The recent death of Cardinal Carlo Martini, Archbishop of Milan, prompted a piece at First Things that has me wondering again about the arbitrary differences between liberal Roman Catholics and Protestants, not to mention the solidity of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the magisterium it professes to represent. (Though I must add that if gin without tonic water agreed with my tender stomach, I might be called to a communion that has a bishop named Martini.)
Here is the run down of the spectrum of thought in Roman Catholic circles, all within one high ranking official’s thought and service. First, there’s the Christocentric and exegetical side of Martini that sounds reminiscent of Luther:
At the heart of Cardinal Martini’s spirituality was an intense devotion to Christ. Understanding the Lord, drawing closer to him, and becoming his faithful servant, was what directed Martini’s exegesis. Of course, he knew that in order to be a disciple of Christ, one first had to accept the Incarnation, and truth of the Gospels, which is often a struggle for those contending with modernity. It is a trial Martini experienced himself. . . .
Longing to find the truth, Martini plunged himself into studying the New Testament, and read everything he could on “the historical Jesus”—including Christianity’s fiercest critics. Only after testing the Church’s claims against the most rigorous demands did he see “more and more clearly the solid basis for what we can know about Jesus” and that “there were significant and decisive sayings and events in his life that could not be eliminated by any criticism.” Having liberated himself from his fear of embracing Christ fully, he did so, and was inspired to evangelize others. . .
If Martini sounded like an evangelical when it came to Christ and the Bible, the other aspect of his career also echoed Protestant sensibilities (especially mainline and some born-againers):
Cardinal Martini was not merely “open” toward homosexuality, he approved civil unions for same-sex couples. He often praised the family and Christian love, yes—but did so in the context of assailing Humanae Vitae, and advocating the use of condoms to fight AIDS. He challenged the Church’s position on bioethics. Most seriously, he wrote that there was a “positive” aspect to legalizing abortion, and referred to this crime euphemistically as a “termination of pregnancy.”
The Cardinal’s defenders say these statements shouldn’t be isolated, but viewed in a broader picture, alongside his strong statements in favor of life, traditional marriage, and the papacy. . . . The biggest disappointment here is that the Cardinal’s persona as a public commentator was often at odds with his strengths as a biblical interpreter. Serving as the latter, he stressed the need for interior conversion, a renunciation of worldly values, and deeper obedience to Christ. Yet his outreaches to the world became not so much pastoral as fashionable. There was a reason he was “respected among nonbelievers and lapsed Catholics,” as the Washington Post put it, and it wasn’t because he challenged his secular audiences: it was because he accommodated them.
What is striking here is that such a prominent figure in the church was not known for defending the papacy, venerating Mary, or adhering to church tradition. Was he to Rome what Brian McLaren is to Protestantism?
Sure sounds like Called to Communion folks might want to add a page or two about the breadth and diversity of the church to which they are calling Protestants.
Old Life 
Darryl, I think the Cardinal’s defenders should read CtC in order to get straightened out. And it might be helpful if the “Called” read some of what came from the pen of Martini, as well as the other shaken-but-not stirred in the Roman tapestry of acceptable and tolerated belief and practice.
LikeLike
I read through James and 1 and 2 peter and 1 john yesterday. The unwillingness or suspension of viewing those scriptures in light of what Paul has already disputated concerning salvation and justification is rather unbelievable, and very short-sighted. Why would one read those epistles as stand-alones apart from the rest of the testament, the whole discounting by the proto-catholics of Romans as constitutional or Galatians as determinative of the relationship between faith and works and try to make James or 2 Peter as determinative, as Romans in defining those considerations is, if not dishonest, just really poor reading comprehension. Not to mention if we apply Kline’s treaty form, you would expect to find different scriptures performing different functions within the treaty/testament. Who can read James and come away that the treatment of justification in James is on par with it’s extensive treatment in Romans or even Galatians. That’s just poor or purposefully convenient interpretation.
LikeLike
Jack,
The more I read the proto-catholics the more I find that they are just expanding the tent-pegs. They now want to argue that covenant theology is within the deposit and has always been there and finds it’s fullness within Rome. From a theological perspective I can be a forensic protestant inside Rome, they accommodate everything theologically. What they can’t square is denying the sole authority of Rome, unless you’re throwing rocks from the inside of the house, then you’re a prophet.
LikeLike
sean: The more I read the proto-catholics the more I find that they are just expanding the tent-pegs.
Called to Communion, a kinda hope and change RC movement. Say it all-together, “we are the change…” The thing that hits me as strikingly odd is not their desire to expand the pegs, but the projection of their view of RC onto Rome and its history.
LikeLike
I think I’m going to have a classic martini, shaken not stirred, when I get home from work…
LikeLike
Jack,
Vodka and tonic for me. You know I’ve been out of Rome 24 years now, but I still find the CTCers offensive to my Irish catholic upbringing. ” Let me tell you some things about you that you don’t know…….”
LikeLike
Two words: Lavender Mafia…
LikeLike
Sean wrote: “From a theological perspective I can be a forensic protestant inside Rome, they accommodate everything theologically.”
GW: It seems that as long as it is in service to “mother church,” Rome is willing to expand her tent to include it. The mascot of Romanism should be the chameleon.
LikeLike
Erik,
You underestimate the arrogance and presumption of the CTCers, they ‘managed’ to remain protestant long enough to finagle marriage to the opposite sex and find legitimate outlet for their sexual appetite and procure the blessing of children. But, of course, being the new vanguard of the proto-catholic sect, they’re going to pass judgement on those cradles, who often with little option or other opportunities, have taken up the task of celibacy in pursuit of serving the religious needs of their community. Of course, the CTCers from the comfort of their marital bed, are going to render judgement and insist on heterosexual and celibate parameters for those men and women who consecrate themselves to the religious life within the Romish sect. In the words of the church lady; ‘How convenient’. The CTCers in applying a protestant circumspection, written word wise, to a group who quite frankly have legacy claims and sacrificial superiority to the CTCers apologetic and evangelistic contributions, again find themselves on the outside looking in. Sister Simone and Brother Frank aren’t reading CTC,and don’t know they exist.
