Protestants: what are your biggest issues with the Church?

[Phaedrus]

Mark,

I notice from your signoff (“Under the Mercy”) that you know of Sheldon Vanauken. You do realize that he became a Catholic, don’t you? He was, in fact, the primary reason I joined the Church of Rome.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Phaedrus:

Mark,

I notice from your signoff (“Under the Mercy”) that you know of Sheldon Vanauken. You do realize that he became a Catholic, don’t you? He was, in fact, the primary reason I joined the Church of Rome.

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus

Hi Phaedrus! I’m actually not so familiar with Vanauken. I am, however, a great great fan of Charles Williams, who (like Vanauken’s buddy Lewis) was one of the Inklings with Tolkein and Barfield.

In his novel “Descent into Hell”, Williams uses The Mercy as a name for God, and he himself was fond of using the phrase “Under the Mercy” as a signature or valediction. That he and Vanauken may have known each other is probably very likely! And, strangely enough, it was Williams who reinvigorated my understanding of what it is to be Anglican. The parish he attended in London/Kentish Town, by the way, is an Anglican church that beautifully celebrates the Roman Rite.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[ComradeAndrei]

This ossification can take many forms–from a hierarchy that looks down on the laity, to a tendency towards empty legalism.

I don’t really know what specific instances you are insinuating but I would say that the hierarchy “looking down” on the laity is often a good thing. I’m sorry, but if I were a bishop I wouldn’t put much stock in what the laity have to say-they need to be better catechized. I know there are plenty of good Catholic lay folks around (especially here in the great state of Nebraska) but there are also plenty of bad Catholic folks that don’t bother to learn what the Church teaches and if they do know they don’t care. These are the folks that want women priests, married clergy, contraception etc. but have no clue.

“Empty legalism” would be a problem but I really don’t see it.

The damage of the reformation was done on both sides and will require much effort to undo–more effort than it takes for the RCC to smugly say, “Admit you were wrong, heretic.” The fact remains that the reformers had a point to which the RCC did not wish to listen–again, until it was too late.

Still, that doesn’t justify rebellion. The doctrinical issues that Luther brought against Rome were definately wrong, his issue with coruption may have been correct but he did not address it properly. The Church does not bow to outspoken heretics.

The Catholic Church, in its great wisdom and patience has been much more accomodating to the Orthodox Church and the Protestant communities much more than I would ever be but because it is the Church I fully accept and support the attempts at ecumenism. The Church is not just saying, “Join us heretics”, we don’t even call them heretics anymore namely because it isn’t quite correct nomenclature.

Luther and friends had very little choice in the matter and were not following Satan into rebellion. If you read Luther’s writings, he was very solicitous towards the Pope and the hierarchy until it became clear that they had no intention of correcting or addressing the abuses he rightly pointed out.

Or you could say he was sucking up to them, and not just to the Hierarchy but also the Holy Roman Emperor. Remember, heresy was a capital crime back then.

The issue that the Church has with Luther was his faulty teachings-not his disapproval of abuses.

If he is guilty of sin in this regard, it is the sin of schism–but it is a sin in which the hierarchy of the RCC is complicit.

Even if Pope Leo X totally ignored him, that gives him no right to lead people into schism. The teachings of the Church were still and are still true even if a less than stellar moral leader has the Papacy.

Renewal is needed. Not innovation. Renewal

Vatican II brought plenty enough “renewal” into the Church for the next couple centuries. Now, I completely assent to and believe that Vatican II is a valid Council and I think it did good. However, the liberals in the Church took and ran with things in the “Spirit of Vatican II”-this is why we are in a bit of a mess today. However, I do feel a new age coming, one where the excesses of the 60’s and 70’s will be tempered by upcoming orthodoxy. Hopefully we will soon be seeing a time where the true and orthodox spirit of Vatican II will be fulfilled.

Is it not possible that the Spirit brought about the Reformation impulse?

Not if you mean that the Holy Spirit started the Protestant Rebellion. The Spirit is to guide us into all Truth-not to introduce error.

Protestant and RC alike are in need of Reformation and renewal. And the help the Protestants need will come from the RCC, and, like it or not, the help the RCC needs will come from the Protestants.

Give me an example.

But history has also shown the church (the institution) to be a ravenous wolf. To refuse to tame the wolf because it is unpleasant to admit that the wolf exists is not only naive, it is shameful and dangerous. Again, I invoke the current abuse crisis as an example of this.

There have been sinners in the Church Hierarchy all along-Jesus even chose someone who would betray Him and one of His Apostles. The laity is chuck full of sinners. The “institution” is of utmost importance. That there have been wolves in sheep’s clothing present is not reason to mess with the system.

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

When just war theory took hold.

So, at the time of Saint Augustine?

