The lead singer for Jason and the Callers has tried to come clean on Roman Catholicism’s problems. But Jason doesn’t quite grasp how profound the problem is. It is not simply the disparity between the ideal and the real. It is the dilemma that comes for converts who simply place Protestantism in the leads-to-rationalism-and-skepticism box. How could such a communion as Jason envisions in the Roman Catholic church be reformed? Even more, why would it ever need to be and how would you (whether laity, religious, or bishop) know?
. . . I left behind the whole holding-the-church-hostage-to-my-personal-preferences thing when I ceased being a Protestant. I have only one Mother and I don’t get to choose her, and Christ has only one Bride (albeit an often wart-covered one). So rather than searching high and low for a church that has just the right hymns, just the right leadership, and just the right amount of plausible deniability so as to take credit for the Nicene Creed while blaming others for the Inquisition, I’ll just keep on believing in one holy catholic and apostolic church, blemishes and all.
Really? Even when the church tells you that white is black? Is the church Christ founded merely one big mess that needs one big mulligan?
The problem for Jason is that he will still need to look the other way in Roman Catholic circles or he will be a closeted Martin Luther who lacks the chutzpah to take out a nail and hammer post his list of dislikes on the door of the Tacoma cathedral. In this case, Jason may want to consider the case of Rod Dreher:
The new Catholic just doesn’t know who to trust on moral and theological matters. From the outside, theological conservatives weary of confusion and fighting within Mainline Protestant churches see Rome as a bulwark of stability. It is, but it also isn’t. Once you come in, you’ll find the same fighting over the same issues, but it’s harder to identify who’s who, and what’s what. Just because Rome has a Magisterium does not mean that it is recognized at the local level. I heard or read an older Catholic once who said that the good thing about liberal and conservative Catholic arguments prior to the Second Vatican Council is that both sides recognized a common source of authority, a common set of teachings to which they appealed to support their contentions. After Vatican II, that faded away. It does orthodox Catholics no good to base arguments on teachings that liberal Catholics reserve the right to reject as they see fit, and still consider themselves Catholics in good standing.
I managed to stay pretty well informed by reading on my own, so I knew when a priest or Catholic academic was giving me a line. Most Catholics, I found, really didn’t, because they didn’t have the time or the inclination to study these things, and they believed they could trust all priests and academics who did.
Toward the end of my life as a Catholic, I thought about how often I had to drive home from Sunday mass and tell my older son, who was starting to pay attention to the homilies, that what Father said that day in his sermon was not actually what the Church teaches. It occurred to me that I was teaching my child to distrust the Church — the institutional Church, I mean, which in this case means the clergy — before he learned as a Catholic to trust the Church. That’s messed up. I’ve written before that I allowed myself to become an overly political Catholic (re: Church politics and factionalism), but that often happens to engaged orthodox Catholics because you really don’t know who’s a trustworthy guide within the Church to its authentic teaching and spirituality. That factionalism is a bitter fruit of the deep crisis of authority within the Catholic Church in the postwar era.
It was probably good for me, on the whole, to have all vestiges of clericalism stripped from me, though I hate how difficult I find it to fully trust clergy at all (conflict and betrayal within the Orthodox Church in recent years are part of that, I concede, though they have to do with trust on a non-theological level). Still, I think orthodox American Catholics have a particularly difficult struggle on this front, given how a certain kind of liberal priest and fellow traveler wish to use the authority given them by the Church to undermine the authority of the Church.
So does Jason file away his list, never to be examined again, or does he wind up questioning the father that expects holy submission? I’m not sure Descartes epistemological doubts rival that one.
Old Life 
Dr. Hart,
But Rome can’t really have warts, can it? I mean, Rome says that she can’t err so therefore she can’t err, right?
More seriously, do you have any opinion as to why these converts cannot get it through their heads that when they swam the Tiber they chose her based on their own personal reading of Scripture and tradition (with Rome-colored glasses of course, not that they’ll tell you that)? To even come up with a conversion narrative entails pointing out the dissatisfaction they experienced with Protestantism and the glories of Rome as the visible church promised in Scripture.
For the life of me, I can’t see why they can’t admit that. Is it simply because such an admission destroys the whole “principled distinction” line?
LikeLike
Robert, as I understand tu quoque, when we decide on our readings and interpretations it’s bad because it’s Protestant. When they do it, it’s good because it’s the church Christ founded. Got it?
LikeLike
Makes perfect sense Dr. Hart!
LikeLike
What I find confusing, amusing, and even disingenuous on Jason’s part is his habit of mixing the joking with the serious in his commentary and rebuttals. The two being intertwined leave him an out when called on something – as in this interchange in the comments after his blog post (by the way, my take is he was being mostly serious in his post, but then backpedals):
RCC Commenter
Jason no less than eight hours ago I sat at Franciscan and heard you and what a testimony. What I have read here on your top ten confuses me greatly. I don’t know what to think. Are these things u hate now at the time of writing? The DVM rainbows was horrid whether you meant it about cartoons or not. If you want to minimize probably one if the greatest devotion our church believes you will need prayers. Had I not invested the time to find your clarification I would have been MORE confused. Please clarify your top ten…they seem pouty and not of God. I wish you well on your faith journey. I hope you are meeting with a trained spiritual director. I emphasize trained. God bless you!
