At Least It's Not 30,000

Published on by D. G. Hart

Michael Sean Winters is following the meeting of the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops in Baltimore this week and he — echoing Machen — thinks the church is really two:

If I may borrow Cardinal Dolan’s metaphor, there are two Catholic Churches in the U.S. today. One Church is thrilled by Pope Francis, glad not to feel that everything is their fault, happy that they no longer feel the lash of judgment because they cannot measure up to the moral standards articulated by certain conservative commentators, delighted to know that it is OK not to be obsessed exclusively by certain issues, even — what was unimaginable for most just a short time ago — proud to be Catholic again.

The other Church is meeting in the ballroom in Baltimore this week. There is no excitement. The agenda is very pre-“VatiLeaks”. The obsession with abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage rolls on in dreary predictability. Everyone is “in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace,” the very thing Pope Francis said would have worried him if it had characterized the recent synod. It characterizes the meeting of the USCCB so far. It is bizarre to me that the encomiums to Pope Francis are formulaic at best or absent entirely. So far as the public discussions go, you would not know that this is an interesting, let alone exciting, time to be a Catholic. The whole world knows. The cat is out of the bag. And the bishops seem to be asking, “What is a cat?”

I understand some might think quoting Winters is dirty pool, but when did Roman Catholics adopt the Puritan sensibility of the pure church, as if Winters has no right to think like a Roman Catholic?

This post coincides with a revelation about another church within the church. This one is the world of Roman Catholic apologists. Mark Shea describes the rise of Roman Catholic apologetics and links it to a perceived deficiency in the church at the time:

I’m glad of the boomlet in apologetics that has happened since the 80s. It began, almost single-handedly at first, through the efforts of Karl Keating and the good people at Catholic Answers. For some reason, apologetics had become a dirty word after the Council, with the predictable effect that Catholics soon lost the ability to articulate what they believed and why. When I was coming into the Church, it was like pulling teeth to find an RCIA group that would, like, tell me what Church taught instead of reflexively obeying the impulse to just affirm me in my okayness. Karl Keating, more than any other figure in the 80s, is the guy who took action to turn that trend around. And (I strongly suspect) no small reason for the resulting resurgence of apologetics was due to the relief Catholics felt after years of hearing what fools they were for believing the Faith and having few tools other than a gut feeling to counter these charges. . . . There was a rising flood of Evangelical converts and, as Evangelicals do, they started trying to articulate what they had done and why for the benefit of those they had left behind. Evangelicals have a bred-in-the-bone sense that, “If you can’t verbalize your faith, then there’s some doubt as to whether you really know what it is.” So we started writing the books and making the tapes that filled that Catholic book table by 1998. And, as we were doing this, we slowly started looking around and realizing to our surprise that we weren’t alone–usually well after our entry into communion with Rome. In fact, it was not until the early 90s, that I discovered people like Hahn, David Currie, Akin, Rosalind Moss and the whole current crop of Evangelical converts existed. The experience was similar for a lot of First Wavers. We thought we’d pretty much stepped out of Evangelicalism into the Incalculable Catholic Abyss, and to our astonishment there were all these other Evangelical converts! Result: The First Wave started “networking” just as a Second Wave (who read our books and listened to our tapes) were persuaded and started to convert too.

But the problem with these apologists is that they may be doing work that is properly reserved for the bishops. Shea admits:

I have found that, in an era where laity have been taught to mistrust their bishops–not only by the media and the culture, but by the shocking incompetence and perfidy of the bishops themselves in the abuse scandal–it’s very easy for laity to hive off and anoint new ersatz Magisteria in the form of whatever faction they happen to fancy. For some, the New Magisterium is the advocates for women priests. For others, it’s Catholics for a Free Choice. For still others, it’s whatever Richard McBrien says is the consensus of Thinking Catholics in the Academy. For some, it’s Dan Brown.

But for not a few in the apologetics subculture, it’s what I or Scott Hahn or [insert favorite apologist] thinks about X, Y and Z. And that’s a very dangerous thing to do, because we apologists are not protected by the charism of infallibility in the slightest.

I have long wondered about the various cultures in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church and how the apologetic world is dominated by the laity. Why aren’t the bishops doing this? Archbishop Fulton Sheen was a popular bishop who did a form of defending the faith, but his existentially inclined faith was a long way from the textbook approach that dominates the popular apologetic front.

So to correct Winter’s observation, not two churches but three (maybe four if you count Jason and the Callers).

61 thoughts on “At Least It's Not 30,000”

  1. So in an earlier thread, Bryan told us that Catholics who dissent on infallible church teaching like indissolubility of marriage, church teaching on birth control, etc… are formal heretics and not in unity with the church. If that is the case, doesn’t it imply that there are far more than 30,000 Roman denominations in the US? How is a denomination of 1member (spiritual but not religious – natch) really different from a denomination of 100 or a 1,000 or 30,000 people?

    Like

  2. SDB,

    Rome seems to define unity almost exclusively in a visible sense. It doesn’t matter if all 1 billion RCs disagree on everything, they still have a united church as long as these people don’t leave.

    It’s what I like to call the “same-home-office” view of ecclesiology.

