Here is one quote that turned a Protestant Roman Catholic:
Make no mistake, my brothers, if anyone joins a schismatic he will not inherit God’s Kingdom. If anyone walks in the way of heresy, he is out of sympathy with the Passion. Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God’s will.
That’s a plausible motivation for switching teams. If you don’t switch, you don’t inherit the kingdom of God. Stakes appropriately raised. Attention gained.
But then you need to remember it’s a post Vatican 2 world. In that case, becoming Roman Catholic is mainly about being a superior sort of Christian.
I’m a Better Christian as a Catholic
As a younger Evangelical, I was amongst the first to throw stones at my Catholic brethren. In fact, there were times and situations in which I wouldn’t even have considered them to be Christians.
“Catholics aren’t Christian,” right? And, sure, some likely aren’t.
But that needn’t be the case. My life, I hope, and my experience should serve to provide a contrasting picture against the one that many of us might have. My experience and many others, I should add.
The Catholic life, lived to its fullest, has been so incredibly enriching to me and my faith. Through a deeper focus on prayer, through my experience living amongst the saints, through a more global perspective, a deeper reverence for God in worship, and through a much more healthy and hearty view of sin I’ve become, far and away, a much better Christian than I ever thought I could be.
It’s not about being Christian or not. It’s not about entering the true church and leaving behind heresy. It’s like going from a Subaru to a Lexus.
Who are you to judge? Judge, but only up to the point short of condemnation. We’re all Christians now post 1965, but some Christians have more championship banners.
Old Life 
This is actually one reason why I don’t think Catholics and Protestants can always reason from label. Evangelicals *should* already experience complete and utter forgiveness of sins. Yet they do not … in some measure because they do not hear with the ears of faith, and in some measure because complete and utter forgiveness of sins is not preached.
LikeLike
Meanwhile in the combox,
Looks like the CtC apologetic is multi-use.
LikeLike
The mark of the true church is not making someone a better Christian. Whenever we hear about someone growing in Christ we kick them out.
LikeLike
Do fellows like this read Westminster:
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God,out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Or Belgic:
We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, people ought not to withdraw from it, content to be by themselves, regardless of their status or condition.
If it’s high stakes one wants, P&R have it. And no development of doctrine to undo what is still confessed in order to make peace with the tolerant world. You even get the c-word thrown in.
LikeLike
“a deeper focus on prayer, … a deeper reverence for God in worship, and through a much more healthy and hearty view of sin…” Is his parish on Mars? I found more of these elements in Evangelicalism, which isn’t saying a lot, than I ever have trying hard to see them in RC life. Just saying…
LikeLike
I’d like to see Mr. Cagle try to explain what he thinks they’re talking about here, esp the last comment. Me, I don’t think he has the slightest clue. 😉
Take the bet, Jeff. Now this could be interesting. I think Old Life should stop with the anti-papism [the Catholic Church] and compare the Protestant religion with the Eastern Orthodox.
They have seniority, afterall–1054 vs. 1517. Test yourself. Seek truth.
Jeff Cagle
Posted November 30, 2015 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
Meanwhile in the combox
Jeff: Looks like the CtC apologetic is multi-use.
LikeLike
Joe,
Should RC’s and the type of Evangelicals/Evangelicalism begin using a ‘heart healthy’ label for their products? Great post…….it’s amazing how merch of all this relates to the supermarket (Pork, Lima Beans, Night-Train, and Saran-Wrap in moderation).
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
If it’s a post V2 world then I am assuming you think that fear of schism and being in the wrong Church is no longer an issue?
I’ll ask you the same question I ask my little NeoCatholic brothers from time to time. They can never answer it, but maybe you can.
Ready?
Let’s say I wanted to live my life as if Vatican 2 never took place. Let’s say I chose to ignore it all together. What exactly would I NOT be able to believe post V2?
Anything?