Jason:
I am sorry for the confusion. This post, much of which is meant to be tongue in cheek, has to do with an ongoing dialogue between a former professor and me over his objection that Catholic converts only speak about the rosy elements of our new faith and disingenuously cover up the warts. Most of my readers are aware of this discussion and therefore are able to read these things in their context, although I can see how this may have come across as confusing for a first time visitor. I meant no offense, and if you have any follow up questions, please shoot me email through the Contact page above.
Which of the ten were “tongue in cheek?” Are any of them serious concerns on his part? Or are they just rhetorical tools used to push back at Dr. Hart? We just don’t know (does he?). He can claim he has listed some concerns with Rome, at least in theory, to give answer to Old Life objections. And at the same time he can claim it’s just tongue-in-cheek, just “inside the beltway” kind of stuff between him and Hart. And thus the RCC commenter is left to understand that all is well with Jason and Rome (no real warts?). Nothing really serious meant by the list… move along dear commenter, nothing to see…
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
There are numerous obvious problems with Jason’s treatment of Catholicism. To give just one example: Jason says that he isn’t a big fan of the Crusades. But the Crusades can’t be lumped into the same category as a pope committing a sin or a crime. After all, Popes granted official papal indulgences in conjunction with their calls for the Crusades.
If the participating in the Crusades was a good work before the LORD that resulted in God remitting temporal punishment against sin – why would Jason not be a fan? On the other hand, if the Pope was wrong to grant indulgences for the Crusades doesn’t that mean that the indulgence system is a sham and Jason should once again become a Protestant?
David
LikeLike
Not only does the church get a mulligan, but I’m told the Pope never slices.
LikeLike
But to question if there is salvation outside one church is to get on the slippery Donatist path to question if there is salvation outside “the true visible church”. And how could one born outside “the covenant of grace” ordinarily be effectually called by the power of the gospel?
And if “the true visible church” has now already ruled that federal visionists are orthodox, we would need some kind of “lesser church” before we as individuals dare question that decision.. At the end of the day, order of any kind, even Roman Catholic kind of order, is better than the Donatist alternative.
Luther: even after 25 years of justification by grace preaching—I still am tempted to look at my works. But when I am tempted, I remember—I have been baptized.
Reno traveled the short road from Luther back to Rome.
LikeLike
The Mulligan Christ Founded
I would think that the Reformation considers itself the mulligan, the second chance. 1500 years of Christianity in sin and error pining, but God sends Luther and Calvin to start new true churches right alongside the old ones.
http://oakridgechurch.com/riggs/apostasy.htm
LikeLike
Some comboxer of the Romish please help this poor duffer: How am I to understand canon 33 of Trent? Rome’s not exactly inviting me on to the course, no? Straight talk only, folks, no links to C2C or other articles. Thanks in advance!
LikeLike
Tommy-boy wrote…
I would think that the Reformation considers itself the mulligan, the second chance.
Not a mulligan or a redo. But rather, after the apostolic churches drove a solid shot down the center of the fairway, then the Romans shanked into the high weeds… the Reformation came in and hit a great 5 iron shot… Back into the fairway and ready for the final approach.
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 31, 2013 at 9:55 pm | Permalink
Some comboxer of the Romish please help this poor duffer: How am I to understand canon 33 of Trent? Rome’s not exactly inviting me on to the course, no? Straight talk only, folks, no links to C2C or other articles. Thanks in advance!
Unless my GPS is on the fritz, this ain’t no combox of the Romish. Seems like that comic where Bazooka Joe is looking for his keys not where he dropped them, but over where the light’s better.
I
mustamust have read that when I was 6, AB. Stuck with me all these years, gets more poignant every day. If you wanted to find your key to this question, this is the last place you should look. Find a combox of the Romish.Taking a look at the damn thing [and there are only 33 canons total!]
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm
and
It’s like, let’s give this “justification by works” thing a rest already. Nobody’s arguing it. Even that Notorious Infidel Ben Franklin in his letter to his pal the Great Awakener George Whitefield in 1751 said
Everybody gets it you get it I get we get it. Ben Franklin gets it. Enough already.
Wearin’Wearing us out.LikeLike
Jack Miller
Posted July 31, 2013 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
Tommy-boy wrote…
I would think that the Reformation considers itself the mulligan, the second chance.
Not a mulligan or a redo. But rather, after the apostolic churches drove a solid shot down the center of the fairway, then the Romans shanked into the high weeds… the Reformation came in and hit a great 5 iron shot… Back into the fairway and ready for the final approach.
Tommy? Do we know each other well enough for you to be so familiar, Jack?
If I get your analogy properly, you seem to be positing Christ’s church as a “best ball” tournament.
That could work–as long as we’re all on the same team. 😉
LikeLike
Tom, you mean scramble:
Best Ball vs. Scramble
In scramble format, all players tee off, choose which shot is best and all play their next shots from the location of the best shot. Play continues in this fashion for all of the 18 holes. For the best ball format, each player hits his own ball throughout the round.
http://golftips.golfsmith.com/rules-playing-ball-golf-1844.html
Common mistake, but thanks, anyway. The reformed will take that next shot, we’ll be up and down in no time.
LikeLike
But seriously, Tom, I get your point. I can’t get over canons 11 and 33. I might shake this mental block, but don’t count on it.
