One of the puzzles of Roman Catholic claims about the primacy of the papacy is that the biblical support for this view rests almost entirely on Matt. 16:18. Theologians and church members (at least of Protestant derivation) should always beware of so little biblical support. In addition, when you read the New Testament (if you do), Peter largely fades from view. In Acts Peter does not show up after the fifteenth chapter (according not to superior biblical knowledge but to a word search — “advanced,” mind you — at ESVBible.org). The rest of the book is really Paul’s story. And the rest of the New Testament is really Paul’s teaching. Yes, Peter, John and James write epistles but they are short compared to Paul (leaving aside Revelation in page count totals).
What is also striking about the New Testament is the interaction among the apostles. Galatians 2 proves to be a particularly difficult text to square with claims about Peter’s primacy, not to mention his infallibility, since it records Paul publicly rebuking Peter for caving to the Judaizers. Here first is Calvin’s rendering of Paul’s order of James, Peter, and John in Galatians 2:9:
I have already stated, that James was the son of Alpheus. He could not be “the brother of John” who had been lately put to death by Herod, (Acts 12:2,) and to suppose that one of the disciples had been placed above the apostles would be absurd. That he held the highest rank among the apostles, is made evident by Luke, who ascribes to him the summing up and decision of the cause in the council, (Acts 15:13,) and afterwards mentions his having assembled “all the elders” of the church of Jerusalem. (Acts 21:18.) When he says, that they seemed to be pillars, he does not speak contemptuously, but quotes the general opinion, arguing from it, that what was done by such men ought not to be lightly set aside. In a question relating to diversity of rank, it is surprising that James should be mentioned before Peter; but the reason perhaps is, that he presided over the church at Jerusalem.
Calvin follows with these remarks on Paul’s rebuke to Peter:
Now, as I have said, he goes further, and asserts that he had blamed Peter for leaning to the other side; and he proceeds to explain the cause of the dispute. It was no ordinary proof of the strength of his doctrine, that he not only obtained their cordial approbation, but firmly maintained it in a debate with Peter, and came off victorious. What reason could there now be for hesitating to receive it as certain and undoubted truth?
At the same time, this is a reply to another calumny, that Paul was but an ordinary disciple, far below the rank of an apostle: for the reproof which he administered was an evidence that the parties were on an equal footing. The highest, I acknowledge, are sometimes properly reproved by the lowest, for this liberty on the part of inferiors towards their superiors is permitted by God; and so it does not follow, that he who reproves another must be his equal. But the nature of the reproof deserves notice. Paul did not simply reprove Peter, as a Christian might reprove a Christian, but he did it officially, as the phrase is; that is, in the exercise of the apostolic character which he sustained.
This is another thunderbolt which strikes the Papacy of Rome. It exposes the impudent pretensions of the Roman Antichrist, who boasts that he is not bound to assign a reason, and sets at defiance the judgment of the whole Church. Without rashness, without undue boldness, but in the exercise of the power granted him by God, this single individual chastises Peter, in the presence of the whole Church; and Peter submissively bows to the chastisement. Nay, the whole debate on those two points was nothing less than a manifest overthrow of that tyrannical primacy, which the Romanists foolishly enough allege to be founded on divine right. If they wish to have God appearing on their side, a new Bible must be manufactured; if they do not wish to have him for an open enemy, those two chapters of the Holy Scriptures must be expunged.
Of course, defenders of the magisterium need not trust Calvin since he is writing out of a position of disobedience to the papacy. That is why it is intriguing what a Roman Catholic biblical commentary has to say about this passage:
St. Paul says that he withstood St. Peter to the face “because he was to be blamed,” inasmuch as, whereas he had hitherto eaten openly with Gentiles, he was now led by fear of the Judaizers to refuse to do so, “fearing them who were of the circumcision.” “To his dissimulation,” adds the Apostle, “the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.” St. Jerome maintained that the whole scene was a “dissimulation,” Peter was not “to be blamed” by Paul, but solely by those brethren whom he had offended by withdrawing from their table; the scene, therefore, was meant to appease both parties, viz. those who believed in circumcision—for they could follow Peter, and those who repudiated circumcision—for they could follow Paul. St. Jerome’s reasons for holding this view are briefly that Paul could not have withstood Peter, who was his senior, and further that Paul, by circumcising Timothy and shaving his head at Cenchre, was guilty of the same obsequiousness towards Jewish prejudices. Some, he says, try to avoid the dilemma by saying that “Cephas” is not the Apostle Peter, but one of the Seventy disciples, and, moreover, that Acts is silent concerning the whole affair. But St. Jerome replies that Cephas and Peter are but Aramaic and Greek forms of the same name; that he knows of no other Cephas than the one who is termed at one time “Cephas,” at another “Peter”; and finally, that St. Luke was not bound to mention every event he knew of.
