J
jimmy
Guest
Great post Tom.:tiphat: You aren’t Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant? What belief do you follow?
- Status
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
The external presentation of the Church may have evolved over the centuries, but the essential doctrines that constitute Catholic belief are unchanged since the times of the Apostles. To me, it makes little difference what color robes the priest wears while distributing the Eucharist, what matters is that he is presenting us with the de facto, Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In this, and may other examples of doctrine, the Church is unchanged in 2,000 years.
TOmNossor:
D
dennisknapp
Guest
That was a great post!
Tell me Tom, why are you part of the LDS church? Why do you reject the historical Church? Maybe you should start a thread on that issue.
I would be extremely interested!
Thank you for posting!
Peace
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Father Ambrose:
I believe it was not a pope, but St Jerome who said that the world “groaned to find itself Arian”, “mundus ingemuit se esse arianum”, if memory serves.
But it is unremarkable that particularly the German tribes in the West espoused Arianism. They picked this up from their fellow German Goths in the East, who had been converted by the Arian Gothic bishop Wulfila (Ulfilas), who was sent by the Arian heretics in the Eastern Roman Empire to evangelize the Goths when they still lived in the East, and who in evangelizing the Goths gave the Germanic tribes their first set of Scriptures when he translated the Scriptures into the Gothic tongue. This first conversion of Germanic people to Arianism occurred in the East, not the West.
Indeed, I recall that the Goths then fled west, the Visigoths conquering part of France and most of Spain, and the Ostrogoths beginning the Kingdom of Italy upon dispossessing the last Western Emperor. This is how the Goths and their associated East Germanic peoples (Suevi, Lombards, Vandals and others, and just about all other German peoples as well who became Christians in this period) in fact became Arians . Hence it was very big news when the Franks under Clovis later became Catholics instead of Arians. In God’s providence they prevailed over the others, and I do recall that the Goths and the others were eventually converted from Arianism to Catholicism. So although your East with Rome’s help was able to “smother” your Arianism let’s remember that Ariansim was in fact the East’s home-grown heresy, that it never took root among the Catholics in the West, and that it was withstood and eventually digested by Rome. So it is untrue to say that Arianism prevailed in areas under papal jurisdiction: the fact that they were Arian shows they were heretics who denied papal jurisdiction, and they had brought this Eastern heresy into the Catholic West from outside it…
The Filioque is entirely orthodox and legitimate, just as your Byzantine hierarchy in the 15th century agreed it was. You Eastern Orthodox who attack it now as heretical are in fact materially heretical in denying this Roman teaching and Rome’s teaching authority in general.
Your Berdiajev quote doesn’t deny Soloviev’s “theological acumen” in the least. Actually I’ll go with Soloviev rather than Berdiajev within the parameters of Berdiajev’s criticism anyway, since Berdiajev seems to me to be espousing your insufficient EO “eucharistic” ecclesiology, which simply ignores the questions that Catholic universalist ecclesiology answers. I mean that he, like other EO’s, seems entirely too subjective in approaching the question of the Church. But whatever the merits of Berdiajev’s criticism, it seems to me that Soloviev’s remarks on the deficiencies of the EO churches are absolutely brilliant, and he was furthermore courageous in daring to prescribe the correct medicine for these defects, viz., the Roman Primacy. Hans Urs von Balthasar and many others have testified to this long before this email of mine, so my lionizing of Soloviev is entirely reasonable, painful as it must be for you to hear! But anyway, I take responsibility for brandishing the Soloviev bon mot: I used it because I thought it appropriate, because it encapsulates what I think.
Regards,
Joannes
I believe it was not a pope, but St Jerome who said that the world “groaned to find itself Arian”, “mundus ingemuit se esse arianum”, if memory serves.
But it is unremarkable that particularly the German tribes in the West espoused Arianism. They picked this up from their fellow German Goths in the East, who had been converted by the Arian Gothic bishop Wulfila (Ulfilas), who was sent by the Arian heretics in the Eastern Roman Empire to evangelize the Goths when they still lived in the East, and who in evangelizing the Goths gave the Germanic tribes their first set of Scriptures when he translated the Scriptures into the Gothic tongue. This first conversion of Germanic people to Arianism occurred in the East, not the West.