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 31, 2013 at 11:23 pm | Permalink
Tom, you mean scramble:
Best Ball vs. Scramble
In scramble format, all players tee off, choose which shot is best and all play their next shots from the location of the best shot. Play continues in this fashion for all of the 18 holes. For the best ball format, each player hits his own ball throughout the round.
http://golftips.golfsmith.com/rules-playing-ball-golf-1844.html
Common mistake, but thanks, anyway. The reformed will take that next shot, we’ll be up and down in no time.
Thx for the clarification, Captain Spaulding [Hello I Must Be Going].
Played Scramble in a tourney in Miami, what couse me don’t remember. Fortified by pitchers of mojitos waiting every 3 holes in Miami. Excellent, bro. My job was not hitting a “best ball,” although I did once, almost 300 yds swinging from the heels with all my baseball and cricket skills brought to bear.
Drove the cart to score more mojitos every 1.5 holes.
The ideal is not to beat the other guys, it’s to achieve the best possible score, together.
I guess my objection is exactly to the game of “Scramble” where each Christian and each Christian sect just tries to beat the other ones. If the Reformed are indeed “up and down,” that’s cool. But it’s more like they come running back to the rest of us still on the fairway, waving ball in hand. Hole-in-One! Look!
LikeLike
TVD… aka Tommy,
Though we haven’t been introduced, I feel that I know you after listening in to all you’ve deposited here at OL.
Not “best-ball”, as in opposing teams. You have the wrong ‘paradigm’. ;-). Rather, the sovereign God of history’s redemption is directing the church’s club selections and the shots (good and bad), all for his glory. To end up on the 18th green with our Lord one needs to be a recipient of his shots, not a player who directs the shots.
LikeLike
AB
Posted July 31, 2013 at 11:32 pm | Permalink
But seriously, Tom, I get your point. I can’t get over canons 11 and 33. I might shake this mental block, but don’t count on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s50K65PNeBU
Captain Spaulding, if you get my point, that’s plenty fine. I was on Jeopardy, where I won my honeymoon, you know. Read all my answers as questions. And vice-versa. Then you get me.
Oh, and thx for the Charles Barkley, a Philadelphia hero. Likewise, my motto: I May Be Wrong, But I Doubt It. 😉
LikeLike
Spaulding, TVD? Whatever ;-P
Everyone’s analyzing, like, “oh, the Catholics are like such and such, while the reformed are like such and such. Don’t even bring up the fundies…”
I mean, hey, we’re on a theology blog. I get it. This is the place to do it. It just strikes me as silly, because we are talking about classifying millions, if not billions of poeple. What’s the point, if not to talk golf.
I played Scramble at Carmel Valley Ranch. Second most fun I’ve had, next to playing Bayonet last year with some dudes who are by no means, duffers.
So thanks for sharing aboutt gold, Tom. But here’s my thing: do you want me to stick around and lay out the justification for justification? This stuff is not hard.
The way I see it, we can’t define large entire religious groups, but we mock online communities, like ourselves, calledtocommunion, etc etc. That’s mainly what’s going on here, as I see it. Actually getting to the bottom of stuff, that’s takes reading a book, I think. Hart’s latest, and Fesko’s on the aforementioned topic were worth the price of admission and then some, to say the least.
Just let me know what you want. I’m just internetting between holes. Oh look, the group ahead is off the green. Gotta run! ;-P
LikeLike
*golf
LikeLike
Tom,
What Rome gives with one hand she takes back with the other. Canon 1 of the Council of Trent condemns those who say we are justified by good works apart from divine grace. The Reformers knew that quite well. We know that quite well.
The issue is that we affirm that man is not justified even by the good works he does in and through divine grace. Rome says we are justified by the good works we do in and through divine grace. That is a works-based salvation dependent finally on the faithfulness of the individual and not on Christ alone.
Rome tips its hat to grace and then says grace is not enough. That is the Protestant-Roman Catholic divide, and specifically the Reformed-Roman Catholic divide. As good as our works might be with the help of divine grace, they are still naught but filthy rags before the bar of our perfectly holy and just Creator.
Rome does not deny the need for grace. She denies grace alone. That one little word alone makes all the difference in the world, and makes salvation finally dependent on our works of cooperation, not the sovereign mercy of God.
So while it is a crude deconstruction to say that Rome teaches salvation by works, at the end of the day, that is where you end up with their teaching. All the flowery language and obfuscation in the world cannot prove otherwise. Rome must first reject this error before any knowledgeable Protestant will take their affirmation of grace seriously.
LikeLike
Muchas graicas, Robert.
Tom, Robert’s got it. I can point to my disucssions at C2C over imputation and justification. For me, I found good news for my soul via the reformers. This happened years before I found online internet theolgicial discussion groups. That doesn’t mean I know more than Sean MM, Bryan Cross, or anyonr else with a smartphone and can read and type “oldlife dot org.”
I’m sorry you think we are yelling “hole in one!” If I had it my way, I wouldn’t be waiting so much between holes, and then I merely get to read other comboxers instead of being one. But I’ll show up and stick around all you want. Oh look, I’m next up on the tee..
LikeLike
PS Tom,
I’ll share my price is right video from 2001, in exchange for your Jeopardy, so that we can “get to know each other.” Or, we’ll just keep hanging out in Darryl’s bar. This seems to be working for the time being.