St. Chrysostom’s explanation is fundamentally the same as that of St. Jerome. It could not, he urges, have really been a dispute, for this they would have had in private. Therefore “to his face,” κατὰ πρόσωπον, must be a figure of speech, and the equivalent of “in appearance,” σχημα. The explanation, then, is that Peter withdrew from the table of the uncircumcised converts for two reasons: lest he should offend the Jewish converts, and in order to give St. Paul an occasion for correcting him. This correction was necessitated, not because St. Peter was in the wrong, but because those who saw him eat with Jews might fancy he did so out of fear of St. Paul. The latter, of course, had no such feeling. “Paul, then, rebukes, and Peter bears with it; so that while the master is silent under rebuke his disciples may be the more easily induced to put aside their suspicion. . . . Peter, then, joins Paul in this pretense, συνυποκρινεται, as though were really in fault, so that owing to this rebuke they might be corrected. . . . Thus, by his silence Peter corrected their false suspicions; he put up with the imputation of dissimulation so as, by a real dissimulation, to free the Jews.”
This view was strenuously combated by St. Augustine, who pointed out that it made Scripture untruthful. St. Jerome replied that his view was derived from Origen, and that it seemed to him compelling from the twofold consideration that (a) Peter knew from the conversion of Cornelius that the Gentiles were to be received into the Church, and (b) that St. Paul had done the same in the case of Timothy, and in shaving his own head at Cenchre. Finally, he endeavored to show that he and Augustine were really saying the same thing in different words. But Augustine declined to accept this statement. The idea that the whole scene was fictitious was repellent to him, since it imperiled the whole truth of Scripture: “Non nunc inquiro quid fecerit, sed quid scripserit quaero.” “If Peter was doing what he had a right to do, then Paul lied when he said that Peter walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel. . . . But if Paul wrote the truth, then it was true that Peter walked not rightly.” St. Augustine then shows that the cases of Timothy and the shaving of Paul’s head are not parallel with this episode at Antioch; he further points out that in St. Jerome’s list of authorities for his view Apollinaris the Laodicean and Alexander are heretics, while Jerome himself acknowledges that there are errors in Origen and Didymus. Augustine’s main exegetical point, however, is that the scene at Antioch took place either after or—as he himself at that date seems to have thought merely more probable—before the Council at Jerusalem. If after the Council, then it is to be noticed that whereas the Decrees forbade anyone to compel the Gentile converts to Judaize, they did not prohibit the Jewish converts from Judaizing. If before the Council, then it is not to be wondered at that St. Paul should urge St. Peter to uphold what he had already learnt from the case of Cornelius. But Augustine really based his whole position on the irrefragable veracity of Scripture; again and again in the course of the controversy does he return to the principle that if the scene is fictitious, then we can no longer trust Scripture. It is certainly remarkable that St. Jerome nowhere takes up this point, while his marked descent from acrimony to an unusual suavity in the course of the correspondence seems to indicate that he felt that Augustine’s position was really the sounder, though he never sang the palinodia for which St. Augustine called!
The point to notice in this commentary is the lack of consensus among the early church fathers even about as important an episode as this for claims about the primacy of Peter. The constant theme at Called To Communion is that the early church is in agreement about the deposit of the faith and that this provides a much more certain basis for faith than do Protestant interpretations of the Bible. Well, if Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine don’t see eye to eye on this matter, how unified are those early fathers? What kind of consensus exists that falls right down from Matt. 16:18 to a unified body of truth? Or how is it that Roman Catholic understandings of the early church fathers’ teaching do not rely on interpretations while Protestants only have their opinions? History is not so easily appropriated.