LikeLike
CTC is to Rome what the CREC is to Presbyterian & Reformed Churches. The new kids on the block with lots of novel ideas. Unlike the CREC, CTC doesn’t have the option of creating their own communion (formerly confederation) and naming Bryan Cross as their pope (at least not yet).
LikeLike
D.G.,
Interesting post and an interesting man.
Erik, your analogy doesn’t work and is uncharitable. Unlike the CREC, CTC doesn’t think it is it’s own Church. New Kids on the Block? Isn’t the PCA only thirty something years old as well? Does that make them the older and more mature denomination? In fact, I think you’d be hard pressed to find a single truly Reformed person who is part of a denomination older than my Grandpa.
You write of CtC The new kids on the block with lots of novel ideas. Really? Have you ever been to CtC? Whenever I check out the site I see posts the defend the authority of the Pope, the oneness of the Church, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Since when are these novel ideas?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
J.T.’s back! I figured this would smoke those guys out. What is your record so far this football season, Jeremy?
On the flip-side, I see that the new leader of the archdiocese of San Francisco, Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, is a high-profile opponent of same-sex marriage. That takes some stones.
LikeLike
J.T. – How old is your grandpa? The OPC was started in 1936. I would argue the URC is the rightful heir of the CRC and the CRC dates back to 1857.
If CTC is The New Kids on the Block you can be Donnie Wahlberg. It’s not Marky Mark, but it’s not bad.
LikeLike
Maybe rather than “novel ideas” I should say “ideal ideas”. As people here have noted many times the things CTC talks about and the reality of the Catholic Church that we see on the ground are oftentimes two different things.
LikeLike
Jeremy T.,
I have been to the CtC site, and read through several posts and “conversion stories”, often including lamentable accounts of how individuals who once embraced the Reformed doctrines of grace celebrating their abandonment of the gospel. I know you wouldn’t see it this way, but I read these stories with Reformed eyes. What I also see is a pollyannish view of Rome and Papal authority, while never dealing with the darker side of the Roman communion.
I’d sure like to see how CtC deals with the rampant cover-ups of criminal activity within Rome. How does Papal authority, and infallibility no less square with the sex abuse scandals that continue to rock the church. How does CtC offer and apologia for the glory of a Roman church that is rocked with yet another banking scandal in the offices of the Vatican’s Institute for Works of Religion (IWR), which is essentially an amalgam of a sovereign central bank and a Swiss bank (marked by depositor anonymity) that matches the most egregious behavior of some of the worst culprits in international banking. The allegations of fraud, money laundering, misrepresentation of financials (including massive losses in the shaky derivatives market), and plundering of allocated gold accounts (gold belonging to others via legally promissory notes) in collusion with Swiss banks wouldn’t be so alarming if the evidence weren’t so damning. How does the communion that proports to be “the church that Jesus founded” square its infallible magesterium with the clear biblical teaching that man cannot serve two masters – either it’s God, or money. I am sure that the end use of IWR funds for church work, has been used by many to justify the means of ill gotten gains. But from an outsider, Pope Benedict’s current efforts to bring about more banking transparency seems like a case of too little too late for an institution caught yet again with its hand in the cookie jar.
I could cite several sources, but here’s an article by Der Spiegel that introduces the problem quite succinctly: Transparency vs. Money Laundering: Catholic Church Fears Growing Vatican Bank Scandal. Help me understand how these current practices of Rome comport in any way with “the church that Christ founded.”
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Regards,
Jed
LikeLike
The link wasn’t working, paste this address in your browser:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-growing-vatican-bank-scandal-threatens-catholic-church-image-a-842140.html
LikeLike
Jeremy,
I don’t believe Hart is claiming that CtC is defending new ideas. Of course defending the authority of the Pope is not a new idea for Rome, but Hart is pointing out other aspects of what the Rome defends that are in equal standing under that umbrella. The difference between the PCA and Rome is that in the PCA, if someone denies the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, they are not permitted to communion. In the eyes of Rome, Schillebeeckx and other liberal Catholics have better standing before Christ than those in the PCA.
The notion that the authority of the Pope extends to the equal standing of Scripture we would regard as questionable in and of itself. Within what the authority of the Pope does not exclude indicates to us further that he does not have this authority. I am really not interested in many more arguments on the authority of the Pope. I am interested in how that authority can and has included the likes of Schillebeeckx.
LikeLike
New York Times article on Cordileone: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/us/san-francisco-catholics-see-strict-message-on-gays-in-choice-of-new-leader.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Sad that he was arrested on a drunken-driving charge last month. That would get a lot of Protestant pastors fired and a lot of Reformed elders removed from office.
Also sad that an organization of gay and lesbian Roman Catholics “moved to a Presbyterian Church” after Pope John Paul II issued a statement on homosexuality in 1986.
LikeLike
Jed – If Bryan Cross comes back I’m sure he will accuse you of some logical fallacy or have some Latin term to describe how your comment is in error…
LikeLike
Hi Erik,
I’ve been reading Old Life, but I don’t comment right now because of time. Football, thanks for asking…not so good, we’re 1-4 (no run game, very weak line…our varsity team is awesome, but I coach JV), but I love the kids and it’s a great way to do relational ministry. Many of the kids go to the youth group at our parish where I give talks so it’s good to get to know them on the field first. I don’t plan to get back into conversation til season ends in November, but the ridiculousness of your comment demanded a response.