Indeed, I recall that the Goths then fled west, the Visigoths conquering part of France and most of Spain, and the Ostrogoths beginning the Kingdom of Italy upon dispossessing the last Western Emperor. This is how the Goths and their associated East Germanic peoples (Suevi, Lombards, Vandals and others, and just about all other German peoples as well who became Christians in this period) in fact became Arians . Hence it was very big news when the Franks under Clovis later became Catholics instead of Arians. In God’s providence they prevailed over the others, and I do recall that the Goths and the others were eventually converted from Arianism to Catholicism. So although your East with Rome’s help was able to “smother” your Arianism let’s remember that Ariansim was in fact the East’s home-grown heresy, that it never took root among the Catholics in the West, and that it was withstood and eventually digested by Rome. So it is untrue to say that Arianism prevailed in areas under papal jurisdiction: the fact that they were Arian shows they were heretics who denied papal jurisdiction, and they had brought this Eastern heresy into the Catholic West from outside it…
The Filioque is entirely orthodox and legitimate, just as your Byzantine hierarchy in the 15th century agreed it was. You Eastern Orthodox who attack it now as heretical are in fact materially heretical in denying this Roman teaching and Rome’s teaching authority in general.
Your Berdiajev quote doesn’t deny Soloviev’s “theological acumen” in the least. Actually I’ll go with Soloviev rather than Berdiajev within the parameters of Berdiajev’s criticism anyway, since Berdiajev seems to me to be espousing your insufficient EO “eucharistic” ecclesiology, which simply ignores the questions that Catholic universalist ecclesiology answers. I mean that he, like other EO’s, seems entirely too subjective in approaching the question of the Church. But whatever the merits of Berdiajev’s criticism, it seems to me that Soloviev’s remarks on the deficiencies of the EO churches are absolutely brilliant, and he was furthermore courageous in daring to prescribe the correct medicine for these defects, viz., the Roman Primacy. Hans Urs von Balthasar and many others have testified to this long before this email of mine, so my lionizing of Soloviev is entirely reasonable, painful as it must be for you to hear! But anyway, I take responsibility for brandishing the Soloviev bon mot: I used it because I thought it appropriate, because it encapsulates what I think.
Regards,
Joannes
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I co-authored a 4-volume translation from Serbian of the Lives of the Saints by Saint Nicholas Velimirovich, but that was years ago when I was a baby monk in Serbia with a fresh and vital brain
But I was not offering MY opinion of Soloviev but that of a leading theologian who was his contemporary. On the whole it is the judgement of the Russian Orthodox Church.
If you wanted my opinion (I suppose you don’t) I think I would say that Soloviev was awed by the monolithic structure of the Roman Catholicism of his time. If he encountered post-Vatican II Catholicism, I think he would turn away in disappointment.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
The general opinion of the Russian Orthodox Church with respect to one of their scholars who converted to Catholicism is about as predictable as the general opinion of the Anglican Church with regard to the convert John Henry Newman.
M
mark_a
Guest
How many Catholics would agree with Karen Armstrong’s statement that “religions must develope or they die”?
I’m no fan of hers, but I just wanted to ask.
Save your rotton tomatoes for my next post.
I’m no fan of hers, but I just wanted to ask.
Save your rotton tomatoes for my next post.
F
Fr_Ambrose
Guest
I think that his conversion to Roman Catholicism was a welcome thing to the Russians. Poor Soloviev was a theological nightmare. Like many Russian secular philosophers of his time he was tainted with Blavatsky’s Theosophy. He knew her well. Theosophy held some sort of fatal attraction for the Russian intelligentsia of Soloviev’s time. Later on they became enamoured of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy, and both Theosophy and Anthroposophy infected even Church circles.
And of course there is the not unexpected fascination with Eastern religious thought as well as Gnosticism in his writings.
I think you had a much better convert in Newman than you ever had in Soloviev.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
Thank you, I am a LDS (Mormon).
, Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In this, and may other examples of doctrine, the Church is unchanged in 2,000 years.
If you read Newman’s essay (the one he began as a member of the Church of England and completed as a Catholic convert) I linked, I think you will see that he and I do not think the changes were near as trivial as the color of the robes. The authority of the Pope developed, the Trinity developed, and many other things.