    Like

  3. Darryl,

    I have long wondered about the various cultures in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church and how the apologetic world is dominated by the laity. Why aren’t the bishops doing this?

    Some are to some degree, but many have extensive and time-consuming internal responsibilities concerning the dioceses entrusted to their care. But the laity have their role too, as explained in Apostolicam Actuositatem.

    So to correct Winter’s observation, not two churches but three (maybe four if you count Jason and the Callers).

    The problem with that “so” is that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, and hence is a non sequitur. Disagreements concerning what should be emphasized, for example, or differences in levels of “thrill” or “excitement” are not disagreements about “what is of faith,” as I have explained here. Such disagreements and differences leave intact the three bonds of unity which together constitute the first of the four marks of the Church.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  5. Maybe discipline is one of the marks of a church because, without it, formal statements of doctrine and practice are just words on paper. They only represent the church if they describe what is actually believed and practice. Without discipline, formal doctrine won’t be what’s actually happening for long.

    Our RC visitors try to separate the two. Good thing for Kenny, though, lest someone open up a can of V2 whuppin on his backside.

    Like

  6. Some Disagreements concerning what should be emphasized, for example, or differences in levels of “thrill” or “excitement”

    Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, said the debate and vote on a document summing up the discussion in Rome, which laid bare divisions among church leaders, struck him as “rather Protestant.” Tobin referenced a remark Francis had made to young Catholics last year that they shake up the church and make a “mess” in their dioceses.

    “Pope Francis is fond of `creating a mess.’ Mission accomplished,” Tobin wrote.

    Other American bishops said the meeting sowed confusion about church teaching, although several blamed the way information was released from the Vatican or reported by the media.

    “I think confusion is of the devil. I think the public image that came across was confusion,” said Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia. Next year, Chaput will host the pontiff on his first U.S. visit for the World Meeting of Families, a Vatican-organized event that draws thousands of people.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REL_CATHOLIC_BISHOPS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-08-12-50-58

    This wouldn’t be all that significant except for the supposed superiority of the Roman Catholic Church’s model of doctrinal unity from the top down…

    Like

  7. Darryl,

    Bryan, do you correct Michael Sean Winters’ logic?

    If necessary I would, but in this case I simply read him more carefully. In the context of his “two churches” comment he explicitly says he is using a “metaphor.”

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  8. Muddy,

    Ding, ding, ding.

    Although the Roman situation is far worse. Those words on paper have no transcendent meaning across time and culture. I’ve had more than one RC tell me that Nicea means what Rome today says it means, not what Nicea thought it meant. One told me it is irrelevant if the bishop of Rome thinks he is being infallible. Sometimes he thinks he is infallible when he isn’t. I guess its up to the rest of the church to decide what is infallible and what isn’t.

    Still waiting for them to do that outside of the Marian dogmas.

    Like

  9. “If necessary I would, but in this case I simply read him more carefully. In the context of his “two churches” comment he explicitly says he is using a “metaphor.” ”

    That is just so prissy and sad to even let sink in.

    Like

  10. Nothing Michael Sean Winters has written proves that there is A Cat or that he understands The Bag. Further, it is possible for A Cat (if the creature exists) to remain in A Bag for an indefinite period of time. The mechanism for releasing A Cat from A Bag exists and will be employed if necessary and in accordance with Catholic teaching.

    Like

  12. The two churches comment needs to be a metaphor. Calling it a metaphor helps Winters retain the private dissension without a suspicious eye from authority. The next move will be some PR “Interior Reconciliation” effort from the whole church. It’s time for a self-dialogue to show the world they really promote dialogue.

    Like

  13. there are two Catholic Churches

    Could be, even if I seem to recall reciting as a family on Sunday, that we believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic church

    *catholic means universal

    Like

  14. @Muddy

    Maybe discipline is one of the marks of a church because, without it, formal statements of doctrine and practice are just words on paper. They only represent the church if they describe what is actually believed and practice.

    I think we just saw a pretty good example of discipline. Cardinal Burke got a bit ornery. A few months back he didn’t make a list of the Congregation for Bishops and just got demoted to Patron of the Order of Malta (a symbolic job they give to very old people, and he ain’t old) from prefect of the Apostolic Signatura which is like their supreme court. A double demotion is pretty clearly discipline. In corporate America we call what happened to him “being iced” and the goal is to get an employee to quit.

    Francis has said that church hierarchy should not focus so much on abortion and same-sex marriage but instead concentrate on making the church a more welcoming place. Meanwhile, Burke has said to a Catholic broadcaster that “we can never talk enough” against abortion and same-sex marriage.

    He has also questioned Francis’ denunciation of excesses of capitalism.

    ____

    Also Francis excommunicated Fr Greg Reynolds of Australia (full support for women’s ordination and gay marriage) who was suspend from performing mass and did it anyway.

    He excommunicated members of the Italian mafia (though not by name).

    And father Jose Mercau for 4 acts of pederasty.

    Like

  15. And the distinction in my comment above reminds me of my pastor’s erudite observation of the irony of the name Roman (location) Catholic (universal) Church.