And that is an important point implicitly in Eamon Duffy’s history of the papacy (Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, Yale, 1997). As students of the Reformation may know, Duffy is one of those historians that Roman Catholics like to cite because his book on England (The Stripping of the Altars) shows how vibrant Roman Catholic piety was before Henry VIII came along. Instead of being moribund, late medieval piety was alive and popular. But his introduction to Saints and Sinners will not set well with those CTCers who claim that the reality of Rome needs no interpretation:
All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus’ account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not by one, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year AD 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the ‘trophies’ of the Apostles, their tombs or cenotaphs, Peter’s on the Vatican Hill, and Paul’s on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast. Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter’s life and death in Rome — his struggles with the magician and father of heresy, Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecution in Rome, a flight from which he was turned back by a reproachful vision of Christ (the ‘Quo Vadis’ legend), and finally his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus in the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church — Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (p. 1)
As I’ve said, the idea that only Protestants have opinions and Roman Catholics have epistemic certainty is nonsense historically considered.
85 Comments
Great post!
Peter would seem to be a distant 3rd as far as New Testament authorship goes among the apostles.
* Luke (Actual volume of both Luke & Acts) – but not even an apostle!
1. Paul (His epistles)
2. John (Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation)
3. Peter? (2 Epistles) He doesn’t even get the longest speech in Acts (Stephen)!
Not speaking ill of the Apostle Peter at all, just echoing your point.
Eamon Duffy’s account tracks more along the lines of the teachers at seminary as regards both claims of antiquity and regard of magisterial authority. It’s not that they didn’t have high regard and some of the more devout had almost a school-girl ‘beatlemania’ devotion, complete with photos etc. But when you got down to hammering out the what we believe and why we believe it, they NEVER fell back on magisterial authority or the primacy of the papacy. Instead, it was a regard for the majority practice or beliefs of the ‘community of faith’. The worldwide community of faith, most readily observed through the practice of the mass, was almost always the ground for the veracity of a practice or belief. The main engagement with scripture wasn’t exegesis to determine doctrine or test practice but, quite frankly, was to deconstruct the veracity of the documents particularly the historicity of Christ and who really said what. And once again more weight was given to the interlopers of the early ‘community of faith’ who were lauded for and credited with the more ‘divine’ statements of Jesus. The point being that the bedrock of the roman church wasn’t even original apostolic authority much less succession, but this community of faith who had always been there and had in fact had a dominant hand in writing the canon.
Prior to Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2 is this statement:
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
(Galatians 1:8-9 ESV) (Even I am capable of Copy-and-paste via esvbibleorg…)
The whole rebuke of Peter is preceded by Paul’s statement concerning the capabilities of any man (or angel) to bear witness to a false gospel. The fact of the matter is that Peter, by his actions, was undermining the very gospel that he claimed. The point here is that Peter erred and his actions were bearing witness against the gospel he proclaimed to follow. How any Roman Catholic misses this I do not know.
Hence why interpreting “the Rock” as Peter’s confession and not himself is correct. True doctrine cannot error; men error (like Peter did) and must align themselves with the truth of the Gospel or else be “Accursed.”
Word of the Day: palinodia: n. palinode, poem of retraction, poem that recants a previous statement
Sean says “Instead, it was a regard for the majority practice or beliefs of the ‘community of faith’.”
In protestantism I think we see a bit of this in assuming that whatever is attracting the most people must be correct. How can the OPC have anything to say to Joel Osteen when their churches attract few and his attract thousands?
If “majority practice” is not authoritative and if the early church fathers do not agree then where do we go? How about the Bible?…
Bryan Cross took a dig at the Heidelberg and the Belgic last week because they were written by “unordained men” or something like that. Reformed people would readily confess that those documents are only valid to the extent that they are a faithful summary of scripture. If anything they teach can be proven to be in opposition to scripture than Reformed churches can throw those parts out. Not so with Catholics who place the teachings of men above the Bible.