Tell me Tom, why are you part of the LDS church? Why do you reject the historical Church? Maybe you should start a thread on that issue.
I would be extremely interested!
Thank you for posting!
Peace
Well, I just caught up on this thread. I present a number of ideas and on this post (#118) I link to an old presentation of some of my ideas.
If you would like to ask questions on what I have said that would be fine. I will try to continue to keep up.
Charity, TOm
C
Contarini
Guest
You do know that Protestants regularly confess their faith in the holy Catholic Church, don’t you? We mean something different by that than you do. But we emphatically do not think that we have left it. We simply give less importance than you do to certain hierarchical structures as definitive of the Church.
I repeat: Protestants have claimed from the beginning and still claim that we are members of the same “Catholic Church” to which Ignatius and Cyprian and Athanasius and Augustine belonged–yes, and Anselm and Bernard and Francis and Aquinas as well (at least if we are talking about the original, historic Protestant traditions rather than some of the more radical “free church” groups). We do not think that we have ever left that Church, although we admit that we are currently in a state of imperfect communion with the See of Rome, which holds an honored place within the authority structures of the historic Church.
In the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, which we confess. I don’t claim that that’s perfect unity. But nothing is perfect in this life. Members of your Communion frequently single out organizational unity and official doctrine as the two things that must be perfect, because those are the two things that you can make perfect with a bit of tweaking. But on many far more important matters you, like we, are manifestly imperfect. To us there seems no good reason to elevate these two matters so far above all the ways in which the Church is called to be the Body of Christ.
Are the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds heterodox? Do the earnest ecumenical efforts of Protestants testify to acquiescence in schism? I’m not denying that plenty of heterodoxy and schism can be found among us, but to say that we testify “merely” to those things is like saying that Catholicism testifies “merely” to corruption and the abuse of power, ignoring the great holiness and beauty to be found in your Communion.
Why do you think this? Can you back up this claim with evidence beyond an appeal to what is “plainly” true (I confess that it isn’t at all plain to me)?
No, to say that these beliefs practices were adopted over time is to say what is true. Are you suggesting that by adopting a belief or practice gradually one can make oneself invulnerable to criticism? If, for instance, five hundred years from now invocations to God as “Mother Sophia” should have become common, would the practice be protected from criticism if one couldn’t point to a moment at which it had become prevalent? Furthermore, the beliefs and practices in question have changed over time. When Protestants object to Purgatory, for instance, are they objecting to the idea of post-mortem purgation as found in Augustine in other Fathers? To the idea of an actual place called Purgatory, as it developed in the High Middle Ages (probably the 12th century, if Jacques Le Goff can be believed)? To the idea that the punishments of purgatory constitute a legal penalty of “temporal punishment” which carries over from the canonical penance of the Church and thus can be commuted by the decree of the Church in the form of indulgences which apply to the account of the sinner the treasury of merit earned by Christ and the saints? These aspects of the doctrine developed at different moments, and are objected to on somewhat different grounds. I myself have no objection to the first, though I regard it as a probable opinion rather than a dogma (as Augustine did). The second view is not (as far as I know) dogma in the Catholic Church, though I suspect that quite a few medieval Catholics would have been shocked to hear this. The third set of ideas, I suspect, are the real grounds for most Protestant objections to Purgatory. Certainly they are the most problematic aspects of the doctrine. It is therefore hardly fair dealing to appeal to Augustine in defense of the entire complex of doctrine as it had developed by the 13th century–and it is a further insult to blame Protestants for the complexities of the development of one of your own doctrines!
C
Contarini
Guest
Different stories from whom? Different stories about what? You seem to think that Protestants are trying to present some kind of unified legal case. Well, I for one have no interest in anything of the sort. For one thing, the only unity I recognize with, say, Presbyterians is the same unity that I believe I share with Catholics. Indeed, in many respects I consider myself to have more in common with Catholics than with Presbyterians. (I am currently an Episcopalian, married to a Methodist and attending both churches.) I object to different aspects of modern Catholicism than a Presbyterian would–indeed, I differ from many Methodists and even many Episcopalians on that score. I’m sorry if this confuses you. But again, the unity that we have is the unity of the Creeds, not some kind of pan-Protestant unity based on a coherent critique of Catholicism. For my part, I regard our separation from the See of Rome as very unfortunate. I have no allegiance whatever to some alleged ideology called “Protestantism.” I do have allegiance to the way of understanding and practicing the Christian Faith which I have received from the historic Catholic Church by way of the Anglican and Wesleyan traditions.