    Like

  16. The RCC is in an uproar about possible changes in emphasis when it comes to marrying the divorced, public opposition to gay marriage, and contraceptives — all the while proclaiming an anathema on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Talk about straining the gnat and swallowing the camel…

    Like

  17. Mad H. – but the RCC gave us the gospel so they get to define it and interpret it, no?

    Anathema reversal… “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”

    Like

  18. At Least It’s Not 30,000
    By D. G. HART | Published: NOVEMBER 11, 2014

    Michael Sean Winters…

    A new Darryl Hart record for beclowning himself, a title and 3 words.

    Sorry, Darryl. Read. Learn. Although you lick your chops at a Catholic meltdown as though that would make your religion any more valid–Francis is so far ahead of his conservative Catholic critics and the liberal Michael Sean Winterses that you outsiders don’t have a chance of figuring out what’s going on.

    I still respect what’s left of “Protestantism”–and I consider Old Life one of its last embers–but you remain theologically illiterate when it comes to your Mother Church.

    http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=1059

    However, while I plan to make my argument as forcefully as I can, I realize two important points: First, I am not infallible. It is possible that the Pope, with the help of the Synod of Bishops, will find a way to do what I consider impossible: to change discipline without tampering with doctrine. Second, it is also possible that I have misunderstood the Pope’s intentions. He has certainly encouraged a full discussion of the Kasper proposal, but he may not intend to carry it out. I don’t know his plans and I don’t know his motives. I am prepared to render judgment on a particular plan: the Kasper proposal. I am not prepared to render judgment on the Pope.

    Like

  19. OK, CD-H, if we grant three cases of discipline (unnamed people are not subjects of discipline) in a church of a billion members, what’s the percentage on that?

    If they pull over one guy at the Indianapolis 500 are they enforcing the speed limit? The diversity and corruption in RC is sufficient evidence that discipline is at the token level, likely more for public relations and internal politics than for the purity of the church.

    And here I thought you were second only to Cross in the use of reason.

    Like

  21. Bryan’s Hat
    Posted November 11, 2014 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
    Nothing Michael Sean Winters has written proves that there is A Cat or that he understands The Bag. Further, it is possible for A Cat (if the creature exists) to remain in A Bag for an indefinite period of time. The mechanism for releasing A Cat from A Bag exists and will be employed if necessary and in accordance with Catholic teaching.

    CW, please don’t steal Erik Charter’s act, mocking hats and mullets and other assorted headgear.

    Darryl depends on Erik to be his monkey wrench when the gears are turning against him, and Erik will sell out any foe or even friend to cover Darryl’s ass.

    Bryan kicks Darryl’s ass fair and square anyway. Letting your surrogates mock Bryan’s quite jaunty cap makes you look even worse, Darryl.

    Like

  24. “CW, please don’t steal Erik Charter’s act, mocking hats and mullets and other assorted headgear.
    Darryl depends on Erik to be his monkey wrench when the gears are turning against him, and Erik will sell out any foe or even friend to cover Darryl’s ass. Bryan kicks Darryl’s ass fair and square anyway. Letting your surrogates mock Bryan’s quite jaunty cap makes you look even worse, Darryl.”

    Having slogged through your mixed metaphors, cliches, misuse of “headgear” and overall lack of wit, I’m quite put off by your literary ineptitude. If perchance you have more intelligence than you display here, please do engage it from time to time.

    Like

  26. Bryan – Some are to some degree, but many have extensive and time-consuming internal responsibilities concerning the dioceses entrusted to their care.

    Erik – So many interior decorators to meet with.

    Like

  27. Tom – However, while I plan to make my argument as forcefully as I can

    Erik – For a second I thought that you were saying that YOU were going to make a forceful argument. That would have been a refreshing change.

    Michael Sean Winters is in better standing with the RCC than you if he’s going to Mass.

    Like

  29. Mullet was the topic of last night’s TV show. Tom, where you get off saying Darryl beclowns himself, I’ll never know. The one holy catholic* and apostolic church ain’t melting down, see for yourself in your own congregation. Romanism may be on the decline, but the gates of hell will not prevail against the church led by Christ. Gates are defensive, we Christians are on the move, offensive. We are the already, but not yet. Oh death where your victory? Your sting? I’ll say no more. These are words you should be hearing from your priest, I hope you do soon. In fact i will pray for you thst you do, if you dont mind. Our constitution does say that ourside the church, there are no ordinary means of salvation. Later.

    *historical meaning of “catholic” means universal

    Like

  32. Rome seems to define unity almost exclusively in a visible sense. It doesn’t matter if all 1 billion RCs disagree on everything, they still have a united church as long as these people don’t leave.

    I agree, but I don’t think Bryan does (though of course he can correct me if I am wrong). If all 1billion RCs are part of the church, then their church is not unified as the overwhelming majority of them disagree with dogma and are living in mortal sin. If those who don’t believe everything the church teaches don’t count, then the RC church is about the size of the OPC (well maybe I’ll give them the PCA). I get the distinct impression that size matters to their apologetic, but I could be wrong.