O.K, fair enough – I think “ideal” is much more fair than “novel”. Your initial charge contradicted all the others charges at Old Life (that CtC Catholics are the only traditional Catholics left). I’m still reading. I look forward to getting 25 hrs a week back in November and jumping into conversation then.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jed,
The way CTC works the blame game is that when the magisterium is on the correct side of an issue or shows moral courage it redounds to their apostolic calling and rightful place as God’s chosen church and head. When they’re rocked by scandal they regard the individual as to his person and not his office and ‘scapegoat’ the black sheep. It’s like every argument they put forth, Rome comes out smelling like a Rose, and ‘faithfully’ viewed through same colored shades.
LikeLike
If the CTC guys were totally honest they would write up a Catholic version of John Frame’s “Machen’s Warrior Children” for all new converts to read.
LikeLike
Sean,
Not a blame game. The Catholic claim is that the Catholic Church alone has the authority to infallibly interpret Scripture. CtC argues for this truth. The Catholic Church does not claim to be free from scandal or sin. CtC has never made such an argument. This is a straw man. Individuals are responsible for their sin and sin does not invalidate a divinely established office.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy T;
“Individuals are responsible for their sin and sin does not invalidate a divinely established office.”
Sean: No straw man, thank you for validating my point. By the way this ability to recover from ‘error’ and maintain authority extends all the way to contradicting ‘original apostolic teaching’ how’s that for a home field advantage?! I want me some of that juice.
LikeLike
Brian wrote: “The difference between the PCA and Rome is that in the PCA, if someone denies the historicity of the resurrection of Christ, they are not permitted to communion. In the eyes of Rome, Schillebeeckx and other liberal Catholics have better standing before Christ than those in the PCA.”
Erik Charter wrote: “Sad that he was arrested on a drunken-driving charge last month. That would get a lot of Protestant pastors fired and a lot of Reformed elders removed from office.”
GW: For all of its pretentious boasting about having the power of the keys, the actual exercise of those keys (i.e., church discipline) appears to be almost non-existent in Rome. (Think of all those nominal Catholics who can remain members in good standing of their church even though the only time they actually set foot in the door of their church is to get “hatched, matched and dispatched.” How many such nominal Catholics ever get excommunicated?) As I’ve said in past comments, I will begin to have some respect for the leadership in the Roman Catholic Church if they actually start to exercise some real church discipline, starting within their own ranks.
LikeLike
Erik,
Jed – If Bryan Cross comes back I’m sure he will accuse you of some logical fallacy or have some Latin term to describe how your comment is in error…
Yeah, you’re probably right. Kind of a convenient way of ignoring the facts, don’t you think? The thing is, I wouldn’t have as much of an issue with Rome’s handling of these scandals if it didn’t arrogate infallible authority to itself. Sure, even our Reformed communions do struggle from time to time to align our doctrine with our practice – but we also confess that the church militant is an imperfect and fallible institution, and that God’s word alone is the faithful, infallible testament to the truth. But, time and time again Rome has struggled to concede to its fallibility and propensity of failure – which is why the rest of Christendom rolls its eyes whenever Rome argues for Papal infallibility with a straight face.
LikeLike
Jed – You summarize our utter incredulity as Reformed men that other allegedly-Reformed men convert to Rome. It’s as if I left my supermodel like wife for the 300 pound woman I met while the carnival was in town. No thanks.
LikeLike
Sean, it surely helps not to have a spouse if you’re looking for that home field advantage.
LikeLike
I’m having some interaction with a really well known atheist in these parts. This guy was a Pentecostal evangelist as a child growing up in the Southwest. He began his conversion to atheism when he was questioned by JW’s as a young man. It reminded me of Bryan Cross’s conversion to Rome starting by his not being able to refute Mormons. I think this guy & I are going to get together later this month. Hopefully we can start a productive dialogue. It’s difficult when your presuppositions are so different, though.
LikeLike
Part of Cross’s problem (and this atheist’s problem) is that there is a certain cast of mind that can not rest unless they can have absolute certainty that they are right. These folks tend to be drawn to extremes. Rome is one extreme because they are more than happy to claim absolute certainty. Atheism of the Dawkins/Hitchens variety is another because they are also happy to claim absolute certainty. The Bible tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God, which means to me that are probably going to be a few things that we will need to affirm merely because they logically appear to be more likely than not. The resurrection of Christ for instance, or the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
LikeLike
Why is Sola Scriptura more likely than not? This is admittedly subjective, but I believe the fruits of those who follow Scripture alone are better than the fruits of those who follow Scripture plus X. In Rome’s case, I don’t judge the things that sprung from tradition apart from Scripture to be very useful — veneration of Mary, indulgences, veneration of relics, and on and on. The Refomers obviously agreed. Just as ultimately the truth of Scripture is a testimony unto itself, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura testifies unto itself as well.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Can you imagine! Not so at home you in the pointy hat and fancy robe, that I just cleaned. See if you can trade a kiss on that fancy fisherman’s ring for some milk and laundry detergent on your way home.
LikeLike
Calvin is no Donatist. Does Calvin think that a clergy-man not believing the gospel makes his adminstration of the sacraments to be invalid? I don’t think so. Calvin does not sound like Gilbert Tennent to me. Don’t forget that Calvin is on his own home field, and not in diaspora or exile from ‘the church which is truly and visibly catholic”.
Calvin: God did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament…. Peter immediately subjoins, that that baptism is ” not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which is of faith.” Nay, the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, then, can say that we are cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of Christ is our true and only laver?
LikeLike
There’s a published dialogue between Umberto Eco and Martini. Eco’s forceful criticisms of Martini’s liberalized religion were spot on and left me wondering what he’d make of Machen.
Greeley’s “The Catholic Revolution” discusses the post-Vatican II diversity in the church and also wasn’t bad, from what I read of it. Either was at least much better than C2C.
LikeLike
The way Cross has interacted here makes me highly suspicious of CTC’s whole project. He basically refuses to engage on substantive questions. Compare this to the way we are more than willing to dig in and beat the crap out of each other on intramural debates. At some point you just dismiss it as propaganda.