Well, excuse me for saying so, but that is really your fault. If you choose not to inform yourself about Protestants as a whole, and only talk to fundamentalists, then that is your problem. Protestants appeal to doctrinal development all the time. Calvinists refer to their form of Christianity as “adult Christianity,” and praise Anselm (in spite of their criticisms of medieval Catholicism generally) for his contribution to the development of soteriology. Liberals fairly wallow in theories of development to explain why they can still claim to be Christians while rejecting certain aspects of traditional Christianity. Evangelicals who (like myself) believe in women’s equality but adhere to traditional sexual morality resort to a theory of development to explain why the NT should be taken more literally in the latter case than in the former. William Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals is a very good example of this kind of argument. Webb calls it a “trajectory,” but what he is talking about is clearly development.
Well, that’s interesting given that on this board it’s more likely to be Catholics who accuse Protestants of “inventions.” Reformed Eucharistic theology, for instance, clearly has antecedents in Augustine, but Catholics sweep these aside as a misunderstanding. (And it may be a wrong interpretation, but it is certainly based on genuine antecedents and not a simple invention of the sixteenth century–I’m talking about the Reformed view of a spiritual presence and not a purely memorialist view.)
You may be thinking of fundamentalists, who tend not to have much of a theory of development. But surely you know that not all Protestants are fundamentalists? Thoughtful and well-informed Protestants may still accuse Catholics of unlawful innovations, but if we do so it is because we have concluded that the antecedents are insufficient to support the development in question (the contrast between Augustine’s view of Purgatory and that of the late Middle Ages, which I mentioned above, is a good example).
C
Contarini
Guest
Perhaps you can explain what “true to type” means. I’m suspicious of this kind of language as being a form of mumbo-jumbo to justify change while pretending not to have changed. When it occurs in Newman, it’s brilliant mumbo-jumbo, but mumbo-jumbo nonetheless.
Insofar as Protestants flatly deny doctrines clearly affirmed by the Early Church, Protestants are at the very least highly likely to be wrong. But again, this is not a problem for Protestants, because we don’t claim to be infallible. If we are wrong–and I believe that we are on quite a few points–we need to repent of our error and embrace the truth. There is nothing, in theory, to prevent our doing so. (In practice, of course, changing established ideas and practices is always extremely difficult.)
First of all, if you know most of the Protestants now living (I’m willing to let you off claiming acquaintance with all the Protestants of previous generations), then you have a rather vast social circle. Perhaps you have done serious sociological research on the subject. But if you haven’t, then your statement is bogus. You don’t know how most Protestants act. You know how most of the Protestants with whom you are acquainted act–but that is certainly a tiny minority of Protestants!
Second, do you really want to set this up as a standard? That means that if I want to find out what Catholics believe and practice, I should judge by the majority of baptized, self-identified Catholics who happen to cross my path? I warn you in a friendly fashion–you really don’t want to go down this road.
I’ll give you that. But most Catholics don’t show much acquaintance with the Catholic doctrines they allegedly believe in, let alone the beliefs of non-Catholics! If you are forming your opinion of Protestants from what “most Protestants” you meet tell you, then you are either incredibly naive or culpably malicious. Most members of any religious tradition have enough to do trying to understand their own faith, let alone that of others. If you want to understand Protestant theology, read the writings of Protestant theologians. If you want to understand Protestant dogma, read the official doctrinal statements of Protestant denominations. If you want to understand popular Protestant belief and practice, talk to those Protestants whom you know to be devout adherents of their respective traditions (which still may not be “most Protestants,” as it would not be “most Catholics”).
Do you seriously expect the average church-going Protestant to have a theory of development? Do you seriously think that the average Catholic has a theory of development? Most people have far more important things to worry about–struggling with sin, striving after holiness, hearing the Word, receiving the Sacraments . . . .