    Like

  34. SDB,

    I agree, but I don’t think Bryan does (though of course he can correct me if I am wrong). If all 1billion RCs are part of the church, then their church is not unified as the overwhelming majority of them disagree with dogma and are living in mortal sin. If those who don’t believe everything the church teaches don’t count, then the RC church is about the size of the OPC (well maybe I’ll give them the PCA). I get the distinct impression that size matters to their apologetic, but I could be wrong.

    The RC apologetic is inherently self-contradictory. On the one hand, we’re told that unity is still there even if there is widespread agreement within the church. On the other hand, one of the proofs for Rome is supposed to be catholicity, as in having RCs everywhere across the planet. But if there is such disagreement, you call catholicity into question because how do you know if there are orthodox RCs everywhere.

    Shell game.

    Like

  35. @Muddy

    The CEO of General Motors does’t fire the cafeteria lady who takes too many smoke breaks. By double demoting Burke who is best known for trying to do an end run around the excommunication process for Biden, Kerry and Sheryl Crow and encouraging the hatred and ostracism of homosexuals he’s sending a clear message that when he said he wanted the focus off abortion, birth control and gays he meant it. That’s discipline. The message to his subordinates is clear. Similar when Francis suspend Bishop Franz-Peter Tebartz-van Elst for wasting money he sent a message about excessive expenses which is one of his regular themes.

    It isn’t Francis’ job to personally discipline tens of thousands it is his job to set standards. And they are being set. Francis’ message to the hierarchy is that through their own sins they lack the respect of the laity needed to effectually discipline and that they are going to earn the respect back. Which BTW in the last 2 years they increasingly have. Francis gets good presses in places where Benedict was despised. His pronouncements will get a hearing in places where Benedict’s never would. When the nuns fought the hierarchy under Benedict they had widespread support for the laity.

    How effectual would your church’s discipline be if after you excommunicated someone the membership of the church all walked up shook their hand and said “I’m standing with you on this”. To pick a Presbyterian example that’s what happened with Pearl Buck.

    One can imagine that after Francis holding the hierarchy to higher standards, and a laity who believes that Francis is reasonable that where he does lay down the law he’ll be able to discipline. I don’t think it is fair anymore to accuse the Catholic church of not being a disciplining church, when at this point they obviously have turned a corner.

    Like

  36. Here is why Bryan’s defense of “Catholics are divided too (CDT)” falls apart:

    There are a number of problems with this response. First, it overlooks the relevant difference between persons and texts, as I have explained elsewhere.24 Because of that difference, the unity of faith possessed by the Catholic Church is an actual unity maintained in the present by a living Magisterium, whereas the unity of faith referred to by this Protestant response is only a potential unity, because Scripture has to be interpreted, and within Protestantism there is no living magisterium to resolve the plethora of interpretive disagreements. The unity of Scripture as uninterpreted does not constitute a unity of the Apostolic deposit interpreted. The former is a potential unity that could in actuality lead to many contrary faiths, and in fact has done so. In the Catholic case, by contrast, the unity of faith is located in the interpretation through the authoritative organ of interpretation, not just in the text of Scripture. For that reason, the unity of faith at the level of interpretation is not compatible with many contrary faiths, and is thus not comparable with the potential unity of faith contained in Scripture alone as uninterpreted.

    1) The Protestant view includes the work of the Holy Spirit in illuminating the text. The Holy spirit is a person and active. Therefore the distinction between a living magisterium and dead text drawn by Bryan fails.
    2) The concern about “potential unity” among protestants begs the question. As Bryan noted earlier in his essay, we protestants could ay that the one who has dissented has removed herself from the unity. Note that self identified Roman Catholics are less orthodox in their belief about the person of Christ than Protestants, and self identified Roman Catholics are less likely to think ssm and divorce are wrong. There is no visible unity among RCs – it is a theoretical theological unity.

    Second, this Protestant response is not supported by early Church history, as though the early Church believed that Christ established His Church to be perpetually preserved in visible unity by means of the sixty-six book Protestant Bible without any magisterial organ for definitively settling doctrinal or interpretive disputes, contrary to what we see in the first four centuries of Church history and the early ecumenical councils.

    Except it contradicts the use of the scriptures in the NT. Jesus confronted the authorities (who he told the people to submit to) with the scriptures because they erred. Clearly they were not infallible, yet the scriptures they passed down were authoritative. Similarly Paul notes the possibility of Apostles and Angels teaching a false gospel and recommends that their words be tested against scripture.

    Third, empirical observation clearly testifies to the difference between the unity of faith possessed by those Catholics submitting entirely to the teaching of the living Magisterium, and an alleged unity of faith possessed by all those Protestants who in good faith seek to submit to Scripture apart from the guidance of the Magisterium.

    Bryan is comparing unlike things. What is the difference between unity of faith possessed by Roman Catholics submitting entirely to the teaching of the Magisterium (who he earlier admitted could be misunderstood) and the unity of faith possessed by Protestants who do submit to the Scripture guided by the reformed confessions? If I only count people who are honestly trying, then the church is invisible (whether Roman or Protestant), as I never know whether the dissenting RC is honestly mistaken or diabolical. Similarly, when Prots disagree, we never know whether it is in good faith or an attempt to undermine truth and unity, etc… Note that visible members of the RC church are less likely to believe ssm and divorce are wrong.