Enjoy your stay,
Andrew
LikeLike
If I worked in the same office as AB, I would sporadically blurt out “mulligan,” “par,” or “tea time” just to get him to come over to my part of the office. And he would every time.
LikeLike
You gotta love mainstream media coverage of Catholicism. From the AP:
“Four months into his papacy, Francis has called on young Catholic in the trenches to take up spiritual arms to shake up a dusty, doctrinaire church that is losing faithful and relevance. He has said women must have a greater role – not as priests, but a place in the church that recognizes that Mary is more important than any of the apostles. And he has turned the Vatican upside down, quite possibly knocking the wind out of a poisonously homophobic culture by merely uttering the word ‘gay'”
LikeLike
Jason is just channeling G. K. Chesterton’s sophistry anyway. As usual, there’s nothing like the original.
LikeLike
AB,
Canon 33:
If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.
How can I help?
How come you guys never talk about Canons 1,2 & 3? Trent needs to be read in its entirety to be understood in context. When I actually did that as a Protestant I found out that it was an entirely different document than I thought.
LikeLike
AB
Posted August 1, 2013 at 9:47 am | Permalink
PS Tom,
I’ll share my price is right video from 2001, in exchange for your Jeopardy, so that we can “get to know each other.” Or, we’ll just keep hanging out in Darryl’s bar. This seems to be working for the time being.
Enjoy your stay,
Andrew
The Jeopardy is in a closet somehere–I’m in my 20s, dyed blonde hair from my pop-punk days with The Naked Apes. The Joker’s Wild stuff is easy to find on YouTube, but I wish I had my victory over the eponymous creationist movie star economist on his late great Win Ben Stein’s Money.
Price Is Right, eh? I loved that show, although I was more a Monty Hall man.
LikeLike
Dave,
We do read the canons you mention. The problem is that they are not the only canons and, even as 1–3 stand, they are not conducive to salvation being only of God.
Canon 1: If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
At the very least implies that the problem Trent has is not with the necessity of grace but with its sufficiency. To formulate it in a more positive way, it just well says:
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works with divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be blessed.
Whereas Protestants (and the Bible) say:
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works with divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
Honestly, we get that you affirm the need for grace. That’s not the problem. The problem is that Rome says grace is not enough.
LikeLike
AB
Posted August 1, 2013 at 9:26 am | Permalink
Muchas graicas, Robert.
Tom, Robert’s got it. I can point to my disucssions at C2C over imputation and justification. For me, I found good news for my soul via the reformers. This happened years before I found online internet theolgicial discussion groups. That doesn’t mean I know more than Sean MM, Bryan Cross, or anyonr else with a smartphone and can read and type “oldlife dot org.”
I’m sorry you think we are yelling “hole in one!” If I had it my way, I wouldn’t be waiting so much between holes, and then I merely get to read other comboxers instead of being one. But I’ll show up and stick around all you want. Oh look, I’m next up on the tee..
Well, I’ve been doing my homework based on our discussions, and find the theology far too speculative, the scriptures far too inconclusive, to break up a church over.
If I follow, we’re so fallen, pathetic and depraved we need grace to even accept grace. God not only walks through the door, he opens it. You don’t have the free will to accept him, or to reject him. I mean I get it, but it’s pretty tautological, and the Elect turn out to be God’s Pod People. I don’t know why he even bothered creating man–he could have stopped with the angels if that’s to be the drill. The only purpose in creating man would be to send some of ’em to hell.
You seem to allow that the RCC doesn’t really teach salvation by works, which might have been worth breaking the Church up over. From what I get from Trent is the shorter “Whoever keeps saying that the Church teaches “works” can go to hell.” I think that’s quite a reasonable exasperation.
http://www.fisheaters.com/justification.html
Mercy.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
Side note: I have not been able to get on Jason’s blog today so if you have responded to me I am not ignoring you.
At the very least implies that the problem Trent has is not with the necessity of grace but with its sufficiency. To formulate it in a more positive way, it just well says:
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works with divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be blessed.
But that is not how it was formulated. It was formulated they way it was for a reason.
Whereas Protestants (and the Bible) say:
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works with divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
Sure if you want to remove James, Romans 2, 1 Corinthians 3, Luke 14:14, 1 Timothy 6, Hebrews 6 & 12… I could go on.
Honestly, we get that you affirm the need for grace. That’s not the problem. The problem is that Rome says grace is not enough.
No! No! No! No Rome does not say that. We affirm grace alone. It is all of grace. We say faith alone is not enough… because scripture says so – explicitly.
LikeLike
TVD, Hahn’s an interesting fellow. Jumped ship because his wife became convinced of the sin of birth control. It wouldn’t cause me to become an RC but at least it rings more true than: “I was in search of a principled distinction”. As you get up to speed on the polemics and apologetics, remember that, most of the time, apologetics are an afterthought, a reinforcing of a move already made.
LikeLike
“…Mary is more important than any of the apostles.”
So much for Petrine primacy. Is it wrong for a wife to be jealous when her husband’s mom is more important to him than his wife? Cue the jokes about italian momma’s boys…
LikeLike
sean
Posted August 1, 2013 at 5:00 pm | Permalink
TVD, Hahn’s an interesting fellow. Jumped ship because his wife became convinced of the sin of birth control. It wouldn’t cause me to become an RC but at least it rings more true than: “I was in search of a principled distinction”. As you get up to speed on the polemics and apologetics, remember that, most of the time, apologetics are an afterthought, a reinforcing of a move already made.