It’s helpful in reminding me (as if I needed the reminder) that Catholics can be just as prejudiced against Protestants as Protestants against Catholics!
In Christ,
Edwin
J
Joannes
Guest
Hello Contarini:
Rather than reply to each of your comments in the three long responses you gave to my last post – a thing that most likely would not be worthwhile anyway – let me step back a minute and critique what I take to be the position you appear to defend.
In the bad sense I do not admit to being “prejudiced” against “Protestants”, although, yes, I have judged “Protestantism” (and Eastern Orthodoxy too) as erroneous and insufficient. How could I not, and still be Catholic? Insofar as they each reject Catholicism each falls on that ground alone. Let us also recall the question of this thread, viz., that Catholicism is merely a 12th or 13th century development, hence (apparently) an innovation. My posts sought to vindicate our Catholic continuity and identity with the early Church and to deride the counterclaims of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox who disparage this or even claim this continuity for their own outfits.
It is indeed true that my experience is with “fundamentalist” (your term here, I think) Protestants, not with more “mainline” types like yourself. It is indeed the former that are prone to make anti-Catholic claims like the one that prompted this thread. I maintain that it is their position that seems to be the typical Protestant one, not indeed the much softer one that you appear to claim as your own. The former is well-known, but I maintain that yours is so exceptional that it may be little more than idiosyncratic to you. Your apparent “catholic” tendencies seem to be a departure from the historic Protestantism that is evidenced in the vitriol of the “Reformers” and the various Protestant confessions of faith, and so on, and I note that you admit that you are Episcopalian but also attend a Methodist church, so you will pardon me, I hope, if I observe that your position is not really Protestant, but rather one that would be rejected by the majority of Protestants today: certainly many Anglicans do claim they are not Protestants. Now, all this is my take, but you certainly know more about Protestants that I do, so I trust you will let me know where I’m wrong!
On a deeper level, however, I see you as indeed typically Protestant, in that I see that you hold to Private Interpretation as against that of the Church: the issue is the age-old one, viz., Authority, and the other side of that coin, viz., Faith in the Church.
And this brings us face-to-face with the question of what “the Church” means. To me “the Church” is a visible body of Christians, as Christ’s references to it show that it is: " the Church" for me is quite simply that Communion presided over and effected by the See of Rome. For you it is apparently not a visible body at all, but, I gather, rather a mental construct elastic enough to admit, I don’t know, . . . perhaps all baptized Christians? To say all this shows no particular perspicacity on my part, but I am stating the obvious merely to show the divergence in our views. And furthermore, from this divergence flow the different dynamics of our arguments: I defended my visible (Catholic) Church from assailants that include some of your own co-religionists, while all Protestants including yourself here seem to imagine their position unassailable in that their “Church” is invisible and apparently sinless in contrast to their easy target in every century, viz., the Catholic Church…
But you can’t have it both ways, and that’s why I made some of the observations I made. Christ spoke of a visible Church, He promised that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against it, He commissioned His apostles to go into THE WHOLE WORLD and preach the Gospel and to teach men to observe EVERYTHING He had commanded them, and He said that His words WOULD NOT PASS AWAY. Antecedently we would have expected the God-man to do just this, and we have a constant teaching in the world in every century that indeed He did do so, so that His moral voice today as in every century has been preeminently the See of Rome. At the same time, the other claimants to the title of “Church”, viz., the Protestant “invisible Church” and the Eastern Orthodox “league of churches”, are plainly not up to the task of being the visible Church that Christ founded. Their insufficiency is best highlighted and even primarily caused by one denial especially, viz., their rejection of the Roman Primacy of teaching and governing Christ’s sheep: the issue finally is one of Authority. Indeed, without Rome I claim that it is not even possible to show that Christ founded a visible body of Christians and that it now remains in the world.
Well, I’ve already had to cut this email, which was over-long, but I’ve said enough for now anyway. I hope all this will be fairly on-topic.
Regards,
Joannes
Rather than reply to each of your comments in the three long responses you gave to my last post – a thing that most likely would not be worthwhile anyway – let me step back a minute and critique what I take to be the position you appear to defend.