    Protestants cannot point to any particular Protestant community as the Church Christ founded and which preserves faithfully the Apostolic deposit. Individual Protestants can make such an identification only by determining which existing ecclesial community comes closest to their own interpretation of the meaning of Scripture. Nor is Protestantism capable of providing a definitive or exhaustive list of the essentials of the faith, or a principled basis by which all persons of good will can distinguish in each case between what is essential and what is not. The Catholic has no corresponding problem precisely because the identity of the Catholic Church is defined through communion with the very Magisterium by which the content of the one faith is determined authoritatively and definitively.25

    This is a misconstrual of the protestant position. It is not that we cannot point to any particular protestant community as the church Christ founded, it is that we believe that all churches that satisfy the marks of the church are part of that community. As far as our ability of providing an exhaustive list of the essentials, it seems to me that we’ve done that quite well. We seem to be able to declare who is out (Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Oneness, etc… all fail members of those communions are not welcome to our table).

    Fourth, this Protestant response is not supported by the history of Protestantism….
    If the Protestant perspicuity thesis were true, then over the past five hundred years we should expect to see not an explosion of fragmentation into various Protestant sects, but a coalescing into one body of all persons who in good faith attempt to discern the meaning of Scripture.

    But of course the RC magisterium doesn’t provide this either unless you cut out by definition all those who dissent (which in the US on the sex issues is of order 9/10). If we reformed prots can play that game too, there is no problem. All those who hold entirely to the reformed confessions agree on the essentials of the faith. It is tautological.

    In this way the history of Protestant fragmentation over the last five hundred years is incompatible with the truth of the Protestant perspicuity thesis.27

    And the overwhelming dissent by RCs falsifies the perspicuity of the magisterium. Or maybe, our sin keeps us from fully and completely grasping the truth. Just as congregations can be more or less pure, our grasp of the gospel can be more or less pure.

    In short, it allows the formation, multiplication and endless perpetuation of any number of Christian sects, each basing itself on Scripture, and each coming to interpretations incompatible with all the others. The Catholic, however, is not even faced with a comparable question, because the very idea of thousands of Catholic sects each divided from the others and disagreeing with the others regarding what the Magisterium teaches, while each in good faith attempts to submit to Pope Benedict XVI, is unimaginable.

    I can imagine it. Indeed, you have millions of RCs attending mass that are churches of one.

    This again is due to the ontological difference between persons and texts, explained at the link provided in footnote #16. The perpetual and pervasive interpretive pluralism and visible fragmentation over the last five hundred years among those who seek to be guided by Scripture apart from a divinely established interpretive authority indicates that Scripture was not intended to function in this way as the means by which Christ’s prayer in John 17 for the visible unity of all His followers is to be preserved.

    The ontological difference neglects the role of the Holy Spirit in illuminating the Word of God and sin in blinding us to the Word of God. It isn’t just a text, is the living and active Word of God. Empirically, the Magisterium is not effective at maintaining unity among the baptized. Why is there more dissent and less godliness among mass attending RCs than Church attending prots?

    As an aside I’ll suggest that perhaps the explosion of sects is not due to the theory of authority. Note that Muslims have historically not had this problem while being people of the book. Neither have Jews. Just as the East/West split in Christendom was enabled by political power, the reformation was enabled by politics. If Luther had been murdered by the RCC the way Hus had been, there would likely not have been a reformation. If the explosion of sects didn’t really happen until the 18th and 19th centuries (mostly in Britain and the US). Why don’t we see the explosion of sects in Norway, Germany, and France? Well all the prots and France were murdered and the secular government that emerged in the 18th century made evangelism difficult. In the US (and to a degree in Brittain), the state officially supported religious freedom. Coupled with the entrepreneurial spirit and wealth that characterized the US, pluralism exploded and was exported. Indeed, it isn’t only Christian sects that have multiplied in the US, it is also muslim, jewish, and various eastern sects that have multiplied. In fact, if RC dissenters aren’t in unity with rome, then there are millions of micro churches (of one) that have split from the RC church (not by way of protestantism). I seem to recall that the number of “recovering catholics” under age 30 outnumber mass attending catholics in the same age demographic.

    Like

  37. sdb, “What is the difference between unity of faith possessed by Roman Catholics submitting entirely to the teaching of the Magisterium (who he earlier admitted could be misunderstood) and the unity of faith possessed by Protestants who do submit to the Scripture guided by the reformed confessions? If I only count people who are honestly trying, then the church is invisible (whether Roman or Protestant), as I never know whether the dissenting RC is honestly mistaken or diabolical.”

    ding

    As for the Church that Christ founded jazz, why isn’t Paul a more likely figure on which Rome could pin its hopes. Jesus only knew the churches in Jerusalem. But he did have a meet and greet with Paul on the way to Damascus. Plus, Paul was the apostles to the gentiles. Last I checked the Italians were not Jews. Plus, Paul also wound up in Rome.

    But he wrote Galatians.

    Doh!

    Like

  38. @DgH

    why isn’t Paul a more likely figure on which Rome could pin its hopes.

    Because the written record from earliest Catholicism in so far as it has ties to any apostles has ties to Peter. The association with Paul is later. Moreover he is controversial and sometimes rejected ex: “the apostle to the heretics”.