Rube,
I THINK I know what you’re saying, but what are you saying?
Erik,
That’s interesting about the dig at the Heidelberg and the Belgic. I suppose Mr. Cross couldn’t take that standard too far or it would put the affirmations at Called To Communion in doubt. But then again, even Protestant symbols written by ordained men can be deprecated on the basis of their irregular ordination from the perspective of Rome.
This is really good stuff. Michael Horton, a couple days ago in a radio interview on this very topic of the Rome and Protestantism. Forward to time mark 2:07 to get to the beginning of the segment with Horton.
http://www.strcast2.org/podcast/weekly/080512.mp3
D.G.
You wrote:
<blockquote?Well, if Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine don’t see eye to eye on this matter, how unified are those early fathers?
You seem to be attempting to extrapolate from one instance of patristic disagreement concerning the interpretation of this passage, to the conclusion that there is no shared Tradition among the Fathers. That wouldn’t be a justified inference.
This is a straw man. No CTC author (or any Catholic I know, for that matter) claims that “Catholic understandings of the early church fathers’ teaching do not rely on interpretations.”
Again, this is a straw man. Where has any author at CTC claimed that “the reality of Rome needs no interpretation”?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Erik, the Confession of Faith also speaks of synods and councils as “ordinances of God” and worthy of respect on those grounds alone. I think it’s 31.4.
Bryan, I could find any number of instances where the contrast between Rome and Protestantism is supposed to be that Rome simply is the deposit of the faith but Protestants have to interpret. But one example is Joshua Lim’s account of his conversion. Here is one of Josh’ comments which underscores this point that Rome represents historical truth — it is a fact — and Protestantism is simply lost in opinions:
Ray Stamper’s post makes a similar point on authority paradigms:
What Rome does is simply there and you believe it. No equivocation allowed or required. What Protestants do is simply interpret a book, and a book is capable of a variety of interpretations.
The point is that Rome is not capable of a variety of interpretations and Protestantism is always open to interpretation. I understand how reassuring this is in a world of hermeneutics and doubt. But since Rome uses words, words are always subject to interpretation. And Rome’s have been repeatedly been interpreted by all sorts of Roman Catholics. The CTC view of no interpretation needed is simply bizarre and wrong.
Just to play along, how do you interpret the Fourth Lateran Council’s requirements for Jews to wear different clothing than Christians? Do you interpret or do you take it lock stock and barrel?
CHAP. XXXI. – Of Synods and Councils.
1. For the better government, and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called Synods or Councils; and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies; and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church.
2. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of His Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.
3. All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
4. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.
D.G. – The quotes you share are interesting. They remind me of the movie “My Bodyguard”. Matt Dillon is bullying Chris Makepeace so Chris Makepeace goes and gets Adam Baldwin to stand up for him. He scares Matt Dillon off so Matt Dillon goes and gets Hank Salas to stand up to Adam Baldwin. In the end Adam Baldwin beats up Hank Salas, but that’s not relevant to my point.
Some Protestants don’t like the fact that “no one has final authority” within Protestantism so they go to Rome, who is glad to claim final authority. The former Protestant now feels all warm, fuzzy, and secure. They forget to really examine whether or not what Rome says about its authority is TRUE. Now I know they believe it’s true, by that belief is based on faith, which is why we are in the stalemate we have been in for 500 years.
The CTC guys need to be humble and at least admit there are valid reasons we are in a stalemate. It is not obvious to the casual observer that Rome is right.
Bryan Cross wrote: “You seem to be attempting to extrapolate from one instance of patristic disagreement concerning the interpretation of this passage, to the conclusion that there is no shared Tradition among the Fathers.”