Answer is always the same. *crickets*
Everything has changed, but nothing has really changed at all. V2 is the great facade
LikeLike
Kenneth, you wouldn’t be able to read de Lubac or Congar without permission of your bishop. You wouldn’t be able to believe in religious freedom. You’d believe I am a heretic. That’s not crickets or a squirrel.
You may say, well, no dogma changed. But why was something sinful before Vatican 2 that isn’t any longer? Maybe it’s because the church doesn’t talk about sin any more:
I could go on.
Why is it that no one on your side ever recognizes that the PCUSA didn’t change doctrine when it became liberal? Talk about crickets.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Im not asking what people are doing now that wasnt done before V2. Nor am I asking what kind of sermons priests are delivering. Im asking you whats stopping me today from just continuing to live as if the second vatican council never took place. May i no longer affirm hell? Must I participate in ecumenism? Can i no longer have a latin mass? Must I affirm that all dogs go to heaven? What is it exactly that I may not believe any longer? What new thing MUST I affirm? The answer is “absolutely nothing”. There is no new binding content on the faithful. We have alot of new pastoral programs. We have some new liturgies and some new ideas floating about. Yet, none of these are binding upon me. None of these are binding upon anyone at all.
Isnt it the case that if you are in the PCUSA you affirm that marriage is between “two persons” and not a man and women? Thats in their constitution isnt it? If so, then there is a vast difference between the split Ps and post V2 RCC. Our side hasn’t yet lost the war. Or if it has, you need to tell me why I cant just ignore V2 and go my merry way.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
Isnt it the case that if you are in the PCUSA you affirm that marriage is between “two persons” and not a man and women? Thats in their constitution isnt it? If so, then there is a vast difference between the split Ps and post V2 RCC. Our side hasn’t yet lost the war. Or if it has, you need to tell me why I cant just ignore V2 and go my merry way.
Actually, the PCUSA doesn’t care if you want to deny that as long as you don’t make too much noise or try and leave and take your property.
Just like Francis doesn’t care if you’re conservative as long as you don’t make much noise about it. If you do, well, you get lectured for being a fundamentalist.
But if you think that you can live as if V2 didn’t happen, that’s nice. But then you’re acting like a Protestant with that private judgment thingy.
LikeLike
Robert,
Actually, the PCUSA doesn’t care if you want to deny that as long as you don’t make too much noise or try and leave and take your property.
Just like Francis doesn’t care if you’re conservative as long as you don’t make much noise about it. If you do, well, you get lectured for being a fundamentalist.
So you can be in good standing with the PCUSA even while denying your own denominations constitution? Is this true *in pirnciple* or is it true because the denomination has a habbit of looking the other way? I dont know what a constitution means in your world but I assumed it sort of determined what the body believed and taught. Can a preacher in the PCUSA just go on living as though that decision never took place? And by that I mean, can he go on teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman and that same sex marriage is sinful etc? If so, whats the point of having a constitution? If not, then something has pretty big has changed. Pope Francis lectures do not hold any doctrinal weight.
But if you think that you can live as if V2 didn’t happen, that’s nice. But then you’re acting like a Protestant with that private judgment thingy.
If im not free to do that Im open to change. Just explain what exactly Im not allowed to believe or name something new that I MUST affirm or practice. You cant. Which exposes how retarded these convos are. You guys are just repeating traditionalist Catholic arguments as if they were arguments against catholicism itself. You realize most of this ammo is coming from Roman Catholics?
LikeLike
V2 gives Catholics the Protestant priesthood of all believers?
The idea of the universal call to holiness is there explicitly in Vatican II, but the implications of that [were not] drawn out very well. They didn’t draw the conclusion that needed to be drawn: It’s not what God calls you to do which decides how holy you are, but how well you respond to God’s call. In other words, you don’t have a better or worse calling depending upon what you’re called to do, but you can respond well or not so well to what God’s calling you to do. Holiness is, in a sense, a generalized and universalized calling.
Consider a woman who got married and had two kids, but the guy she married was a drunk who beat her up. She has to leave him and goes to work to help bring up her kids. That woman is capable of living a much holier life than any priest or bishop or pope, so her vocation could be the opportunity for great holiness.