LikeLike
Where is CTC’s Richard Smith?
LikeLike
Erik, He basically refuses to engage on substantive questions.
They [he] are the one true church, the one true infallible magisterium, the one true voice of Christ… above the fray each day… no need to debate, but to merely to state – the truth of Rome.
Hans and Franz? “Hear me now and listen to me later…”
LikeLike
Erik,
The way Cross has interacted here makes me highly suspicious of CTC’s whole project. He basically refuses to engage on substantive questions.
I’ll cheers to that. It sure as heckfire seems like Cross is bent on isolating the discussions on the validity of Rome to certain theological and historical considerations, all while painting a novel picture of what Rome is – who else is defending Rome on the bases that CtC is? All fine and good, if Rome’s theology was the only criteria for consideration, but the fact of the matter is Rome demands deference on all matters – it’s not as if you can pick and choose what you do or do not like about it. This is why the matters of Rome’s practice must come into question – would the “church that Christ founded” really handle the repeated and egregious cases of sexual abuse by it’s clergy perpetrated upon the most vulnerable in the communion in such a ham-fisted and clandestine way? Would the “church that Christ founded” have any justification for utilizing a laundering racket…err, bank, that rivals the most powerful on the planet in terms of it’s balance sheet? I mean, if you or any of the other OldLife interlocutors were to look into the banking scandal at the Vatican, you’re first impression might be that it’s the stuff of a mash-up of a Hitchcock film and a Michael Moore documentary. Then ask yourselves if this is the church founded by Christ and built by the apostles; would Christ or the apostles recognize Rome’s practices as resembling anything close to what they taught regarding ecclesiology in the NT? Their banking practices seem to resemble those of Judas – who certainly had good reasons for his fraudulent behavior, and Rome seems to have little problem sifting through the question of whether or not the Church should also function as a bank. This also doesn’t even dig past the recent history of Roman abuses of power – there is still the lingering questions over the Inquisition (which evidently is still being practiced – in a much milder form), and the Crusades. Yet this is the church, under the oversight of the Pope that has the sole authority to interpret Scripture?
Of course, CtC, and Cross in particular will try to dodge these issues, and pull it back to more favorable territory, by condescendingly informing us that such questions are immaterial. But if their aims are to convert us estranged brethren, or was it anathematized schismatics – they might want to start dealing with the dark underbelly of “the church that Christ founded”, especially if we are supposed to accept Rome with open arms. I don’t see this happening, but I’d sure be interested to see how they answer these questions.
LikeLike
Jed said: This is why the matters of Rome’s practice must come into question – would the “church that Christ founded” really handle the repeated and egregious cases of sexual abuse by it’s clergy perpetrated upon the most vulnerable in the communion in such a ham-fisted and clandestine way? Would the “church that Christ founded” have any justification for utilizing a laundering racket…err, bank, that rivals the most powerful on the planet in terms of it’s balance sheet?
Jeremy Tate:The Catholic Church does not claim to be free from scandal or sin. CtC has never made such an argument. This is a straw man. Individuals are responsible for their sin and sin does not invalidate a divinely established office.
Actually, the Roman Catholic Church does claim perfection in this sense:
Catholic epologists bifurcate The One True Church® into a phenomenal church and a noumenal church. They conveniently relegate all the bad stuff to the phenomenal church. That’s just a shell. A simulacrum.
No matter how bad the church becomes, that can never impinge on the real church. For the real church is an inner, ethereal, indetectible, unfalsifiable quintessence of one true churchliness.
The real church is a suprahistorical entity which requires no historical evidence commensurate with the scope of its historical claims. The real church is impervious to historical counterevidence. The real church is a timeless, spaceless, airtight ideal.
For instance, the True church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. However, under no circumstances should the marks of the True church be confused with concrete, identifiable properties.
It doesn’t matter how much actual disunity you have in the church of Rome. That can never count as evidence against the unity of the church. Rather, any degree of disunity, however, wide and deep, is shunted off to the phenomenal shell of the church. That can never penetrate the essence of what makes the church “one.”
Likewise, it doesn’t matter how unholy the Roman church may be in practice. However corrupt, in time and space, from top to bottom, that only pertains to the outer shell of the church. For the True church remains spotless underneath the accumulated layers of turpitude.
Even though no amount of turpentine will ever be able to peel away the accumulated layers of turpitude to expose the hidden holiness of the church, buried beneath centuries of corruption, the faithful know in their heart of hearts that at the inaccessible core of the church there resides a pristine essence of sanctity.
The True church is indefectible. But not for a minute should that be connected with the actual performance of the church. No matter how error-ridden the Roman church may be in the actual administration of its internal affairs, each and every declension, however large or small, is automatically reassigned to the accidental shell of the church, while the unseen substance of The One True Church® remains intact and inviolate.
The pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. No matter how many mistakes the pope may make in thought, word, and deed, that can never count as evidence against the infallible charism of the pope. Never confound the visible job performance of the pope with his invisible attribute of infallibility.
Roman Catholics like Jeremy have an air-tight excuse for any and every Roman flaw that they refuse to admit to themselves.
LikeLike
John,
I wonder if this logic would work with my wife to describe our marriage if I decide I want to sleep around?
LikeLike
Erik, I suppose you could sleep around and still be married. Now, whether you wife would accept that is another story!