GW: Apart from Scripture, which is an objective, written body of “Tradition,” can you point us to the specific, objective, unwritten contents of this shared patristic Tradition of which you speak, as officially and dogmatically defined by Rome? And can you offer us clear, official, dogmatically-defined guidelines for how to distinguish this “shared Tradition among the Fathers” from instances of mere patristic disagreement concerning the interpretation of specific passages? And, finally, can you demonstrate to us that your distinction between patristic interpretations of Scripture (on the one hand) and “shared Tradition among the fathers” (on the other hand) is, in fact, a distinction based upon official Roman teaching, and not merely an artificial and arbitrary rescuing device invented to explain away contradictions amongst the Church Fathers or merely “your” interpretation of this “Tradition”? (Would not this “shared Tradition among the fathers” include shared interpretations of Holy Scripture?)
D.G.
You wrote:
Nothing Joshua or Ray says in those quotations states or entails that Catholics don’t have to interpret magisterial teaching, or that “the reality of Rome needs no interpretation.” You’re misunderstanding them. Their point is not that somehow being Catholic bypasses the need for interpretation (while Protestants are stuck with needing to interpret). Rather, their point is that divinely established magisterial interpretive authority allows for the resolution of interpretative questions, including questions regarding the interpretation of the magisterium itself.
Again, no one at CTC has said that; it is a straw man of your own making.
Neither Joshua nor Ray nor anyone at CTC said that, or said anything entailing that.
No one at CTC denies that interpretation of Rome’s words is necessary. You’re attacking a straw man.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan Cross wrote: “Rather, their point is that divinely established magisterial interpretive authority allows for the resolution of interpretative questions, including questions regarding the interpretation of the magisterium itself.”
GW: Is that Rome’s official interpretation of its own interpretive authority, or is that your (or perhaps CTC’s) interpretation of Rome’s interpretive authority?
Geoff – Don’t waste your time. Bryan doesn’t address anyone but D.G. and when he does it’s in the form of a formal press release, not a conversation. He should take Jay Carney’s job.
Bryan: Could you please provide us with a sample list of Scripture passages (other than Matthew 16:18 and John 20:22-23) that Rome has officially, dogmatically interpreted in response to interpretive controversies within the church.
D.G.,
Thoughtful post. I’m reading your exchange with Bryan and an illustration came to mind. Imagine two scenario’s
(Scenario #1) As a high school history teacher I sometimes get to teach on difficult subjects to a diverse student body (the feminist movement, the sexual revolution, the Protestant revivals, ect). Some of the students may very well disagree about what exactly I am teaching, but they are free to ask questions for greater clarity. One question that never comes up, however, is “who is the teacher?” All know, the question doesn’t need to be asked.
(Scenario #2) Students come to the room with text books on their desk, but no teacher. They can read, they can debate, but there is no common authority in the room that everybody agrees has the authority to teach. This is Protestantism.
Yes, Interpretation is required for both Catholics and Protestants. Protestantism, however, seems to resemble a classroom without a teacher. The WCF means nothing to a Methodist just as Wesley’s Discipline means nothing to Presbyterians. Anglicans don’t care for the Book of Concord (Lutheran) and Lutherans don’t care for the 39 Articles. There is simply no recognized teacher in Protestantism.
You may argue in reply that Catholicism resembles a classroom without a book, but this is not true. The book and the teacher are in accord with one another and both come from the same authority (the state in the case of the illustration). The Bible and the Magisterium are in perfect accord. Listen to how question 80 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it;
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Somebody said something somewhere about things like ‘infallibility’ dying the death of a thousand qualifications. It’s beginning to head into the territory of; ‘If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there………….’
BTW, Rome is the mass. Just sayin’
Jeremy Tate – See my comment above about “My Bodyguard”. How does knowing who the teacher is in your example have anything to say about whether or not his teaching is right? It comes down to faith, no?
Jeremy Tate says;
“The Bible and the Magisterium are in perfect accord.” Here we go again.
Jeremy, I’m willing to buy that this works out if you guys have a deficient view of the inspiration of scripture, which is in fact the case. But, you know how conservative protestants view the canon, Your use of language does not correspond to our canonical concepts, even where the same words are used. So, this becomes like the ECT document where you get protestants to sell the deed to their house while you sit on your porch across the street smoking a cigar marveling that you actually got them to sell it to you for the change in your pocket.