    1Clement only knows of 1 Pauline letter (1Cor likely)
    Ignatius believes that Paul’s entire career had been near Ephesus
    Polycarp in one place believes that Paul’s career had centered in Philippi.

    The early Catholic fathers don’t know enough about Paul for Paul to plausibly be their founder. And when they learn more about him they mostly dislike him, reconciling to him through the 2nd century. Paul as a founder would make their historical problems worse not better.

    Now they could get honest with their history. Paul as the apostle most tightly tied to Marcionite Christianity and institutional Catholicism as coming from the Marcionite church’s collapse after Marcion’s death. And then … sure the tight tie with Paul makes sense. But you can never get away from Peter. You have too much early stuff like the Catholic analogies that as for Moses the water flowed from a rock in our time the living water of salvation flows from the rock (Peter) that is taking a role which will later get attributed to Jesus. While I don’t think Peter is a Catholic, I think is is plausible that Ebionite pre-Marcion is one of the pillars of proto-Catholicism thus does in some vague sense they do have a Petrine foundation.

    Like

  40. CD, if I can add something helpful here, what’s all the fuss about? Didn’t we cover all this at greenbaggins? I’ve always viewed the most interesting aspect of these interweb twitter fights the Jason and the Callers factor, seeing as we have Machen trained warriors now aiming their guns at us, the jilted girlfriend. Hasn’t the rest of the cat v. prot debate been covered sufficiently? Shall I pick up my Paul Tillich again and start citing? Peace, friend.

    Like

  41. CD – Francis’ message to the hierarchy is that through their own sins they lack the respect of the laity needed to effectually discipline and that they are going to earn the respect back.

    Erik – The question is, if and when they get the respect of the laity, will they discipline and what will they discipline for? Having a big house and not driving a Prius?

    Like

  45. @Kent —

    CDH, so we agree that the RCC is in full disagreement with the Apostle Paul?

    Not sure how many Kent’s there are on here and which one you are. I’m also not quite sure how to answer that question because there are a lot of implicit assumptions there I don’t share. So let me put it this way. There is a wide range of views in the canonical Pauline corpus. It is layered. Many of those layers are Catholic and they don’t disagree with those.

    Even in many of the early “Paul” works you see obvious Catholic material. So for example Romans 9-11 for example is Catholic. At the same time you see other materials that could not have been Catholic. Taking this example Romans 6:11-8:38 is Marcionic. If you note how badly 12:1-2 flows with 11 but how easily it flows with the end of ch 8 then this was later added, the Catholics had to add 9-11 to “correct” Paul. So when you talk about agreeing with Paul, the Marcionic Paul of 6:11-8:38 or the Catholic Paul of 9-11? I don’t think either. IMHO if anything in Romans there is authentic to Paul it would stuff like 4:1-5:11 or 13:1-10 which feels much older i.e. Jewish Gnosticism and Hellenistic Judaism with no knowledge of what is to come in the next century. And yes Catholicism disagrees strongly with that.

    Like

  46. Even in many of the early “Paul” works you see obvious Catholic material. So for example Romans 9-11 for example is Catholic. At the same time you see other materials that could not have been Catholic. Taking this example Romans 6:11-8:38 is Marcionic. If you note how badly 12:1-2 flows with 11 but how easily it flows with the end of ch 8 then this was later added, the Catholics had to add 9-11 to “correct” Paul. So when you talk about agreeing with Paul, the Marcionic Paul of 6:11-8:38 or the Catholic Paul of 9-11? I don’t think either. IMHO if anything in Romans there is authentic to Paul it would stuff like 4:1-5:11 or 13:1-10 which feels much older i.e. Jewish Gnosticism and Hellenistic Judaism with no knowledge of what is to come in the next century. And yes Catholicism disagrees strongly with that.

    Umm, everything before Marcionic is the early, if not pre Bultmann; everything after is late Bultmann. But the Marcionic section is definitely J.

    Like

  48. Apparently, the apologists are not even on the bishops’ radar (even though the apologists may be doing more teaching than the bishops):

    While a failure to understand doctrine is present in many segments of the Catholic population, many young adults are exhibiting an alarmingly casual attitude towards accepting Church teaching, a study commissioned by the U.S. bishops has found.

    “They feel completely Catholic even while disagreeing with the Church. We often heard, ‘The Pope is entitled to his opinion,’” Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami stated, summarizing responses given by young people to a survey conducted on behalf of the bishops at the annual fall assembly of the U.S. Bishops Conference in Baltimore on Nov. 11.

    For more than three years, a working group at the bishops’ conference has conducted research aimed at finding ways to more effectively communicate the Catholic faith.

    The research examined “Catholics in the pew,” looking at why they accept or disregard Church teaching on various subjects.

    Surveying different segments of the Catholic population offered a portrait of the Catholic landscape and some of the different motivations, challenges and desires facing people in the Church.

    Diocesan directors pointed to a perception of conflict between pro-life and social-justice issues, saying that they should instead be seen as cooperative. Parish priests voiced a fear that involvement in politics — or any divisive issue — could contaminate their mission.