LikeLike
Rome makes more sense when she’s seen as a nation/state with all the inherent political motions that such a body both requires and suffers from just to function. Rome is unwieldy and unbelievable when she allows a group like the CTCers to portray her as something ‘other’ or she holds herself out as something more. Vatican II theologically and ecumenically was in many ways an attempt to put a different face on Rome and accommodate many of these ‘modern’ realities. There is not anyway for Rome to become what CTC and other traditionalists want for her to be. She’s too big and claims too much and is steward over too much money and real estate holdings and represents too diverse a body of believers. CTC can talk about reform and can celebrate that they’ve finally got a theological ‘conservative’ in power, but even to the degree that is true, he’s terribly hamstrung by the competing, vested and adversarial parties without which Rome can’t exist. It’s not very far from the truth that when Rome starts talking down to the American college, the political response back has often been; “how poor are you willing to be, sir” and “do you have any way to fill the enormous holes in the vocational ranks if we actually do what you say” and “there are any number within college of cardinals who see that view differently”, “thanks for calling though, Holy Father”. And this whole banking scandal that Jed has introduced has been going on for at least 30 years, it’s tough when you agree to take money from the mob to bail out the enormous embezzlement and bad investments that you’ve made. Mob money always comes with ‘complications’ and ‘juice’.
Rome is better seen and more understandable when you see her for the political behemoth she is, all the way to ‘booster clubs’ of large private financial donors and political appointments of Bishoprics based largely on the politics of race and money. And just like any political group they have movements of reform and better and worse representation. But, a monolith of theological uniformity much less practice? yea NO.
LikeLike
Sean, I’ve always appreciated your insight into Rome.
And you are right, there are two different sets of messaging that we must contend with: first, actual Rome (and the conciliar documents as they exist, and the pronouncement of popes and documents from the CDF. But second, there are the epologists.
And while, in reality, the statements of the epologists count for nothing (though Rome may pat them on the head for being such good defenders of the faith), the meaningless statements of these folks have the potential to cause great harm, as we’ve seen in the case of Jason Stellman and others.
While Rome may be a “nation/state”, there is also this “Church that Christ founded” component to it, and from that perspective, Rome itself makes this phenomenal/noumenal statement that Steve Hays described (see CCC 823 and following): … held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy … etc., etc.
And that is the level at which, the perspective from which we (Christians) need to address both of these groups (“official” Rome and the epologists).
LikeLike
Sean – Invaluable perspective, as always.
LikeLike
It’a ironic that CTC’s project of pointing to the “ideal” of Rome is made possible by Sean’s “reality” of Rome. If they tried to launch a project like this as OPC/URC/RCUS pastors and elders there might be consistories, sessions, classes, presbyteries, synods, and general assemblies to contend with. Only in the CREC is this sort of freelancing wholly tolerated (and maybe in the PCA?). Perhaps these men felt like they had to get away from the constrictions of the Reformed world to fully spread their wings and fly? As far as I know no one had offered Bryan Cross the position of freelance apologist prior to his conversion.
LikeLike
John,
Thanks and likewise.
LikeLike
Erik,
Thanks as well. Here’s a piece from Jed’s link, if you haven’t read it yet, It’s a bit personal for me as well, one of my favorite priests and instructors Fr. Whitley, was sent to the vatican in roughly 1990 to try and help get this garbage straightened out, just goes to show how entrenched the Vat. is in criminal activity.
“The fears of the pope and the Curia are well-founded. In the past, every time Italian prosecutors have stepped in and confidential documents have found their way to light, the secretive ways of the Vatican bank have always ended up damaging the Church’s prestige. For more than 40 years, the IOR, founded in 1942, has been regularly embroiled in scandals, including bribery money for political parties, mafia money-laundering and, repeatedly, anonymous accounts.
Many who have become ensnarled in illegal business dealings with the Vatican bank have been forced to pay with their lives, while others have spent years behind bars. Despite all of its sacred and solemn promises, the Vatican has succeeded in keeping the pope’s bank a haven for money-launderers. And instead of being on some Caribbean island, this one is right in the middle of Europe, in the heart of Rome.
Its business model depends on keeping things as shrouded as possible from all financial authorities. Capital gains are untaxed, financial statements are not disclosed and anonymity is guaranteed. The bank’s exotic status of belonging to a religious monarchy in a sovereign state the size of a city park has shielded it from investigations and unpleasant external monitoring.”
LikeLike
Jeremy T.,
Jeremy Tate:The Catholic Church does not claim to be free from scandal or sin. CtC has never made such an argument. This is a straw man. Individuals are responsible for their sin and sin does not invalidate a divinely established office.
No, this is not a straw man, your blessed Father is responsible for the happenings within his communion. Calling it a straw man is a convenient evasion for the fact that Rome has served to cover outright criminal activity for scores of decades, all the way to the present day. You say it does not invalidate the office, however, Scripture is clear on the qualifications of church leaders, namely that they be above moral reproach. The Pope’s refusal to deal adequately and proportionately with the gross misdeeds taking place under his leadership makes him complicit, and hence no longer above reproach. If he is not above reproach, he does not meet the minimum requirements of Scripture to be a leader in the church, yet his parishoners, you and the rest of CtC included still consign to him infallible authority to interpret Scripture and speak on behalf of Christ. At some point the joke is on you, for willfully recognizing an authority that Scripture itself would demand to be called to account. I don’t know why anyone would even entertain philosophical and theological arguments for papal infallibility until the papal office calls Roman officials to account for their crimes. This would mean handing over the guilty to criminal prosecution for criminal activity, and defrocking them from office.
However, anyone aware of the current banking scandal, which has included laundering money on behalf of murderous criminal organizations, would know the Pope himself is neck deep in this, both with respect to his personal finances, and his refusal to appoint leadership that would bring real accountability and transparency. The office of the Pope has been hopelessly fraught with scandal, and is only perpetuating the game of smoke and mirrors – allowing Roman officials to prosecute, under the shroud of secrecy, his own personal butler for acting as a whistle-blower in order to bring the truth to light. Yet, we are supposed to believe that the Pope, whose hands are marred with scandal, speaks on behalf of the Risen Lord? Give me a break. The CtC mascot should be the figurines of three monkeys, one with his hands over his eyes, the other with his hands over his ears, and the other with his hand over his mouth, because only a stubborn and willful refusal to examine the facts has lead you to the Roman communion. DGH is right to give you guys the moniker Called to Confusion – if the shoe fits…
LikeLike
John,
Thanks for sharing Hays’ comments here – the Kantian distinction is an apt one for Rome’s view of the church. Kind of funny how the noumenal Rome that CtC claims to exist lies so far out of the real of experience that it is nearly inaccessible – it’s almost as if they are claiming Camelot is real too.