Confessional Reformed people have a framework that we generally don’t question, too — our confessional standards. That doesn’t make them necessarily correct. Catholics don’t accept them. People confuse order, age, appearance, and claims of authority for actual authority in the case of Rome (in my opinion).
I think D.G.’s point (and my point) is it’s not the fact that people are Roman Catholic, or even that Reformed guys convert to Catholicism, that is the issue. It’s the smugness and ham-handedness with which the CTC guys go about things on their website and in their posts here that is irritating. Just acknowledge that you have made a different leap of faith than we have made and we can all respect each other and be friends. D.G. has mentioned that he has Catholic friends (even some he has dedicated books to) so being Catholic is not the issue.
Erik,
Jesus gave to his Apostles and the Church the authority to teach divine truth. “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16 ESV)
Protestantism asserts (without any Scriptural backing) that this gift, to speak on behalf of Christ, was somehow lost.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Sean,
Keep in mind that as dear as Sole Fide is to Protestants, it reduces to a mere hypothetical. “Orthodox Reformed” people always want to clarify that “although we’re saved by faith alone, it is by a faith that never is alone”. In other words, Protestantism is based on a doctrine which, even according to the best of Protestantism (in my opinion Confessional Reformed), is categorically impossible. ECT probably saw this, and hence, didn’t need to sell the deed to their house.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy,
More rose-coloring I see. I call it dishonest brokering, like the gypsies who want to reroof my house. I would never let you, unwittingly or otherwise, forsake the mass and sacraments, for a little unity around something so open to interpretation as words inscripturated or traditionally considered. That just wouldn’t be right. BTW, there you go blurring justification and sanctification….again.
Jeremy: “Jesus gave to his Apostles and the Church the authority to teach divine truth.”
The Apostles, yes. I know of no apostles that are still living. And which “church” is the question. You have your answer and I have mine.
Bryan, maybe I’m attacking a straw man, but CTC is clear that the problem of Protestantism is that we only have a book and you have a historical fact — that Christ chose Peter, etc. Christ choosing Peter is an interpretation. I’m glad to hear that you also agree that this needs to be interpreted.
But then the real problem of Protestantism isn’t a multiplicity of interpretations. Rome has many interpretations among its clergy and scholars and people. Rome also seems to notice, as the commentary I quoted, that the Early Church Fathers had a multiplicity of interpretations. I’m still wondering how all this adds up to the consensus that CTCers boast. Not to mention that I wonder how your interpretations are some how better than ours as in tu quoque. Your version of ECF is not infallible or charismatic. It’s just an opinion like mine.
What does make your interpretation different from mine is that yours may (I’m not sure but I’ll take your word for it) agree with what finally separates us — namely, that you have AN (you would say THE) interpreter. What finally makes your interpretations significant is that they are backed up by an infallible interpreter. But if that’s the case, your interpretations are really unimportant and just as insignificant as Protestants. Your opinions only become true when they line up with the popes and the magisterium. If they don’t they are just like Protestants, words blowing in the breeze.
In which case, I don’t know why you knock yourself out with so much “evidence” from the early church. All that evidence is the same kind of phenomenon as all the exegesis that Protestants might use for their convictions. Without an infallible living authority to tell you you arrived at the right interpretation of the evidence, your version of the evidence is just opinion.
I see how we differ and agree to disagree. Just don’t tell us that what we do chaotic and subjective. Your scholarly writings are also chaotic and subjective unless they agree with the pope and magisterium. I see how that gives you an advantage over us. I don’t see how that allows you to publish at CTC anything other than what the popes and magisterium teach.
I’ll make Brian’s next comment for him: “No one at CTC publishes anything other than what the popes and magisterium teach”…
Jeremy T., I see the point of your analogy. But what you guys at CTC don’t seem to recognize is that the teacher in your scenario (since Vatican 2) resembles more a substitute teacher than one of the nuns that used to bring a yard stick into class and let students know when they were wrong morally and intellectually. So great, you have a teacher. What’s he doing about the Jesuits in the back of the class that keep throwing spitballs at the egg heads in the front?