In the bad sense I do not admit to being “prejudiced” against “Protestants”, although, yes, I have judged “Protestantism” (and Eastern Orthodoxy too) as erroneous and insufficient. How could I not, and still be Catholic? Insofar as they each reject Catholicism each falls on that ground alone. Let us also recall the question of this thread, viz., that Catholicism is merely a 12th or 13th century development, hence (apparently) an innovation. My posts sought to vindicate our Catholic continuity and identity with the early Church and to deride the counterclaims of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox who disparage this or even claim this continuity for their own outfits.
It is indeed true that my experience is with “fundamentalist” (your term here, I think) Protestants, not with more “mainline” types like yourself. It is indeed the former that are prone to make anti-Catholic claims like the one that prompted this thread. I maintain that it is their position that seems to be the typical Protestant one, not indeed the much softer one that you appear to claim as your own. The former is well-known, but I maintain that yours is so exceptional that it may be little more than idiosyncratic to you. Your apparent “catholic” tendencies seem to be a departure from the historic Protestantism that is evidenced in the vitriol of the “Reformers” and the various Protestant confessions of faith, and so on, and I note that you admit that you are Episcopalian but also attend a Methodist church, so you will pardon me, I hope, if I observe that your position is not really Protestant, but rather one that would be rejected by the majority of Protestants today: certainly many Anglicans do claim they are not Protestants. Now, all this is my take, but you certainly know more about Protestants that I do, so I trust you will let me know where I’m wrong!
On a deeper level, however, I see you as indeed typically Protestant, in that I see that you hold to Private Interpretation as against that of the Church: the issue is the age-old one, viz., Authority, and the other side of that coin, viz., Faith in the Church.
And this brings us face-to-face with the question of what “the Church” means. To me “the Church” is a visible body of Christians, as Christ’s references to it show that it is: " the Church" for me is quite simply that Communion presided over and effected by the See of Rome. For you it is apparently not a visible body at all, but, I gather, rather a mental construct elastic enough to admit, I don’t know, . . . perhaps all baptized Christians? To say all this shows no particular perspicacity on my part, but I am stating the obvious merely to show the divergence in our views. And furthermore, from this divergence flow the different dynamics of our arguments: I defended my visible (Catholic) Church from assailants that include some of your own co-religionists, while all Protestants including yourself here seem to imagine their position unassailable in that their “Church” is invisible and apparently sinless in contrast to their easy target in every century, viz., the Catholic Church…
But you can’t have it both ways, and that’s why I made some of the observations I made. Christ spoke of a visible Church, He promised that the “gates of hell” would not prevail against it, He commissioned His apostles to go into THE WHOLE WORLD and preach the Gospel and to teach men to observe EVERYTHING He had commanded them, and He said that His words WOULD NOT PASS AWAY. Antecedently we would have expected the God-man to do just this, and we have a constant teaching in the world in every century that indeed He did do so, so that His moral voice today as in every century has been preeminently the See of Rome. At the same time, the other claimants to the title of “Church”, viz., the Protestant “invisible Church” and the Eastern Orthodox “league of churches”, are plainly not up to the task of being the visible Church that Christ founded. Their insufficiency is best highlighted and even primarily caused by one denial especially, viz., their rejection of the Roman Primacy of teaching and governing Christ’s sheep: the issue finally is one of Authority. Indeed, without Rome I claim that it is not even possible to show that Christ founded a visible body of Christians and that it now remains in the world.
Well, I’ve already had to cut this email, which was over-long, but I’ve said enough for now anyway. I hope all this will be fairly on-topic.
Regards,
Joannes
I
Ignatius
Guest
Can you produce some of that “homework”. Citations from before that period, say 1000 AD or before would be helpful.