That gives you a totally different picture of Christian life. It isn’t what you’re called to do that matters, but your willingness to respond to God’s calling. And everyone is given sufficient grace to respond well. There isn’t any preferential option to be holy.
LikeLike
jetstar,
fail
LikeLike
You are correct, it the correct term for Catholics is: “The priesthood of the laity”. Win!
LikeLike
Kenneth,
So you can be in good standing with the PCUSA even while denying your own denominations constitution? Is this true *in pirnciple* or is it true because the denomination has a habbit of looking the other way? I dont know what a constitution means in your world but I assumed it sort of determined what the body believed and taught. Can a preacher in the PCUSA just go on living as though that decision never took place? And by that I mean, can he go on teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman and that same sex marriage is sinful etc? If so, whats the point of having a constitution? If not, then something has pretty big has changed.
Yes and yes. And the last question, the point of the constitution, is what conservatives have been asking for decades. It’s what we’re asking about Roman Catholicism. What is the point of declared dogma when you can believe something else (like Tom does) and teach something else (like the nuns on the bus) and still get the Eucharist?
Pope Francis lectures do not hold any doctrinal weight.
Wait—that’s what Luther said back during the Reformation. How is he a heretic and you’re not?
If im not free to do that Im open to change. Just explain what exactly Im not allowed to believe or name something new that I MUST affirm or practice. You cant. Which exposes how retarded these convos are. You guys are just repeating traditionalist Catholic arguments as if they were arguments against catholicism itself. You realize most of this ammo is coming from Roman Catholics?
So as long as you don’t have to believe heresy all is well with your church when your church in fact tolerates and even promotes what earlier RCs would have considered heresy? This is the mentality of those orthodox in the PCUSA who continue to stay.
LikeLike
Robert,
Yes and yes. And the last question, the point of the constitution, is what conservatives have been asking for decades. It’s what we’re asking about Roman Catholicism. What is the point of declared dogma when you can believe something else (like Tom does) and teach something else (like the nuns on the bus) and still get the Eucharist?
So is it true that presbyterians can deny their own constitution in principle or is it just that they turn the other way? I didnt understand your response. I don’t care either way, just curious.
Whats the point of dogma if the Church isnt a perfect disciplinarian? I guess it comes down to which you would rather have doesnt it? Would you rather have no meaningful dogma what-so-ever with a super awesome disciplinarian enforcing arbitrary rules, or would you rather have dogma set in stone but go through periods of history when it wasnt enforced as well as others? I think its MUCH more useful the RC way. But perhaps you disagree. Go figure.
So as long as you don’t have to believe heresy all is well with your church when your church in fact tolerates and even promotes what earlier RCs would have considered heresy? This is the mentality of those orthodox in the PCUSA who continue to stay.
I wouldnt say “all is well”. But there has never been a time of glorious peace, tranquility, and universal doctrinal adherence in the Church. All through history there has been controversy. THE POINT ISNT TO AVOID CONTROVERSY, BUT TO HAVE A MECHANISM THAT RESOLVES IT DEFINITIVELY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. Rather than continue to deny the obvious you should take Seans more honest approach and give us a couple shrugs on paradigmic superiority.
LikeLike
Ken, you do know when you talk like that, you are endorsing a salvation not by the church but by the dogma of the church, which, btw, still has no definite bounding but instead an alleged mechanism to bound it should it be necessary, but no modern pope or magisterium has any intention of ever engaging it. Wha’ happen’ to Jesus and faith(blessed are those who haven’t seen and believe)? It’s not even sola ecclesia now, it’s sola philosophical cohesion with an inflated(unsubstantiated) premise. If it makes you feel better, I’ll take some RC over much of modern evangelicalism(Word faith, Osteen, Hagee, theapuetic moralism) but now we’ve really lowered the bar. Faith in Christ alone and holiding to the original apostolic tradition(holy writ), though maybe lacking in your view of things, seems to be plenty. Try less(saints, Mary, pageantry, sacerdotalism) and get more.