Jeremy, this is patently false — that Protestantism lost the gift of speaking on behalf of Christ. Every Sunday when my minister preaches the word, and sometimes he uses his own words, I hear the word of Christ. You don’t like us to misrepresent Rome. Don’t misrepresent Reformed Protestantism. God gave us pastors, evangelists, teachers, and elders for a reason and a good reason.
Erik,
I appreciate your heart and where you’re coming from. Last summer I had the chance to spend several days with many of the authors at Called to Communion. While I expected to be impressed with these men as scholars I went home more impressed with them as men of faith. I just don’t see the “smugness” that you find so irritating.
Christian unity matters. Protestantism has attempted to rediscover unity, but it always takes the form of watering down doctrinal distinctives among various Protestant groups. The Catholic Church alone offers both unity and doctrinal depth. The Catholic Church hasn’t been preserved because super competent men hold positions of power, but because the Holy Spirit has kept the promise of Christ to remain with His people.
As for the “leap of faith”. Personally, I began seminary at RTS with zero expectation of even considering anything outside of Reformed Protestantism. I had been told that the Catholic Church had condemned the gospel at Trent and that the Reformers had courageously stood up and reasserted the Biblical Doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. It was only when I immersed myself in Scripture and history that I realized that the story was a bit more complicated. I had no answer when a Catholic asked me where the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. I realized that I couldn’t agree with all the implications of Sola Fide (that one can be saved without agape for God). In fact, didn’t make a giant leap of faith. I slowly and painfully realized that the Reformation had actually been an attempt to reform the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that ultimately, the only ones who did any real reforming were the ones who worked to end corruption from within the Church. St. Catherine of Siena is the classic example of one who worked to reform the corruption of the medieval Catholic Church from within. For me, conversion meant the loss of my job, the loss of my house (a Church owned property), the loss of friends, and a massive strain on my marriage. I didn’t do what I did because I wanted to take a blind leap of faith.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy Tate, how could salvation based on Christ’s righteousness be impossible. What seems impossible is that you could ever infuse enough righteousness into a human being to make them as righteous as Christ was both before and especially after his passion.
As for the “leap of faith”. Personally, I began seminary at RTS with zero expectation of even considering anything outside of Reformed Protestantism. I had been told that the Catholic Church had condemned the gospel at Trent and that the Reformers had courageously stood up and reasserted the Biblical Doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. It was only when I immersed myself in Scripture and history that I realized that the story was a bit more complicated.
RS: While it is a bit complicated, that does not deny the truth of them. From what you have beeing writing, I am still convinced that you don’t really understand them.
Jeremy T: I had no answer when a Catholic asked me where the Bible teaches Sola Scriptura. I realized that I couldn’t agree with all the implications of Sola Fide (that one can be saved without agape for God).
RS: Which is proof that perhaps you don’t understand what it teaches.
Jeremy T: In fact, didn’t make a giant leap of faith. I slowly and painfully realized that the Reformation had actually been an attempt to reform the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that ultimately, the only ones who did any real reforming were the ones who worked to end corruption from within the Church.
RS: That may be mostly true, but the real corruption was when the Gospel of grace alone was declared anathema. You may think that this is nothing but a stereotype, but so be it. The fact is that it is true. When Rome did that it ceased to be a Church since it takes the Gospel to be a real Church. The corruption of Rome extended to the corruption of the Gospel.
Jeremy T: St. Catherine of Siena is the classic example of one who worked to reform the corruption of the medieval Catholic Church from within. For me, conversion meant the loss of my job, the loss of my house (a Church owned property), the loss of friends, and a massive strain on my marriage. I didn’t do what I did because I wanted to take a blind leap of faith.
RS: Perhaps you didn’t want to take a blind leap of faith, but that is not the same thing as taking a blinded leap.
Sean,
Would love to interact with your post, but it is mostly incomprehensible, e.g.: “the teachers at seminary.” What teachers? What seminary?
What “community of faith” had a “dominant hand in writing the canon”? What does “writing the canon” mean? How does a community write?
I don’t know if your comment is pro or anti magisterium. I don’t know what you think about the original post it purports to comment on.
I welcome your opinions here, but simply request that you state them more clearly.
Jeremy – I appreciate your sincerity and ability to have a conversation.