    Many engaged parishioners, regular Mass attendees involved in parish life, demonstrate great pride in their faith and are deeply tied to their community, the study showed. However, they have a tendency to set aside rules that they do not understand, complain about the Church being involved in politics and avoid causes that they see as “judgmental.”

    Like

  49. regular Mass attendees involved in parish life, demonstrate great pride in their faith and are deeply tied to their community, the study showed. However, they have a tendency to set aside rules that they do not understand, complain about the Church being involved in politics and avoid causes that they see as “judgmental.”

    Yep that sounds like Catholics to me. They love the food, the art, the sex, the music, the literature of being Catholic. They love that the hierarchy exists and respect it as an institution. But they don’t respect it as an authority and when it tries to act like one they object believing them to be going to far. Catholics love being Catholic. Which is in their minds very different from doing what the hierarchy says: “They are the hierarchy, we are the church”.

    Like

  50. CD – Yep that sounds like Catholics to me. They love the food, the art, the sex, the music, the literature of being Catholic.

    Erik – And that’s just the priests.

    Like

  52. Ditto, Bob.

    CD, I’ve done my Bultmann homework. Maybe I’ll ping you on your blog re: demytholigization if I find the appropriate place or time. Until then, good OL advice says steer clear.

    Like

  54. Thanks CD. I should do the extra credit assignment of listening to this, as well, so I will do that today or on my Monday commute. You’ll know if I find I have something useful to add, because on your blog is where I’ll find you. Bye.

    Like

  55. Pingback: Battling the Imagination of Skeptics - Coffee House Inquisition

  56. Another way to do the math:

    There are no liberals among the bishops, and the moderates are a minority. The conservative majority is divided into two groups: the ideologues and the pastors.

    The ideological conservatives make up 10 to 20 percent of the conference, and they are convinced that Francis is sowing confusion in the church where certitude and stability should be the marks of the church. Francis’ statement that “facts are more important than ideas” is incomprehensible to them; they believe reality must bend to their theological ideas.

    The pastoral conservatives, on the other hand, are simply confused. They were raised in conservative families, went to conservative seminaries, don’t pretend to be intellectuals but are loyal churchmen who never questioned anything under the last two papacies. They like Francis, but they are not sure what he is doing. They are in need of a leader who can reassure them and point them in the right direction.

    Like

  57. Do the apologists do a better job of teaching than the bishops? Or do the apologists mainly talk to each other? Here‘s a reason to ask:

    . . . many Catholics experience a disconnect between the teachings of the church and teachings of Jesus. He also said many of those surveyed and interviewed have had little or no catechesis. They also expressed how the clergy sex abuse scandal impacted the church and felt that not enough had been done to rectify it. On a positive side, he said many Catholics expressed a sense of God’s love and they also were more involved in parish life when parish ministries were tied into the Gospel message. Across the board, some Catholics felt there were too many rules in the church that they didn’t understand and others felt that people in the church can be too judgmental. Some sensed that their parishes are divided into pro-life and social justice camps. Many wanted to understand the whys of church teaching.

    Bishop Richard J. Malone of Buffalo, New York, who is chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, told the bishops that the research was “enlightening and sobering.” He acknowledged that it was “a lot to unpack and unfold” but urged the bishops to be “encouraged, not discouraged” by it. He said the findings essentially point to the need “to proclaim the Gospel and bring people to a renewed encounter with Jesus.”

    Like

  58. Do converts like Mark Shea make for more predictable apologists than cradles?

    In short, Shea’s usual nuanced analysis. But as more and more Catholics beyond traditionalist circles become alarmed by the words and deeds of Francis the Great Reformer, as his fawning biographer calls him, Shea is now wildly spraying fire like a lone private defending an untenable position against an advancing battalion. It is no longer just the “rad trads” he has to calumniate in order to obscure the truth about our situation. That was easy enough. Now he has to deal with a major new threat to the success of the decades-long neo-Catholic con job: what he calls “the ‘faithful conservative’ Catholic subculture.” In other words, the “mainstream” of practicing Catholics! Wow. That was not supposed to happen, was it?

    And so, on and on Shea must go, slavishly performing the function Mullarkey describes in her article with reference to the photo of Francis posing with an anti-fracking T-shirt: “Press toads hopped to their keyboards to correct the evidence of our lying eyes.” Chained to a failed narrative like Prometheus to his rock—the fate of every ideologue—Shea is almost literally screaming as the reality of what Francis is saying and doing every day tears his position apart like the eagle that comes again and again to devour Prometheus’ liver. But there will be no Hercules to relieve Shea’s torment. In this scenario Francis is no Hercules. He is more like the eagle.

    Like

  59. But Roman Catholics are united (and loving too):

    Peter Saunders, an English abuse victim and a member of a Vatican commission advising Francis on reform, told a national television broadcast in Australia that Pell’s treatment of victims has been “almost sociopathic” and called Pell himself “a serious threat” to the protection of children. Some Australian media outlets have called for Pell’s resignation, or for Pope Francis to fire him.

    Fisher, however, said much of the backlash is about matters beyond child abuse.