LikeLike
Jed, I’ve often tried to think of ways to characterize what it is that Roman Catholic converts believe — the fairy-tale minus the evil witches. I think the pornography metaphor that I’ve used is apt: they buy into the idea that this is really a beautiful woman that they’re “interacting” with. And I like the phrase “Roman Noumenal Church”. That flows off the tongue. Not many people will understand what that means though.
LikeLike
From this week’s Gospel Coalition review of Sproul’s against Romanism:
Another questionable approach concerns Sproul’s use of the present tense. He writes, for instance, that “Rome teaches” a doctrine of condign and congruous merit. Indeed, Scholastic theologians made hay with this doctrine, and it played an important role in Luther’s protest, but we must not ignore the fact that the Catholic Church long ago jettisoned these categories. In fact, they were gone by 1547, as evidenced by their exclusion from Trent’s Decree on Justification.
The question of time frame impinges on other aspects of Sproul’s argument. He corectly asserts that “[Catholics] are members of a church that has anathematized the gospel” (past tense). But does the Catholic Church currently assert this position? At the end of the day, the answer is probably “yes” after one deconstructs contemporary Catholic (post-Newman) methods of interpretation, but it is generally not by direct application of Trent’s canons from the 16th century. Recent examples include the “Annex” to the Joint Declaration (an official statement of the Church) or the pope’s recent book Saint Paul, in which he explicitly endorses sola fide.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/are_we_together
LikeLike
McMark,
It becomes difficult to fault the protestant if after a time he doesn’t know which target to shoot at, and what’s the official position now. It’s important to know how the anathema is constructed now, but how much authority does the ‘annex’ carry or the Pope’s book? Where do these statements of faith fit in the heirarchy of the deposit. We had CTC come in here initially and they were happy to align themselves with Trent contra Vatican II assertions on the nature of ‘seperated brethren’. This is part of the difficulty of a communion who not only says everything but also doesn’t elevate doctrinal statements or the written word to the level a protestant considers them as it applies to their faith, unless they invoke “ex-cathedra”. Rome is a bit careless quite frankly on this score. What’s ultimately important in Rome is sacerdotalism, and ontological change. This means salvation is primarily communicated through the sacraments as superintended by the priesthood. Outside of that, they make room for quite a diversity of beliefs.
LikeLike
Sean sez, “…What’s ultimately important in Rome is sacerdotalism, and ontological change. This means salvation is primarily communicated through the sacraments as superintended by the priesthood…”
If salvation is communicated through the sacraments then that means the sacraments represent “works” in an of themselves, as well – which is something I’ve always observed about members of the RC, too. They seem to have no problems lying, cheating, stealing and conducting their lives in all sorts of sordid ways during the week as long as they show up for the mass on Sunday (or Saturday PM) to counterbalance the effects. I used to have a co-worker, for example, who relished seeking revenge against perceived personal affronts and would go to great lengths to plot his response. Good works that affect culture in a more conspicuous way seem to be reserved for the “saints.”
Then again, what do we (prots) with the likes of Bernie Ebbers who knowingly cooked his company’s books in order to shut down his competitors, but was known as an accomplished Sunday School teacher at his local Baptist church? In some ways, there is little difference between the two, which is to DGH’s original point.
LikeLike
George,
I agree I think it speaks in some regard to the similarity between sinners; we all sin. But, I think it also brings in bold relief not only the breadth of belief within Rome but also the parallel between broader evangellyfish and Rome; ultimately both revolve around what’s going on within me today, tomorrow, this week. How am I doing today, am I really holding on to Jesus, maybe I need to walk the aisle again, go to mass, to really get right and fill the tub back up or get it really really right this time. Or to bring it into an even more contemporary context; WWJD. Would Jesus litter? Would Jesus’ carbon footprint be as large as mine, how much debt would Jesus accrue? Would Jesus buy the cookies from the scout troop as part of His plan to support organizations that can transform the culture? You get the idea. The protestant gospel on the other hand, is the bronze serpent lifted up in the desert. Look out from yourselves, your salvation was secured in the God-Man who died and was risen on your behalf, at the Right time; While you were still dead in your sin. Imputed righteousness. A monergistic salvation which allows me to do because I live. Not a salvation which says to me ‘do’ that you might live, and oh btw, that that you do, do perfectly. The RC doesn’t have a place in their familial scheme of salvation for a father who demanded perfection of justice. So, in Rome it’s all on a ‘curve’ from the saints, to the religious(vocational), to the slobs in the pew who are really gonna have to make a lot of use of purgatory. Rome accomodates our natural sensibilities about justice and the law of the harvest(you reap what you sow). The protestant gospel is foreign, forensic and objective and is offensive to our ‘sense’ of things until God makes us low by the law, that we might hope against hope for mercy from God which He provides in His son.
LikeLike
Sean, I agree with you about the “moving target”. What is the difference between “shape-shifting” and outright lying about your position? No, I never said that, no, when I said it, I didn’t mean what it sounded like, and etc….
And I very much disagree with the GC reviewer of Sproul’s book.
LikeLike
sean: The RC doesn’t have a place in their familial scheme of salvation for a father who demanded perfection of justice. So, in Rome it’s all on a ‘curve’ from the saints, to the religious(vocational), to the slobs in the pew who are really gonna have to make a lot of use of purgatory. Rome accomodates our natural sensibilities about justice and the law of the harvest(you reap what you sow).
I’ve been running into that very mindset with a CtCer over at GB the past couple of days on the issue of “needing to forgive in order to be forgiven by God.” When pointing out this is just another form of doing works to earn forgiveness, he says, ‘no, no… we need to forgive. God commands it. Marriage and life in general can’t work without forgiveness!” He states that God freely forgives us, but if we don’t forgive then we are no longer able to receive God’s forgiveness. So…. round and round it goes.