You really need to read the current stand on war as expressed by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. I think you would be surprised.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

Shlemele:

Before you go no I would like you to note that not every side participated in the persecutions. Michael Sattler was an Anabaptist and as such a pacifist. To my knowledge there has never been someone martyred at the hands of an Anabaptist, being that pacifism is one of our tenants and public offices are not held (or were not at that time) none would have even had the authority to sentence someone to death. It is alos important to note that about half of those martyred were at the hands of Protestants so I’m not speaking just about Catholics here.

What my point was about was the power that the church had. I don’t care how good a church is, when you mix in political power it is a recipe for persecution and oppression of those who don’t agree. I am perfectly ok with the idea that there were some wicked people, the problem is that the systems were in place to allow these murders to happen. These were not isolated incidents either, most times executions were public spectacles so you don’t have a case where a few evil people are taking their twisted sense of faith too far. What you have is a system where the government is a puppet of the church so these evil men not only have the power to murder innocent people but they have the blessing of the church (again whatever the church may be, sometimes it was Catholic, sometimes Lutheran, ect.).

Churches never put anyone to death, governments did. There is no canon law, which when violated, calls for the death of an individual, only civil laws do that.

If the civil government was the puppet of the Church in this regard, why would not canon law be followed instead of civil law?

Peace

 

[Jabronie]

dennisknapp:

Churches never put anyone to death, governments did. There is no canon law, which when violated, calls for the death of an individual, only civil laws do that.

If the civil government was the puppet of the Church in this regard, why would not canon law be followed instead of civil law?

Peace

That’s a big problem we keep running into. So many non-Catholics alway try to “point out” to me the supposed persecutions caused by the Church over time. They don’t understand (or don’t want to accept) the fact that the persecution were not ordered by the Church. They were corrupt government officials, not church officials, using the Church for evil. The same thing happens today in another religion. (see Bin Laden, Osama.)

 

[InnocentIII]

Shlemele:

Before you go no I would like you to note that not every side participated in the persecutions. Michael Sattler was an Anabaptist and as such a pacifist. To my knowledge there has never been someone martyred at the hands of an Anabaptist, being that pacifism is one of our tenants and public offices are not held (or were not at that time) none would have even had the authority to sentence someone to death.

I would suggest you read the history of the city of Munster which was ruled by Anabaptists from 1534 - 1535 and especially the period when John of Leiden was “king”. Plenty of executions then.

 

[Phaedrus]

Deo Volente:

Hi Phaedrus! I’m actually not so familiar with Vanauken. I am, however, a great great fan of Charles Williams, who (like Vanauken’s buddy Lewis) was one of the Inklings with Tolkein and Barfield.

In his novel “Descent into Hell”, Williams uses The Mercy as a name for God, and he himself was fond of using the phrase “Under the Mercy” as a signature or valediction. That he and Vanauken may have known each other is probably very likely! And, strangely enough, it was Williams who reinvigorated my understanding of what it is to be Anglican. The parish he attended in London/Kentish Town, by the way, is an Anglican church that beautifully celebrates the Roman Rite.

Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Yes, that’s where Vanauken picked up the phrase, and he used it throughout his life. In fact, the book that contains the essay about his conversion to Catholicism is titled Under the Mercy.

It’s really worth finding and reading, because Van also came to Rome through the Anglican/Episcopalian Church. He was especially disturbed by the ordination of women and practicing homosexuals, and believed that the orders were thereby fatally compromised. That is no small thing, because the Anglicans have always claimed apostolic succession along with the Catholics.

I understand some of your criticisms of the Church or Rome, because I shared them as an Evangelical Protestant. The Catholic hierarchy is the worst church structure there is – except for all the others. Yes, Catholics can tend to legalism, but that is not unique to us. I remember the Baptists of my youth who added “drinkin’, dancin’ and card playin’” to the list of serious sins, with “long hair” (this was the late 60’s and early 70’s) thrown in for good measure. Yes, the Catholic hierarchy moves at a glacial pace, but (forgive me) we’re not the ones ordaining homosexuals. As an Anglican, perhaps you are familiar with John Henry Cardinal Newman’s famous declaration in the Apologia:

“Supposing then it to be the Will of the Creator to interfere in human affairs, and to make provisions for retaining in the world a knowledge of Himself, so definite and distinct as to be proof against the energy of human skepticism, in such a case, – I am far from saying that there was no other way, – but there is nothing to surprise the mind, if He should think fit to introduce a power into the world, invested with the prerogative of infallibility in religious matters… and when I find that this is the very claim of the Catholic Church, not only do I feel no difficulty in admitting the idea, but there is a fitness in it, which recommends it to my mind.”

I can’t put it better than that.

By the way, I am also a fan of Williams, and have read All Hallows Eve, War in Heaven, Shadows of Ecstasy, and The Place of the Lion, but not Descent into Hell. Tom Howard has written an insightful survey of the Williams novels (Ignatius Press).

Under the Mercy,
Phaedrus