click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Why I Hate Roman Catholicism, Part 2
by C Michael PattonAugust 16th, 2011
111 Comments
My post this weekend about embracing doubt has stirred up quite a few people. The truth is that the post started and ended as an encouragement for us not to approach our studies with the intent of confirming our prejudice. In order for true learning to take place we have to be willing to change. So far, so good?
Of course this is not the reason I had to put on my bulletproof vest. The post turned from a ”ho-hum” reminder to a slanderous “how could you?” when I used Roman Catholicism as an illustration of an institution that limits freedom. Further, from this, I suggested that true Roman Catholics cannot be good scholars. In order to qualify as “good” scholars, they have to be a bit rebellious.
I have been quite taken aback by the responses. Part of me is glad to see so many Protestants coming to the defense of Roman Catholics. It tells me that our readership is made up of those who are kind and gracious, not wanting to make unnecessary divides and not liking harsh rhetoric (which does nothing to advance our cause and does not honor Christ). Though I don’t think I made any overstatements or used sensationalistic rhetoric to make my point, I am glad to see pushback, so long as it is thoughtful. As well, I believe I have earned the right to write a “wounds of a friend” post every once in a while. Those of you who are regulars of this blog know that I don’t engage in polemics very often. I feel I have written in a balanced way over the years, even if it has not been perfect. But every so often I will write something that cuts to the quick. Looking back at this post, it would have done me well to preface it with a study on the Roman Catholic view of authority. This might have served as a reminder (to those of us who are Protestants) why we don’t believe in an infallible Magisterium, and why we do believe this body ultimately does much more harm than good.
My History with Roman Catholicism
When I was exploring the Roman Catholic faith many years ago, I did not do so as a mere outsider who was trying to gather apologetic ammo. I did so prayerfully and respectfully, wrestling with the Lord concerning every detail and doctrine. After nearly a year of daily engagement with Catholicism (sometimes for 4-5 hours a day – my whole family remembers that time!), reading and talking with the “best of” Roman Catholics, I came to understand Catholicism at a whole different level. My fellowship with many Catholics became so close and sweet that many of them approached me and said that they all knew that it was simply a matter of time before I converted. However, this was not to be.
During this time I reshaped my understanding of Catholicism in many ways. For example:
Prayers to Mary and the saints: I used to think that these amounted to worship of Many the saints. While this might be true of some Roman Catholics, it did not represent the true teaching of the Church on this matter. When Catholics pray to Mary and the saints, it is not unlike when you or I ask someone to pray for us. We are not worshiping the one we ask to pray for us, are we? When a Roman Catholic prays to a saint, they are simply asking them to intercede on their behalf the same way as when you or I ask a friend to pray for us. And from their perspective, who better to ask to pray for you then Mary, Jesus’ mother!
Yes, I still disagree with this practice, but I don’t view it as saint worship anymore.
Purgatory: I used to think this was a doctrine which expressed a wholly deficient view of the atonement. What Christ did was not enough. His payment was insufficient, so we must spend some atoning time in Purgatory. While this is the view of some Roman Catholics, others merely see it as “washing up before dinner.” In other words, all of us believe in some type of process that completely sanctifies us after death. We all believe that Christians die imperfect and fallen, but something happens between death and the presence of God, which makes us actually and totally free from all sin. What happens? What cleanses us? Catholics call this Purgatory. Many see it as a timeless (almost instantaneous) event. It is like our last surgery.
While I strongly disagree with any type of atoning event which uses suffering as its means of cleansing, I can live with this “modified” understanding of Purgatory without getting too bent out of shape these days.
Doctrinal Development: But hasn’t Catholicism changed so much over the years? How can they claim to be a stable entity when they have contradicted themselves so often? Those who are serious about understanding Roman Catholic theology as it stands today must engage An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman. In my opinion, it is the most important Roman Catholic apologetic work of the last two centuries, and possibly since the Reformation. In essence, Newman gives Rome an articulated defense of how and why Roman Catholic doctrine develops (i.e., it develops, but does not change).