I’m very uncomfortable with this technique of impugning motives, or of summary dismissals/condemnations of people–and therefore everything and all that they have to say. Like the anonymous clown above with the gall to insult and dismiss Chesterton.
I wasn’t going to bring it up because it’s not quite relevant, but if Scott Hahn is to be impugned, it says here he deserves a defense. I happen to have read Scott Hahn’s conversion story
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html
and his evaluation of doctrines is principled, indeed he balked every step of the way. And FTR, it appears to me that his wife remains on the other side of the Tiber [to the pain of them both]–although a close friend, also a Reformed theologian/seminarian, joined him.
And BTW, I’ve seen some references here lately to the anti-Catholic polemicist Loraine Boettner. He’s a he.
As always, Sean, thx for the reply.
LikeLike
TVD, I wasn’t impugning motives I was just pointing out the guy’s own testimony of the 1st domino. It wasn’t a non-forensic understanding of justification. People who make of themselves public figures aren’t victims, particularly when they trade upon their ‘testimony’ as validation and justification for their pontificating. They feel free to condemn me to hell, and I feel free to respond. It doesn’t bother me, I’m sure it doesn’t bother them.
As regards Loraine Boettner, get outta here. I mean life was hard enough for a boy named Sue, but that was just a dude in a song. Can you imagine how much your parents must hate you to give you a girl’s name! I’m uncomfortable impugning the parents of women with such a hateful decision. So, Loraine’s parents deserve a defense, to say nothing of Loraine( just because she has a five o’clock shadow by noon is no reason to question her feminity), so I won’t hear anymore of her being a man. Plus, like I said; ‘I don’t take my spiritual lead from women.’ My polemic against Rome is all my own.
LikeLike
sean
Posted August 1, 2013 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
TVD, I wasn’t impugning motives I was just pointing out the guy’s own testimony of the 1st domino. It wasn’t a non-forensic understanding of justification. People who make of themselves public figures aren’t victims, particularly when they trade upon their ‘testimony’ as validation and justification for their pontificating. They feel free to condemn me to hell, and I feel free to respond. It doesn’t bother me, I’m sure it doesn’t bother them.
As regards Loraine Boettner, get outta here. I mean life was hard enough for a boy named Sue, but that was just a dude in a song. Can you imagine how much your parents must hate you to give you a girl’s name! I’m uncomfortable impugning the parents of women with such a hateful decision. So, Loraine’s parents deserve a defense, to say nothing of Loraine( just because she has a five o’clock shadow by noon is no reason to question her feminity), so I won’t hear anymore of her being a man. Plus, like I said; ‘I don’t take my spiritual lead from women.’ My polemic against Rome is all my own.
Heh. Maybe Boettner’s parents were Catholic, and the book was his way of getting even with them. ;-D
As for the Scott Hahn “conversion,” the full details shed a more compelling story, and should appeal to your exegetical urges:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html
Not a Pope in sight.
LikeLike
Tom, “I’m very uncomfortable with this technique of impugning motives, or of summary dismissals/condemnations of people. . .”
Me, “sound of jaw hitting keyboard.”
LikeLike
Dave H, thanks but no thanks. Canon 11 I can not affirm, and Canon 33 therefore calls me anathema. I’m moving on to better reading, but thank you for giving me an answer. It only confirms, however, how deep this gulf is. Man, I should have read more before coming to the blogs. My bad. I blame it on the game of golf..
LikeLike
Tom, not a pope in sight? Why do you think exactly they call it Roman Catholicism?
LikeLike
Dave H., from the catechism: 2021 Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons. It introduces us into the intimacy of the Trinitarian life.
Then again, it’s confusing in the RC paradigm:
Always the continuity, never the rupture. Never!
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 1, 2013 at 9:39 pm | Permalink
Tom, not a pope in sight? Why do you think exactly they call it Roman Catholicism?
I think you’re skimming, Darryl. Sean & I were discussing Scott Hahn’s story, and his first step had nothing to do with the usual round’n’round on justification or apostolic succession.
As an theology/ecclesiology scholar, I’m sure it comes as no news to you, but I didn’t know
or his claim that it’s
I am of course very interested in your estimable opinion or disputation, Darryl, but on this occasion not so much interested in our usual clever jousting. It’s inappropriate to mock sincerity, and Scott Hahn is terribly sincere here.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted August 1, 2013 at 9:34 pm | Permalink
Tom, “I’m very uncomfortable with this technique of impugning motives, or of summary dismissals/condemnations of people. . .”
Me, “sound of jaw hitting keyboard.”
Get well soon, Darryl. I consider every person here gathered as a brother and a potential friend. Especially thee, for whom I might someday wrangle an personal introduction to Dick Allen if you stop being such a prick. Or even if you don’t—it’s part of your charm. Dick respects that.
LikeLike
Tom, I’m not seeing the exegesis. Hahn’s prime initial mover was his wife on the issue of contraception. Hahn, contrary to the creational covenant arrangement, which he should’ve already been familiar with, acts like the whole thing is novel and suddenly in an epiphanous moment sees the idea of marriage covenant as cultic(church)mark and sees the reality of marriage(one presumes), but more to the point, procreative opportunity, as part of the cultic(sacramental) idea of the marriage covenant. The theological problem with this is that marriage, procreative opportunity or not, is common(non-cultic) endeavor. And is afforded, as a creation mandate, to all imago dei creation. It’s not a particularly cultic/churchly mark(i.e the lords supper), even when you divide it down specifically to procreative opportunity, which was the focus of this particular domino tumbling over. Again, I’m not knocking him for it but this ball was rolling with a full head of steam before he even gets to soteriology.