It seems that as long as one is in Rome, playing by the rules set down, going to Mass, no matter how poor one’s works and love, then God fills in the gaps in the lack of the Catholic’s inherent righteousness. Yet the very concept of God requires a perfect righteousness seems foreign. So, no need for the gospel. There is no good news, just the good church. Just stay in the church and meet the minimum standards and it’ll turn out ok in the end?
LikeLike
Jack,
That’s what sacerdotalism is going to melt down into; “I believe what the church believes”. (Bugay does a nice job of delineating this out as well). Here’s what the CTCers and Jason are engaged in ; “Basically I’m entering the protestant word based paradigm to make apologetic argument using the scriptures, then once I’ve overcome your protestant objections and you’re in Rome, what you get is a sacramental based system mediated to you through the priesthood based on an ontological emphasis of inner transformation via the infused grace of the sacraments. You never get off this system, it’s God’s metaphysical means of salvation to you. Even your scripture reading is now to be done under the supervision of your priest. This is the repudiation of the ‘solo scriptura’ characterization. For Rome, the protestants have made God a liar because God is declaring what is not righteous, righteous. Rome gets around this two ways: First, God the Father is no perfectionist task master, so strict justice never enters the picture even in Eden. Second; your ‘righteousness’ is an ontological one, (continual justification) you’re declared righteous AS you actually BECOME(aristotelian metaphysical ideas of being-natural fitness et al., otherwise known as Thomism-depending on the degree of Thomism or Aristotelian is where you get semi-pelagian or outright pelagian) righteous. Well, how do I become ontologically righteous; via the infusion of grace through the sacraments. So now my whole salvation is determined by receiving the priestly mediation of the sacraments and whatever is left undone by the end of my life is finished up in Purgatory, and let’s be honest(roman thought), who gets this done in this life?! Maybe Mother Teresa and a few magisterial types; John Paul II etc. So, once you’ve got a few years in, you’re both ‘vested’ and dependent on the sacerdotalism of Rome for your salvation. In essence, Jesus isn’t your immediate mediator but the church, the priests then the saints and Mary. The eucharist is your direct encounter with Jesus though this at the hands of the priest sanctioned by the church. So yeah, you end up on your death bed with; “I believe what the church believes”.
LikeLike
By the way Rome has the ‘death bed’ angle covered as well; Last Rites. It’s sacerdotalism from cradle to grave. Rome is sacerdotalism and it’s organized for this purpose.
LikeLike
Jack,
One more thought. Even though Vat II opened the door wide for the reading of scripture by the laity, under supervision, they don’t have a doctrine of perspicuity, so even here as they encounter the words of scripture it has to be mediated to them by the priest who is trained to co-ordinate the apparent scriptural meanings with the divine tradition. The heirarchy is; the magisterium over the deposit which is over the canon. It’s not a three legged stool as it gets practiced.
LikeLike
Sean,
I have a question I hope you’d be able to answer. Does Rome still acknowledge the validity of indulgences or do they at least acknowledge that they were valid at one time? If so, don’t they run into the exact same problem of a “legal fiction” problem they accuse us of having in justification? How is it that merit can be gained from the saints but the righteousness of Christ can’t be? Would they actually go so far as to argue that the merit of the saints is infused as well or am I off in just completely the wrong direction here?
LikeLike
Good stuff, George & Sean. Sean – You need to get the book going. I’ve got a post going on a local Baptist church’s statement on election and am going start one on a local atheist’s power-point debate presentation against Christianity. Some of this blogging/commenting could provide pretty good book material.
LikeLike
Drew – here was the last one, celebrated most recently at the turn of the century (the 20th, that is):
http://www.ewtn.com/jubilee/indulgence/index.htm
LikeLike
sean, thanks! Your explanation is clear and helpful. I, more or less, was understanding what you wrote. But it’s still a mind-bend for me to not see how the RCs actually process this whole thing.
Although I was baptized RC (my Mom was RC and Dad Lutheran), I switched to Lutheran when I was about seven and never really got a good understanding of the whole thing. What preceded changing churches was that a nun, in a catechism class, said my Dad, being Lutheran, was going to go to hell. I went home and told my parents I wasn’t going back to that church because “Dad was a good man!” (ok, my theology was a bit off). I started going to church with Dad after that until starting college when I opted out of religion. Fortunately God, in His mercy, had other plans for me and I came to faith in Christ in my sophomore year.
By the way, I just received Sproul’s book, Are We Together?, today. I’m looking forward to reading it.
P.S. My Mom’s side of the family is totally Irish Catholic.
LikeLike
Drew,
What I remember about indulgences, besides being rare, was they weren’t merit attributing. An indulgence essentially took time off the sentence in purgatory for expunging of remaining corruption. So you were removing time and need for undergoing ‘some’ of the temporal punishment that most ‘all’ undergo before being presented perfect before the father in heaven. Remember purgatory is making good on the becoming, it’s the finishing out of the ontological process, it’s not meritorious as a protestant talks about merit and forensic righteousness.
Jack,
Some of those nuns were brutal. I think most pew-sitters in Rome give up on trying to figure out all the Thomistic nuances. The Mass and the pageantry is much easier to embrace and makes sense. Plus, everywhere you turn in Rome, you’re being invited to entrust yourself to the church’s understanding and care. 800 pages or so of catechism is a lot to digest, and as has been shown leaves a lot of room for diversity of understandings. BTW, because of the Thomistic undergirding you don’t get the consequences of the fall, as a protestant would understand total depravity, so it’s yet another angle by which the protestant conception of strict justice doesn’t translate.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: From this week’s Gospel Coalition review of Sproul’s against Romanism:
GC: Another questionable approach concerns Sproul’s use of the present tense. He writes, for instance, that “Rome teaches” a doctrine of condign and congruous merit. Indeed, Scholastic theologians made hay with this doctrine, and it played an important role in Luther’s protest, but we must not ignore the fact that the Catholic Church long ago jettisoned these categories. In fact, they were gone by 1547, as evidenced by their exclusion from Trent’s Decree on Justification.