Again, I disagree with the work’s final implications (that Rome has not really changed), but I can now understand how one can still have their historic integrity and their Catholicism, too.
My journey in and out of Roman Catholicism was an incredible struggle, filled with the fostering of new friendships, appreciation, and some degree of anxiety as I returned my visitor’s pass and sailed back across the Tiber. There are so many things to say, but I must move quickly to a justification of my last post concerning their scholarship.
Can Catholics Disagree with Rome and Remain Catholics?
As many of you know, my primary training is in New Testament studies. I love and respect theology, philosophy, and church history, but when push comes to shove, I want to know what the text says. I love to study commentaries. I love to read them cover to cover. Although I could do a much better job of it, I love to keep up on my Greek. Nothing persuades me of truth more than discovering it in the Bible. In short, I love exegesis.
Issues related to interpretation became a major focus of my conversations with Catholics. My primary question was this: What if I have an interpretation of a text that does not agree with Rome? Is that okay? What you have to know is that there is quit a bit of freedom to interpret in the Roman Catholic system. Wait. I know what you are thinking. Doesn’t that militate against what your previous post argued – that there is not academic freedom in Rome? Well, it depends on what you mean. You see, contrary to popular opinion, Rome has not spoken directly and dogmatically to many passages of Scripture. Even the Pope rarely, if ever, speaks infallibly. He is just as fallible as you or I 99.999% of the time. It is only when he speaks “from the chair” that his words are infallibly binding. And there is quite a bit of debate among Catholics as to when Popes have actually exercised this privilege. In other words, there is not a “Dogmatic-Required-by-Rome-Commentary” out there. The Pope and councils have not laid out how understand every text of the Bible. Therefore, there is some degree of freedom.
However, there are some passages, such as Matthew 16, that have been dogmatized (you know, the whole “Peter and the keys to heaven establishing the Papacy” thing). More importantly, theology has been dogmatized. In other words, however one reads the Scripture, in the end, the reading must fall in line with Roman Catholic theology.
So…can one interpret the Bible in a way that conflicts with Roman Catholic theology? The answer is no.
In my attempts to understand Roman Catholicism, I looked and looked for loopholes.
What if I come to the conviction that Mary was not ever-virgin? Can I teach accordingly? No.
What if I come to the conviction that missing mass on Sundays is not a mortal sin? Can I teach and act accordingly? No.
What if I came to the conclusion that the Bible teaches against the doctrine of Purgatory? Can I teach my kids this? No.
What if I disagreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation, believing that John 6 was not to be taken literally? Could I teach and believe accordingly? No. Well, not if I expect to be a true Roman Catholic.
What About Hans Kung?
In response to my last post, many people brought up the fact that there are many within the Catholic Church who have disagreed with the Church and are still in good standing. Therefore, they believe this invalidates my last post. Hans Kung is always the example in these cases! While it is true that Rome has not formally excommunicated Kung, this does not serve as a good illustration, as any good Catholic will inform you. One does not have to be formally excommunicated to have lost their standing in the Church. Think about it. I am sure that there are many everyday dads and moms and brothers and sisters who have never been formally “kicked out” of the Church, yet hold incredibly aberrant views. They are not “safe” simply because the institution has not formally recognized their apostasy. Apostasy is defined very clearly and happens upon the subject’s departure, not the Church’s recognition of this departure. So one should expect to find thousands, indeed millions, of examples of those who hold views different from Rome’s, but are still “members in good standing.”
Again, this was such an important question for me: Can one study the Bible and come to conclusions that are different than what has been dogmatized by Rome, and still be a true Catholic?
Let me quote Rome:
“23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.
When the Magisterium proposes ‘in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)” (emphasis mine; Source)
Accepted and held. This is more than a mere “I will not teach against this” like we have in the documents of membership at Stonebriar Community Church. This doctrines much be accepted and held. And this is not a passive acceptance, but one that must be firm.
Doesn’t Evangelicalism Have the Same Limits?