It’s also telling, for me, that he couches the epiphany in culture warrior context; “By the 1960′s and 70′s, my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, not only endorsed contraception, but abortion on demand and federal funding for abortion, and that appalled me. And I began to wonder if there wasn’t a connection between giving in a little here and then all of a sudden watching the floodgates open later…”
It gives me an idea, as if the inability to seperate a churchly/cultic mark from a creational mandate hadn’t already, of where he went awry on his BT(biblical theological) idea of covenant; he apparently theretofore had not been able to reconcile with the covenantal constructions(noahic vs. Abrahamic) as context for understanding and differentiating common from holy or sacred from profane. I think his story is informative for his conversion, but is not compelling as an exegetical argument for RC or RC theology.
LikeLike
sean
Posted August 1, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Permalink
Tom, I’m not seeing the exegesis.
That’s because it’s not in the article. Perhaps you should ask him sometime. The point is that Scott Hahn was satisfied with the Biblical arguments offered by
…blahblahblah, clearly you’re not interested. But what we’re discussing here is not the validity of the arguments [which we’re not going into], but that Scott & Mrs.Hahn were about the scriptural arguments, not the magisterial authority of Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae [1968] or the rest of the usual script.
“Not compelling as an exegetical argument for RC or RC theology.” Of course not, it was his first step, the crack in the dam. What he’s saying is a counterattack—nay, agreement!–with you: that the Protestant denominations [or read, “Christianity”] is bending to the culture to the point of breaking. Brokenness?
The Roman Church has gay clergy, but on the downlow. “Protestantism” has gay clergy, up high.
And that’s what’s wack, dude. R2K yourself, man, check yourself before you wreck yourself. If Scott Hahn’s right, and the Presbyterian Church of Whatever Nation-State “not only endorsed contraception, but abortion on demand and federal funding for abortion,” then we’re having the wrong discussion.
Way wrong.
LikeLike
Dave H,
I know what Rome says. What I deny is that Rome understands what grace is according to Scripture. If you did understand what grace is, Trent never would have happened.
LikeLike
TVD, the whole debate with Rome is an exegetical exercise. Whether it’s contraception or the Pope. I never knocked Hahn for the ‘why’ of what he did, just that his reasoning is unconvincing exegetically or BT. So, basically he knocked down a protestant straw man to embrace an error. When we talk ‘principled distinction’ we are talking epistemologically considered, thus the whole paradigmatic stalemate with the CtC,and the conversation revolving around rightful authority and the subsequent posture toward that authority, which is inevitably a discussion of magisterial or papal authority.
LikeLike
AB,
Dave H, thanks but no thanks. Canon 11 I can not affirm, and Canon 33 therefore calls me anathema. I’m moving on to better reading, but thank you for giving me an answer. It only confirms, however, how deep this gulf is. Man, I should have read more before coming to the blogs. My bad. I blame it on the game of golf..
Then stop being anathamish. 😉
Honestly, read all of Trent. Look at the scripture cited and then make a more informed opinion.
I am not saying you are not knowledgable, but lets face it, none of us from a self-consiously Reformed background approach Trent on it’s own. There is a decisive opinion about Trent that is very strong that we get with our membership cards… before any of us have actually read it for ourselves. You may as well be approaching the koran because the opinion is thoroughly formed ahead of time.
LikeLike
Dave H, your point to me is to read the context. My mere point here is that this is indeed the theological fault line that caused the reformation, per wikipedia. Luther and Calvin were not making up some esoteric distinction to break free from the Church. They rung a bell, so to speak, and it reverberates down to when I took up the task of figuring this out about 5 years ago. I’ll look around on C2C to see what they say on Trent, to find where I might go for further study. I’ll see you around.
LikeLike
Dave H, here’s some Paul Tillich to chew on, at your leisure (from his History of Christian thought at religion online dot org):
From this follows that the magic element as well as the legal element in the piety disappear. The forgiveness of sins, or acceptance, is not an act of the past done in baptism, but it is continuously necessary. Repentance is an element in every relationship to God, in every moment. It never can stop. The magic as well as the legal element disappear, for grace is personal communion with the sinner. There is no possibility of any merit; there is only the necessity of accepting. And there is no hidden magic power in our souls which make us acceptable, but we are acceptable in the moment in which we accept acceptance. Therefore the sacramental activities as such are rejected. There are sacraments, but they mean something quite different. And the ascetic activities are eternally rejected because none of them can give certainty. But here again a misunderstanding often prevails. One says: Now isn’t that egocentric:; l think Maritain told me that once – if the Protestants think about their own individual certainty? – Now it is not an abstract certainty, that Luther meant; it is reunion with God – this implies certainty. But everything centers around this being accepted. And this of course is certain; if you have God, you have Him. But if you look at yourself, at your experiences, your asceticism, and your morals, then you can be certain only if you are extremely self-complacent and blind toward yourselves; otherwise you cannot. And these, are absolute categories. The Divine demand is absolute. They are not relative demands, which bring more or less blessedness, but they are the absolute demand: joyfully accept the will of God. And there is only one punishment – not the different degrees between the ecclesiastical satisfactions, between the punishment in purgatory, and its many degrees, and finally Hell. There is nothing like this. There is only one punishment, namely the despair of being separated from God. And consequently there is only one grace, namely, reunion with God. That’s all. And to this, Luther – whom Adolf Harnack, the great historian of the dogma, has called a genius of reduction – to this simplicity, Luther has reduced the Christian religion. This is another religion.