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, excuse me for saying so, but that is simply your ignorance. I know plenty of people who see things more or less the way I do. Duke Divinity School (generally accepted as one of the most important Protestant seminaries) is full of people who emphasize the Catholic roots of Protestantism, and in fact there’s quite a high rate of conversion to Catholicism among the students. Duke is unusual but not unique in this regard. I don’t deny that I’m on the extreme pro-Catholic end of Protestantism. But what I said about doctrinal development and the recognition of the continuity between Catholicism and Protestantism is true of mainline Protestants and moderate evangelicals, who together make up at least half of the Protestant population–probably more. Read Christianity Today, for instance, probably the flagship evangelical periodical (or its affiliate Christian History, for which I write occasionally). You can certainly find criticisms of Catholicism and expressions of Protestant prejudices there. But there’s no doubt in the minds of the editors and writers that Protestantism has its roots in the Catholic tradition and has a lot to learn from Catholicism. You can “maintain” the contrary all you like. But you are simply persisting in ignorance and prejudice when you do so. All it takes is a little trouble–check the CT website, read a book or two, expand your horizon beyond the narrow boundaries of fundamentalism.
Please distinguish my own views from the statements I made about Protestant views of development. When I’m speaking on my own behalf, I make that clear. Most of what I said in the previous posts was said on behalf of mainline and moderate evangelical Protestants generally. Again, either inform yourself or stop making uninformed comments. Of course this is different from the historic Protestant stance (just as Vatican II takes a very different approach than Trent!). Protestants as a whole have changed radically in their attitude toward Catholicism. If you listen carefully, you can figure that out just from what the fundamentalists say. Why are they always complaining about apostacy and denouncing other Protestants for succumbing to the satanic conspiracy of ecumenism and the lures of the Whore of Babylon? It’s because they don’t represent the mainstream anymore, and they know it! Fundamentalists (hard to define, but for our purposes defined as those who see true Christianity as something radically opposed to Catholicism) certainly make up a significant portion of the Protestant population. But nowhere near half. I don’t claim to have statistics to prove this, but neither do you. And I can claim both to have extensive personal acquaintance with various forms of Protestantism (I grew up nondenominational in a heavily fundamentalist part of the country, was baptized by a Southern Baptist at 18, and traveled around the country with my parents attending camp meetings and visiting evangelical/fundaemntalist churches and bookstores; my family publish devotional books and this brought us into contact with a very wide range of evangelicals and fundamentalists. Then I went to Duke and got to know something about the more “mainline” side of Protestantism), and to have a lot of friends (including my wife) who study American Christianity for a living (I study the Reformation). That doesn’t mean that my views are unassailable, only that I can claim to know something about the subject.
C
Contarini
Guest
Glad to do so! First of all, let me point out that the UMC is the second largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., so you can hardly marginalize it. My wife attended Asbury Seminary, which turns out more Methodist ministers than any other seminary (although it is not under the authority of the UMC). Both of us are currently getting Ph.D.'s from Duke, which is perhaps the most prestigious Methodist seminary right now and is also attended by many Presbyterians, Baptists, and others.
I don’t deny that fundamentalism is prevalent in our culture and that fundamentalist attitudes often are present among the rank and file in mainline and evangelical churches.The “elites” among both evangelicals and mainliners (not that the two categories are incompatible) tend to be more likely to maintain the sort of position I’ve been outlining. My parents, for instance, currently attend a United Methodist church (a very conservative one, however), where the Sunday School teacher of the class they attend does express fairly anti-Catholic attitudes from time to time (my mother, who has been through the Catholic-Protestant wars with me back when I was seriously bent on becoming Catholic, generally contradicts him). Here in NJ, the mainliners are often quite anti-Catholic (something that shocked me when I moved here, since the situation in the South is quite different), but it usually has nothing to do with claims of innovation (on the contrary, it’s more likely to stem from a perception that the Catholic Church fails to “change with the times”).
It would be worth doing a serious study of just how prevalent anti-Catholic attitudes are among Protestants today. Of course one would need to define one’s terms quite carefully. I’m not sure if such a thing has been done, but I suspect I would have heard of it if it had (as I said, my wife studies American Christianity). Till then, I guess it’s my word against yours! Meanwhile, I do recommend that you visit the Christianity Today website if you want some insight into mainstream contemporary evangelicalism. For instance, this article expresses a view of the Church that may surprise you. Granted, its hortatory style shows that Stafford recognizes there’s a huge problem among evangelicals in this regard.