    “For so long he was the most prominent churchman in Australia, so people assume he’s in charge of everything and has been since birth,” he said, noting that Pell was never the bishop in Ballarat and had no direct responsibility for Ridsdale or other priests in the diocese.

    “Add to that a lot of people didn’t like him for the very strong conservative stand he took on a number of issues, and they would be happy to see him humbled,” Fisher said.

    Fisher said there’s also a personal edge to the anti-Pell sentiment.

    “Probably, some people too are looking for public contrition. They think George looks too self-confident or too gruff, too defiant. There’s a kind of Aussie male macho element about his whole demeanor they don’t like,” he said.

    “They’d like to see him crying, they’d like to see him blush … they’d like to see him in some way looking hurt,” Fisher said. “Maybe they’re thinking that by putting him through this again, he’ll finally crack.”

    Noting that Pell has responded to most of these charges several times before, Fisher said the experience of having to do it again seems to be taking a toll.

    Like

  60. First Paul and Peter, now Chaput and Cupich:

    The chirothecoe are coming off. Last week, Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago published an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune about the outrage sparked by the release of undercover videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing the dismemberment of unborn children in order to harvest their organs. Not everyone was happy with what the archbishop had to say, specifically this paragraph:
    This newest evidence about the disregard for the value of human life also offers the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment as a nation to a consistent ethic of life. While commerce in the remains of defenseless children is particularly repulsive, we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness and want; who pay the price of violence in gun-saturated neighborhoods; or who are executed by the state in the name of justice.

    One of those apparently upset with the archbishop’s comments was Archbishop Charles Chaput, who wrote this article in his archdiocesan newspaper that is already being interpreted approvingly as a direct rebuttal by, among others, Breitbart and Phil Lawler at Catholicculture.org. +Chaput begins his column with these words:

    Here’s a simple exercise in basic reasoning. On a spectrum of bad things to do, theft is bad, assault is worse and murder is worst. There’s a similar texture of ill will connecting all three crimes, but only a very confused conscience would equate thieving and homicide. Both are serious matters. But there is no equivalence.

    The deliberate killing of innocent life is a uniquely wicked act. No amount of contextualizing or deflecting our attention to other issues can obscure that.

    +Chaput goes on to affirm the consistent ethic of life, note that opposition to abortion does not give one a pass on other important issues, and makes other fine points. Still, the message was clear: There can be no moral equivalence between the evil of abortion and other evils.

    Like

  61. Two U.S. Roman Catholic denominations — Republican and Democrat:

    At issue in that dispute, essentially, was the degree to which the late Richard John Neuhaus, who founded First Things, and his intellectual heirs let their political ambitions overwhelm other important Catholic intellectual commitments, and the whether or not the dualism between the religious and the secular was too pronounced, at least when it was inconvenient, and too absent when the doctrinal sledge hammer served a useful political purpose. In that dispute, I side with Kaveny.
    But, dualism is found not only on the right. It is not uncommon for me to have conversations with Catholics on the left who bend over backwards to make excuses for Catholic politicians who are ardently pro-choice. “But, those pro-lifers don’t care about the child once it’s born,” they say, which often is not true and even if it were, does not answer the problem. Or, frequently, if I am having this discussion with a woman, I am told that as a man I have no business even having an opinion about abortion, to which I reply: “I am not a burglar, and I have never been burgled, but I have an opinion on that and I think it is wrong.” Or, you get some mashed potato argument about separation of Church and State.

    Sometimes, I am invited to meetings at which politicians bring in prominent Catholics to discuss given issues and our opinions are solicited. I am always slightly surprised by such meetings, that the Catholic guests are excessively deferential to the politician host. It is not for me to attribute motives, but the desire to be invited back, to maintain access to the powerful, certainly goes a long way in shaping the way Washington works. I was rather blunt at one point during a meeting before Pope Francis’ visit to the U.S., saying something to the effect that instead of figuring out a way to glom on to the pope’s message, perhaps the politician could think of ways to assist the Church the pope leads, and encourage politicians to stop sticking their finger in the Church’s eye, otherwise, they risk looking like hypocrites. Afterwards, I was told by some of my fellow Catholic attendees that I was a little too outspoken.

    Like many liberal Catholics, I was appalled by the hysterical reaction to Notre Dame’s decision to award an honorary degree to President Obama. That reaction was not only hysterical, it was uncharitable. I remember a discussion with a bishop who did not publicly attack Notre Dame but who thought it had been a mistake to invite Obama. I said to him, “Okay. Notre Dame has invited every other president since Eisenhower. If you think it is okay to not invite the first black president, I want you to go to an all black parish in your diocese and explain your reasoning to them. If they agree, we can talk.” The bishop agreed that I had a point but added that the president did not get a pass on abortion because he is the first black president. The bishop had a point too.

    There are many issues on which the Catholic left adopts a trendy attitude and says things that are unworthy of our Catholic intellectual, moral and doctrinal tradition. One can criticize the policies of the Israeli government without trafficking in the charge of dual loyalties by calling the U.S. Congress the “Knesset on the Potomac.” Whatever one’s views on same sex marriage, it is not a “no-brainer” for a Catholic. Concern about the reach of the federal government should not be exclusively a concern of Catholic conservatives. I could go on.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.