Now Luther believed that this was a restatement of the New Testament, especially of Paul. But although his message has the truth of Paul, it’s by no means the full Paul; it is not everything which Paul is. The situation determined what he took from Paul, namely Paul’s conception of defense against legalism – the doctrine of justification by faith. But he did not take in Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit. Of course he did not deny it; there is a lot of it; but that is not decisive. The decisive thing is that a doctrine of the Spirit, of being “in Christ,” of the New Being, is the weak spot in Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith.
In Paul the situation is different. Paul has three main centers in his thinking, which make it not a circle but a triangle. The one is his eschatological consciousness, the certainty that in Christ eschatology is fulfilled and a New Reality has started. The second is the doctrine of the Spirit, which means for him that the Kingdom of God has appeared, that it is here, and there; that the New Being, in which we are, is given to us in Christ. The third point in Paul is the critical defense against legalism: justification by faith.
Luther took all three, of course. But the eschatological point was not really understood. He, in his weariness of the theological fights – you cannot become more tired of anything in the world than of theological controversies, if you always are living it; and even Melanchthon, when he came to death, one of his last words was: “God save me now from the rabies theologorum – from the wrath of the theologians! This is an expression you will understand if you will read the conflicts of the centuries. I just read with great pain, day and night, the doctor’s dissertation of a former pupil, Mr. Thompson, Dr. McNeill’s former assistant, an excellent work in which he describes in more than 300 narrow and large pages the struggle between Melanchthonism and Lutheranism. And if you read that and then see how simple the fundamental statement of Luther was, and how the rabies theologorum produced an almost unimaginable amount of theological disputations on points of which even half-learned theologians as myself would say that they are intolerable, they don’t mean anything any more – then you can see the difference between the prophetic mind and the fanatical theological mind.
Viewed 326959 times.
LikeLike
Atta boy, Dave, stand by your anathemas. Now I know for sure you’re from the Northeast, where you always know where you stand because you heard it to your face. None of that Midwestern avoidance or Southern smile-in-your-face nonsense.
LikeLike
From page 25 (essay starts at page 18, link at the end)
In Machen’s day, he could count on fellow so called evangelicals to stand shoulder to shoulder
with him against the Roman Catholic Church. But now, Noll’s book represents pressure from within evangelicalism to compromise with Rome because there is no great perceived difference between the two camps. The problem is that Noll’s analysis is false. In fact, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church has become far worse than anything that the Council of Trent ever said on salvation and the doctrine of justification. Aside from
the fact that the Catholic Catechism continues to endorse the proclamations of Trent, Vatican II goes on to promote the doctrine of the “anonymous Christian.” Lumen Gentium, a proclamation of Vatican II, states,
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not
know the Gospel of Christ or his church, but who
nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and,
moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will
as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—these too may attain eternal salvation.
Nor will divine providence deny the assistance
necessary for salvation to those who, without any
fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit
knowledge of God, and who, not without grace,
strive to lead a good life. Whatever of good or
truth is found amongst them is considered by the
church to be a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men and women that they have at length have life.41
It is difficult to characterize this statement as anything but salvation by good works. Rome once had semi-Pelagius upon its throne, but he has now abdicated his place of honor to his father, Pelagius. Rome does not stop here but also states, “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, first among whom are the Muslims:
they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day.”42
It is a sad testimony of the devolution of theology when we have to defend the claim among professing Christians that the faith of Abraham is not the faith of Islam and that Yahweh, the one true living God, is not Allah. Jesus tells us in the Word that Abraham longed and looked forward to his advent—Abraham longed for the advent of the Messiah (John 8.56). In other words, Abraham looked to Christ by faith alone, and though he was an ungodly man, he was justified—declared righteous in the sight of God (Rom 4.1-3). The faith of Abraham and Islam hold nothing in common.
Noll’s call for the end of the Reformation reveals at least two things: (1) that he is unfamiliar with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and (2) that so-called Protestants no longer understand their own faith—they are no longer familiar with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sentiments like Noll’s clearly demonstrate the perennial relevance of Machen’s call to stand firm on the gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot and must not surrender to the cries for peace when in truth there is no peace.
Click to access Pro_Rege_Sept_2011.pdf
LikeLike
Jason: 2. I am uncomfortable with some of the pomp and excess of the Vatican, and when the culture faults the Church for it in the light of worldwide poverty, I think, “Well, if you’re going to sit in a chair like this one, you’d better brace yourself for some justified criticism.”
BL: Jason doesn’t seem to get that the pomp and excess is the essence of the thing… it is THE argument for the trueness of the true church. Hang out in Rome and this is abundantly clear.
This can’t be a “thing” about Rome he doesn’t like… it is Rome. Go crawl up the scala sancta for time out of purgatory… no better than twitter following. And they’ve been at it for centuries.
Sad stuff.