RS: But Rome never makes a mistake and so they cannot just jettison a doctrine that played such an important part in how they formulated things.
GC: The question of time frame impinges on other aspects of Sproul’s argument. He corectly asserts that “[Catholics] are members of a church that has anathematized the gospel” (past tense). But does the Catholic Church currently assert this position? At the end of the day, the answer is probably “yes” after one deconstructs contemporary Catholic (post-Newman) methods of interpretation, but it is generally not by direct application of Trent’s canons from the 16th century.
RS: But again, Rome cannot change this. Whether they assert it or not now does not mean that they have done away with it.
GC: Recent examples include the “Annex” to the Joint Declaration (an official statement of the Church) or the pope’s recent book Saint Paul, in which he explicitly endorses sola fide.
RS: But if the pope endorses sola fide and attaches the same meaning to that as Protestants do, then he is no longer Roman Catholic. After all, Trent 1 anathematized those who believe in sola fide. Until the Pope repudiates Trent 1 he cannot endorse a biblical undersanding of sola fide.
LikeLike
George and Sean,
Thanks, that helps.
LikeLike
None of us would deny that we who have been forgiven need to be forgiving. We remember the parable in which the one who was forgiven much did not forgive, with the conclusion that the one who had been forgiven was no longer forgiven. God’s law commands us to forgive. The question is why are we to forgive. Do we forgive only because of gratitude or only because of the law?
Or do we say that we are in the covenant, but can be cut off from the covenant, if we do not continue to forgive? (Of course, as Sean has so well said, nothing “strict” or perfect is ever demanded by Rome from those “in the family”. You will get more action from people if you never tell them what’s enough or if they have done enough. And of course, there’s always tomorrow–what have you done lately?)
Is forgiving others a condition for staying in the new covenant, or is forgiving others a result of assurance of being in the new covenant? (When I say assurance, I con’t mean perfect assurance.) In the hands of some preachers, that difference between condition and result becomes only a matter of semantics. Their sermon applications keep suggesting that the assurance of still being in the covenant is pretty tightly related to our daily performance of forgiveness.
I mean to say that sometimes it’s difficult to see the difference between pietism and the Romanist system. On the one hand, indulgence, you don’t need to be perfect at forgiving, but on the other, if you were really a Christian, you would be a lot better at it.
Hebrews 6 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of REPENTANCE FROM DEAD WORKS and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
LikeLike
Dennis over at CTC writes in response to John Bugay;
“I grew up in the 70′s and 80′s and experienced exactly the same thing. I had 12 years of Catholic school and couldn’t understand the basics of loving Christ. It wasn’t until my twenties in the 90′s that I experienced a conversion and really started to understand what true Catholicism is. The members of the Catholic Church in the United States suffered from poor catechesis during the 70′s and 80′s.”
This is rich. It was the fault of catechesis. I’ll make sure to let all the OMI(oblates) brethren know they suck. So, Balt. Catechism, VAT I and II, was all done wrongly in America for 40 years but starting with John Paul II and now for sure with Ratzinger and putting the CDF in ‘timeout’- pesky bible readers, we’re finally getting it right again. Oh BTW, it doesn’t hurt having a few catechetically oriented former protestants walk through the door and get things headed in the right direction again. Yeesh, look anyone seriously considering the way of Rome,be wary of taking your lead from the CTCers and Jason, on their proto-catholic journey. Rome is the MASS. If you want the mass and sacerdotalism then fine. But don’t imagine this is gonna be about reading the scriptures and engaging the ‘tradition’ and finally getting the apostolic word RIGHT. My goodness I’ve heard some lines in my life, but wow.
LikeLike
Purgatory—hell with hope. It’s therefore something like hearing a sermon from Paul Washer or Al Martin. If we were to refuse the pope’s doctrine of the “immortal soul”, we would not have so many “protestant” fans of CS Lewis now defending purgatory.
Why throw the stone at a Roman Catholic, when an evangelical is near to aim at?
LikeLike
Sean,
Rome is the MASS. If you want the mass and sacerdotalism then fine. But don’t imagine this is gonna be about reading the scriptures and engaging the ‘tradition’ and finally getting the apostolic word RIGHT. My goodness I’ve heard some lines in my life, but wow.
True, Rome is the Mass, but in the CtC online monastery it would seem that they have achieved a critical mass that allows them the outlet of bible study and theological inquiry. I am not so sure the Roman hierarchy is thrilled that non-clergy is engaging in theologizing, but they’ll tolerate them, assuring them they too have a place at the Roman alter, even if they are winking and crossing their fingers behind their backs. It’s analogous to a newbie to Amway insisting that he can run his business without pestering friends and family, when all the Amway brass cares about is that they keep buying product. In the case of Rome, CtC can keep doing their thing and be tolerated so long as they stay in lock step with Roman sacerdotalism and the Mass.
LikeLike
Jed,
I had just that conversation on email not long ago. I know more than a few religious who appreciate the energy that they bring and really enjoy the picking off and converting of a few protestants, but they view them akin to puppies with a new chew toy. They’re waiting for them to grow up in the faith and get some seasoning. But, they’re tolerated and encouraged out on the end of the lead in the meantime.
LikeLike
Sean —
The Roman Catholic hierarchy in the USA is looking at groups like the Leadership Conference of Women Religious going into open schism. They have the most important financial entity, Catholic Health Association disagreeing with their interpretation of scripture / doctrine. CtC style apologetics aren’t going to bother them any.
LikeLike
Pope Francis on Martini:
LikeLike