Well, personally I don’t see “private interpretation” as a very useful concept. It’s OK for you to use the term about me, as long as you’re sure you have actually understood what I believe on the subject. But it’s not a term I would ever use about my own views, and I think the role of private interpretation in historic Protestantism has been greatly exaggerated in recent centuries (by both liberals and free-church evangelicals). Read Nathan Hatch’s The Democratization of American Christianity for a sense of just how much modern American evangelicalism differs from historic Protestantism.
C
Contarini
Guest
Basically yes. I would point out that the Catholic Church does not entirely disagree with me here, but teaches that baptism does constitute a certain union with the Church, however imperfect. I don’t think we’re as far apart as the more simplistic statements of both positions would make it seem. I would also like to point out that baptism is not a “mental construct,” and the real communities of worshipping people who in my view make up the Universal Church are not mental constructs either. The Church I believe in is not “invisible.” It’s as visible as yours–maybe more so, if you share the common tendency of conservative Catholics to say that liberal Catholics are “not really Catholic,” which amounts to an appeal to the “invisible Church.” Its authority structures are less concrete and effective–that I grant, and I grant that it’s a serious problem (though it doesn’t rank as high in my opinion as it does in yours, which is why I’m a Protestant and you’re a Catholic!).
Code:
First of all, as I said previously, I don't consider other Protestants any more my "co-religionists" than Catholics are. As Catholics are fond of saying, Protestantism has no real unity but is a highly diverse collection of historical traditions unified only by a common origin in the schisms of the 16th century. I take no responsibility for what a fundamentalist Baptist may say to a Catholic, any more than the other way round. From my point of view, I share more with you than with them. You may disagree, but that is the view on which I act.
Second, my position does _not_ hold that the Church is "invisible" and sinless. In my opinion, that is the _Catholic_ position, although you try to have your cake and eat it too by linking the sinless Mystical Body inseparably to a demonstrably sinful and imperfect earthly institution. I agree with Calvin that while there is an Invisible Church, the Visible Church is our mother and out of her there is (I would add, as Catholics today do but Calvin did not, the adverb "normatively") no salvation. The invisible, sinless Church is an eschatological reality. The Church to which we owe allegiance here on earth sins and errs. I grant that many Protestants do appeal to an "invisible Church," and I think that's one of the biggest flaws of Protestantism.
Code:
Are you claiming that the Catholic Church, as an institution, has observed everything Christ commanded? That means that every member of the Church has loved God and neighbor perfectly? Surely you don't claim any such thing. You can only claim that the Catholic Church meets these criteria by severely limiting the scope of Jesus' commission to the preservation of official doctrine and visible unity. That is what you need to defend, and so far I have yet to encounter a persuasive defence for this.No earthly body is “up to the task” of being the Church. Excuse me for mentioning it, but if you guys were “up to the task” the papers would not be full of sordid scandals involving Catholic priests (or if they were, they would be malicious lies). This isn’t to slam Catholicism–I don’t claim that Protestants are “up to the task” either. The whole point of being the Body of Christ on earth is that we are called to a task for which we are plainly inadequate. We llive by grace every moment. That is not an excuse for resigning ourselves to imperfection, but rather a call to strive after holiness. But in this world there will never be a perfect Church. You persuade yourself otherwise by arbitrarily redefining perfection to include those things that can be attained.
Code:
In Christ,
Edwin
B
buffalo
Guest
Read all his volumes:
[Founding of Christendom (History of Christendom) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=/ref=cm_lm_asin/104-6963403-5747151?v=glance)
by Warren H. Carroll
[Founding of Christendom (History of Christendom) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=/ref=cm_lm_asin/104-6963403-5747151?v=glance)
by Warren H. Carroll
-
Code:
[A History of Christendom: Vol.1 Founding of Christendom](http://www.catholicstore.com/search/index.cfm/FuseAction/itemDisplay/SKU/1686/affiliate/catholic-pagescom66) - A History of Christendom: Vol.2 Building of Christendom
- A History of Christendom: Vol.3 Glory of Christendom
- A History of Christendom: Vol.4 Cleaving of Christendom
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Great dialog Contarini and Joannes! You are both great representives of your traditions.
I have a question for Contarini. What made you stop being bent of becoming a Catholic?
Peace
C
campion
Guest
Absalom!:
I’d love ot read it…gotta link???
- Status