LikeLike
Brian, ding ding!!
LikeLike
AB,
If you want a good laugh, watch the CTC crowd and others try and make that aspect of Vatican II fit with everything in its own history before it, let alone Christianity in general. Or they’ll say “it doesn’t say they WILL be saved but only that they MAY.”
Of course that’s not what Rahner, from whom this idea came, said. He seemed rather certain that salvation for those who live like Christians even if they deny Christ would end up in heaven.
Which again raises the question as to why an institution like the RCC that has been so intent on defining itself as the only way to Christ for generations would want to effectively destroy all reasons for its existence, world missions, etc.? If we’re all going to get there anyway, what does Rome have for me? Nada.
LikeLike
You can try to sort out the RC view of salvation since Vatican II be considering these quotes from Pope John Paul II’s interview in “Crossing the Threshold of Hope.” So the Bible is not clear enough on the issue of man’s salvation that it needs official interpreters, but the statements below make the Bible clear? I would like someone to read these words below and explain from them clearly how a sinner is saved.
From the beginning, Christian Revelation has viewed the spiritual history of man as including, in some way, all religions, thereby demonstrating the unity of humankind with regard to the eternal and ultimate destiny of man… There is only one community and it consists of all peoples…. And they have one ultimate destiny, God, whose providence, goodness, and plan of salvation extend to all…(pg. 78).
The Church teaches that there are “seeds of the Word,” semina verbi, in all religions, and, the Holy Spirit works effectively outside the visible structures of the church, making use of these very “semina verbi” that constitute a kind of soteriological root present in all religions (pg. 81).
Christ is “the way and the truth and the life,” in whom men must find the fullness of religious life and in whom God reconciled everything to Himself (pg. 80-81).
The value of faith cannot be explained, even though efforts are often made to do so, by merely stressing its usefulness for human morality…. The basic usefulness of faith lies precisely in the fact that a person believes and entrusts himself. By believing and entrusting ourselves, in fact, we respond to God’s word (pg. 188-89).
…it is wrong for one to make an act of faith in Christ if in one’s conscience one is convinced , however absurdly, that it is wrong to carry out such an act. If man is admonished by his conscience–even if an erroneous conscience, but one whose voice appears to him as unquestionably true–he must always listen to it (pg. 191).
In fact, those who through no fault of their own are not aware of the Gospel of Christ and of the Church, but who nonetheless search sincerely for God, and with the help of grace attempt to carry out His will, known through the dictates of his conscience–they too can attain eternal salvation. Nor will Divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who have not yet arrived at a clear knowledge and recognition of God, and who attempt, not without divine grace, to conduct a good life (pg. 193- 94).
…if a life is truly upright it is because the Gospel, not known and therefore not rejected on a conscious level, is in reality already at work in the depths of the person who searches for the truth with honest effort and who willingly accepts it as soon as it becomes known to him. Such willingness is, in fact, a manifestation of grace at work in the soul (pg. 194).
The fact that man can cooperate with God determines his (man’s) authentic greatness. The truth according to which man is called to cooperate with God in all things, with a view toward the ultimate purpose of his life–his salvation and divinization–found expression in the Eastern tradition in the doctrine of synergism. With God, man “creates the world; with God, man “creates his personal salvation” (pg. 194-95).
In Christ, God revealed to the world that He desires “everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”(I Tim 2:4). This phrase from I Tim is of fundamental importance for understanding and preaching the Last Things. If God desires this–if, for this reason, God has given His Son, who in turn is at work in the Church through the Holy Spirit–can man be damned, can he be rejected by God? (pg. 185)
Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment. Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncements in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith (pg. 185- 86).
There is salvation only and exclusively in Christ. The Church, inasmuch as it is the body of Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation…The Church is in Christ as a sacrament, or a sign and instrument, of ultimate union with God and of the unity of the entire human race (pg. 136).
Christ, present among us in His body which is the Church, is the one mediator and the way to salvation…For this reason men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as a necessity (pg. 139)
Those who do not persist in charity, even if they remain in the Church in “body” but not in “heart,” cannot be saved. All of the Church’s children must remember that their privileged condition is not the result of their own merits, but the result of the special grace of Christ. Therefore, if someone does not respond to this grace in thought, in word, and in deeds, not only will that person not be saved, he will be even more severely judged. (pg. 140)
Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the church…This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement “Outside the Church there is no salvation”… The Church, as the mystical body of Christ, penetrates and embraces all of us. The spiritual, mystical dimensions of the Church are much greater than any sociological statistics could ever possibly show (pg. 140ff)
LikeLike
I found this on Aquila Report last weekend. I found it helpful. Later.
http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/why-do-some-protestants-become-catholics
LikeLike
Dave H, if you are still paying attention, I want to thank you again for stopping by and internetting with me, here at OldLife. My personal opinion on all this is that the Roman Catholic Church must start the process, by amending her ecclesiology whereby she can amend her standards. I do not see any avenue by which a self proclaimed infallible church must not be constantly and ever explaining the “mullgians” of her past. Protestant ecclesioligy is vastly superior, based on what I believe is her acknowledging the truth of the situation we find ourselves in. Again, thanks for the help, but I done looking around on the internet. I’ve got good books to read, so consider me occupied, to say nothing of my lagging golf swing. We’ll see whether the books or the clubs win this battle, I know my own personal history here. Later.
LikeLike