Catholics is not an infallible Pope as authority. The difference is that Luther translated the gospel into German and Philip Neri translated it into his life.
RS: Fascinating comment for many reasons. Would you mind commenting on that some more?
Thanks
I don’t understand why this whole infallibility is so objectionable. Now, if you understand the claim and simply reject it, that’s perfectly understandable. But when people admit a problem with the idea even in principle, that’s the part I scratch my head at.
Was Peter a sinner? Yes. Was it sinful for him to deny Jesus? Yes. Was it sinful of him to withdraw from the Gentiles at Antioch? Yes.
But does any of this mean that I and II Peter are therefore untrustworthy? No.
So it seems to me that if a sinful man could have been protected from error while penning a letter or two, then there’s no reason in principle why that same man could not be protected from error while talking out loud.
Again, this is not an argument intending to prove infallibility, it’s just an observation as to why the idea itself should not be that objectionable for those who believe in the authority of Scripture.
JJS
Posted August 7, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Permalink
I don’t understand why this whole infallibility is so objectionable. Now, if you understand the claim and simply reject it, that’s perfectly understandable. But when people admit a problem with the idea even in principle, that’s the part I scratch my head at.
Was Peter a sinner? Yes. Was it sinful for him to deny Jesus? Yes. Was it sinful of him to withdraw from the Gentiles at Antioch? Yes.
But does any of this mean that I and II Peter are therefore untrustworthy? No.
So it seems to me that if a sinful man could have been protected from error while penning a letter or two, then there’s no reason in principle why that same man could not be protected from error while talking out loud.
Again, this is not an argument intending to prove infallibility, it’s just an observation as to why the idea itself should not be that objectionable for those who believe in the authority of Scripture.
RS: One reason is that Scripture was written down and came from the apostles themselves. A second reason is that Scripture was written down and can be compared with itself in order to interpret itself. A third reason is that we have the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. A fourth reason is the very nature of Scripture throughout history versus the nature of popes throughout history. A fifth reason is that we are told to listen to the Scriptures because of what they are and because they are God-breathed. A sixth reason is that the God-breathed Scriptures never tell us about infallible men. A seventh reason is that the infallible Scriptures tell us that all things are to be checked by Scripture and never that we are to check Scripture according to infallible men. An eight reason is that the men who claim to be speaking with infallibility contradict the Scriptures which do speak with infalliblity. I could go on, but that should suffice.
But does any of this mean that I and II Peter are therefore untrustworthy? No.
I and II Peter are Scripture, No?
So it seems to me that if a sinful man could have been protected from error while penning a letter or two, then there’s no reason in principle why that same man could not be protected from error while talking out loud.
Doesn’t Scripture show that Peter was not protected from error while talking out loud?
Sabine, well it’s nice to hear a RC talk about the gospel. Here I was thinking I had to accept Peter into my heart.
As for the biggest problems in late medieval Europeans lives, I’d probably rank rampant rats right up there. But when it comes to Christians, the papacy had its moments for creating problems. Can you say three rival popes? Sure you can.
And what do you have against Germans? Luther might have been right to think that Rome had a certain Ital bias.
Jason, it is not infallibility that is objectionable (has the thought of conversion turned your mind to mush?). Protestants believe in infallibility too. But Roman Catholics think that an infallible Bible is laughable when it comes to a reliable standard or authority. Well, if RC’s can object to claims for infallibility’s benefits, so can Protestants. It’s the wonder-working power of infallibility on your emerging side that looks so unbelievable.
If I may put my 2 cents in – JJS, you said
So it seems to me that if a sinful man could have been protected from error while penning a letter or two, then there’s no reason in principle why that same man could not be protected from error while talking out loud.
It is one thing to postulate a possibility, quite another for it’s reality.
Certainly “there’s no reason in principle why” a unicorn could not be a living animal. The problem is, we have yet to see one. I am open to their existence should you find one, though. My Hyundai is approaching its end of life and I would find a Unicorn to be a suitable replacement.
We can talk in possibilities all day – fortunately, Scripture has not left us with that luxury.
Jack,
No, it teaches that sometimes he was, and sometimes he wasn’t. In Matt. 16, he spoke what flesh and blood could not have known, but what the Father revealed, and likewise in Acts 15 he, along with the rest of the apostles and elders, spoke what “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” and to them.
But then at other times he came off like a complete moron.
So Peter is neither infallible whenever he spoke, nor whenever he wrote (the math on his invoices from fish sales was not infallible). But my point is that if he could have been protected from error under certain conditions while writing, then there is no reason in principle why the same could not be true while teaching.
So it makes no sense to be opposed to infallibility per se, if indeed one believes in the infallibility of the things sinners wrote in the Bible.
Nate,
As you know, the only purpose of my remarks was to argue the possibility of extra-biblical infallibility, and I’m happy to see that you grant it. Darryl, on the other hand, has continually argued the impossibility of the idea due to man’s sinfulness. My point is that if Peter’s sinfulness doesn’t taint his letters, then it’s also possible that, by God’s power, his sinfulness may not taint his oral teaching either.
That’s all, carry on.
jjs-
[me]Doesn’t Scripture show that Peter was not protected from error while talking out loud?
[you]No, it teaches that sometimes he was, and sometimes he wasn’t.
This seems like a glass half-full or half-empty thing, because I can just as easily answer my own question the same as you except for one word:
Yes, it teaches that sometimes he was, and sometimes he wasn’t. So, Scripture teaches Peter was sometime right and sometimes wrong (not protected from verbal error), which is true (with varying percentages) for all Christians.
So Peter is neither infallible whenever he spoke, nor whenever he wrote
But we know for sure (certainty) that Peter wrote infallibly in his two epistles. And the only reason we know that he spoke infallibly at times is where it is recorded in Scripture. Every other example of Peter’s infallible speaking outside of Scripture is unverifiable. And then to extend that possible, yet unverifiable, infallibility through a so-called succession via hands to Benedict is truly a leap of faith.
One can venture that it is possible, but that is hardly an argument that helps prove it.
One Trackback
[...] http://oldlife.org/2012/08/infallibility-in-denial/comment-page-1/ [...]