LikeLike
Kenneth,
So is it true that presbyterians can deny their own constitution in principle or is it just that they turn the other way? I didnt understand your response. I don’t care either way, just curious.
The way it happened in the PCUSA is that first those who denied the constitution were disciplined. Then the liberals took over the seminaries and kept producing liberal theologians/pastors who, while keeping the constitution the same, began allowing individuals not to adhere to certain parts of it. The WCF, for instance, wasn’t changed in regard to its confession of biblical inerrancy, etc. It was just that other positions began to be accepted as equally valid.
This, BTW, is what Benedict has said V2 wrought. Vague language intentionally used to keep both liberals and conservatives happy.
Whats the point of dogma if the Church isnt a perfect disciplinarian? I guess it comes down to which you would rather have doesnt it? Would you rather have no meaningful dogma what-so-ever with a super awesome disciplinarian enforcing arbitrary rules, or would you rather have dogma set in stone but go through periods of history when it wasnt enforced as well as others? I think its MUCH more useful the RC way. But perhaps you disagree. Go figure.
If the dogma is not meaningfully enforced, how set in stone is it? That’s the point. You can’t go all in on the STM triad and talk about how key an infallible M and Pope are and then shrug when the M is failing and teaching heresy or looking the other way.
Or, you could hold to the dogma being set in stone and a failure of the Magisterium if you hold to the Reformation. The Reformation was a recovery of what was set in stone. And it was willing to go up against the M when necessary. The problem with you conservative RCs is that you sit around with your wishful thinking. Oh the dogma is set in stone, so who cares if the discipline sucks. It’ll all get better. That’s fatalism.
I wouldnt say “all is well”. But there has never been a time of glorious peace, tranquility, and universal doctrinal adherence in the Church. All through history there has been controversy.
Agreed.
THE POINT ISNT TO AVOID CONTROVERSY, BUT TO HAVE A MECHANISM THAT RESOLVES IT DEFINITIVELY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
But if the mechanism won’t enforce the dogma, how in the world do you have any assurance that it has been definitively resolved for future generations? This is sheer naivete.
LikeLike
Kenneth, great, you have liberty to believe whatever you want. Is that really how you want to defend Rome?
And are you okay with gay priests?
LikeLike
Kenneth, “So you can be in good standing with the PCUSA even while denying your own denominations constitution? Is this true *in pirnciple* or is it true because the denomination has a habbit of looking the other way?”
Haven’t you heard that 70 percent of U.S. Roman Catholics practice mortal sin (contraception)? And you have an encyclical on that.
Tell us where belonging to Roman Catholicism has any borders, where you can be excluded. Sort of like the PCUSA.
LikeLike
Kenneth, when was there a time when Rome did not condemn error?
LikeLike
Unlike his brother Francis. John Henry Newman never made it to Baghdad or to Aleppo, Syria.
http://www.fullbooks.com/Memoir-and-Letters-of-Francis-W-Newman1.html
Francis W. Newman opposed the discriminatory power of the state against Roman Catholics. John Henry Newman opposed Roman Catholic emancipation in Ireland.
LikeLike
Kenneth, actually the liturgical reforms that came about at Vat II are binding upon you. You aren’t free to be an Vetus Ordo kind of RC. Actualization of the gospel in a modern context is not an option. It’s required. You aren’t free to ignore the pastoral reforms of Vat II. You must affirm the pastoral reforms of Vat II. You’re not free to follow god apart from the magisterial leading of the church. The magisterial leading of the church is a Vat II course since 1965. You MUST think in concert with your pope and bishops, including the pope and the german bishops you may not agree with. You are a people of god, the infallibilitus in credendo is a corporate engagement. You aren’t free to ignore Vat II’s dogmatic constitutions nor your pope’s interpretation(and he’s done a lot of interpreting) of it. Get on board.
LikeLike