D.G.,
Of course Protestantism asserts that the charism of infallibity has been lost (speaking on behalf of the Christ who never gets it wrong). If I am wrong in my assertion, just tell me where to go within Protestantism to find the voice divinely protected from error.
Look at Vatican II’s (which it sounds like you have read in its entirity?) Dogmatic Constitution on the Church;
Further,
Protestantism, and you, reject the idea that such a gift still exists. Do you believe that the “Redeemer willed his Church to be endowed” with this gift?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Brian – How close is your church plant to Reston, VA? My sister may be moving there and is looking for a conservative Reformed church. I am in the URC in Des Moines.
Erik: Depends where in Reston. Google says its 22.5 mostly freeway miles, or 35 minutes on a Sunday morning. Parking isn’t bad (on Sunday) at our downtown location, and we validate if you need to use a garage (rare).
Grace Church OPC in Vienna, VA would likely be closer (still about 20 minutes), and it is a good church. While we’re both confessionally Reformed, you’d find us to be more liturgical, with weekly communion, etc.
Richard Smith,
Please quote from Trent, where exactly does it declare the
Does Trent say this or is this how you interpret Trent?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Erik,
Brian,
Sorry about that, I was trading on prior posts as to my past experience at a catholic seminary and later studies at college. The priests and religious that were my profs, were trying to enact Vat II recommendations as it regarded scriptural hermenuetics, and since this was relatively new to them, they simply ‘borrowed’ the protestant liberal hermenuetics of Bultman and the higher critics and then capitalized upon the ongoing determinations of the jesus seminar folk, to essentialy deconstruct the scriptures, and challenge the historicity of Jesus. It amounted to a Jeffersonian gutting of the divine statements of Jesus and the miracles, and attributing such statements to the interlopers of the ‘community of faith’ who added such sayings later. It was pretty boiler plate liberalism with the reliance on the ‘Q’ document as a template, as I remember it. This deconstruction of sacred scripture was considered no threat to Rome and in fact gave creedence to the idea that holy tradition and the ‘community of faith’ were of more importance to the church than sacred scripture.
Brian,
BTW, I am a member in the PCA. So, no longer RC but don’t tell the guys at presbytery who consider the ‘bishop of rome’ worthy of protestant deference
Thanks, Brian (Rev. Lee).
Sean, sorry for my latest comment directed toward you. It was out of order (literally), in that I posted it without reloading my page (I thought I was the fourth or fifth comment in the chain). Where it is found, it doesn’t make sense. Apologies.
Jeremy, like I say, looks good on paper. But we’re back in the school classroom. No one is sure when the teacher is speaking authoritatively or infallibly. I did ask Bryan yesterday if he submits to the Fourth Lateran Council on the attire of Jews:
You seem to have great certainty about certainty. But Roman Catholicism these days is not all that certain about whether the certain voice is certain. It does seem that you take great assurance from an ideal and ignore the reality (or wonder much how the two square).
Jeremy,
I hope you have enough agape for God.
This isn’t snark, it’s Law. “Unless your agape for God exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Is it perfect? Will you allow Christ to “top it off” for you? Or will you close the gap, purge the refuse, with a little purgatorial suffering?
As Richard notes, the comment proves you don’t understand the force of sola fide, for sola fide doesn’t deny that the believer–every believer–has agape for God. Even the thief on the cross has agape for the one hanging beside him. It just denies that your agape provides any basis for your salvation, as you and your magisterium insist.
Brian,
Is this Dr. Brian Lee at RTS in D.C.? If so, thank you for being such a great Professor and for always taking an interest in the lives of your students. I loved your Genesis to Joshua class. Thank you for teaching me to think about theology (even if you disagree with where I went) BTW Erin and I are working to catch up with your family (baby #4 on the way). If this is not Dr. Lee, uh,sorry.
I miss seeing you – Peace in Christ, Jeremy
One Trackback
[...] this matter of contrasting Protestant and Roman Catholic paradigms of authority, I like Jeremy Tate’s analogy of a school room. Protestants in class have no teacher, only a book. Wrong, but let’s go with [...]