Finally, a word about Roman Catholicism compared to Evangelicalism. Many have objected to me using Rome as a punching bag, believing that if Catholicism lacks freedom, then the same must be said of Evangelicalism. In a way, I see where people are coming from. However, this does not really work. Evangelicalism is not an institution. It has no creeds, documents of incorporation, headquarters, president, or pope. In theory, Evangelicalism is descriptive of a movement with which like-minded believers network or identify. One cannot be “kicked out” of Evangelicalism. One does not become an Evangelical by vowing to submit to the authority or even the idea of Evangelicalism. Therefore, the comparison does not work.
I even had someone complain by saying that since I was a 5-point Calvinist, the same restraints were upon me. They said that I did not have the freedom to interpret the Scriptures outside of my 5-point Calvinistic paradigm. Again, this is in no way parallel. Not only is 5-point Calvinism not an institution to which I submit, it is merely a description of my beliefs. I am free to become a 4-point Calvinist tomorrow if I so desire. (And this often happens!. Every time I study the book of John, or talk with Dr. Hall Harris III, I become more 4-point.)
Again, the end is the same. Becoming a Roman Catholic amounts to a submission of your beliefs to the authority of Rome. I think one can be a fine philosopher, sociologist, epistemologist, and ethicist and still be a Roman Catholic. However, when it comes to theology and, most specifically, exegetical studies of the Bible, I don’t think he or she can be a scholar, since they lack the academic freedom to disagree with Rome.
Contray to what many people have said, I don’t hate Rome. Maybe I should have used Mormonism as the example. You think there would have been less push-back if I did? I probably shouldn’t have used any illustration at all! Just left it as “Embracing Doubt.” Oh well, damage done.
Similar Posts:
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura – Part Eight – What about all the divisions?
- Essential Differences Between Catholics and Protestants
- Walking Away from Protestantism: Francis Beckwith Converts to Catholicism
- Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?
- The Rise of the Roman Catholic Church in a Nutshell
111 Comments
Like or Dislike:
1
the current repost of Mounce at http://www.koinoniablog.net/mondays_with_mounce/
on 1 Pet 20 is a very good tie in with this post – Can an individual interpret scripture
Like or Dislike:
0
2 Pet 1:20, that is (the edit function does not work in Chrome, fyi)
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4
I recommend “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea”, which is a history of protestantism. There really aren’t as many differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Since Vatican II the hatred between Protestants and Catholics has mostly dissipated, but for nearly 500 years the hatred was so extreme that it was an underlying cause of quite a bit of terrible violence, like the 30 Years War. Protestants as a group have always needed an “other” to rally against, otherewise they fragment. “Popery” has typically provided that. Protestants have thus manufactured a pope-ideology and claimed this to be catholocism.
Truely, the views of the pope are hardly hegemonic among catholics. The 16th century environment that gave birth to protestantism was a good example of this: the theological views of the day were quite diverse before Luther. He didn’t come up with any novel ideas so much as become the face of them. Even to this day, while there might be an official position, there is quite a bit of intellectual flexibility and no one is slavishly bound to this position as the protestant characitures have claimed.
And among protestant denomincations, there is much of the same institutional structure as there is in the catholic church. Protestant churches have creeds, de facto doctrines, leaders, beuocratic heirarchies, etc. Even the Southern Batpist Convention, which has long prided itself on its non-catholic structure, has developed these (just go to their website and check their “what we believe” section).
The differences aren’t as much as you want to claim. I would actually suggest that you will find much more intellectual ridgitiy among the more fundementalist protestant groups than you will among most catholics.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] I Wanted To Author: Jeremy I literally laughed out loud after reading C. Michael Patton’s part 2 on Roman Catholicism. I’m not trying to be a jerk. I’m sure that Patton is a nice enough person, who [...]
Like or Dislike:
2
Michael,
I understand your position, and I agree with your conclusions. I just think the problem with Mary and the saints is not just what you mentioned (someone else interceding for me). The veneration of saints/icons through prayer (to dead people), vows, calling her “the queen of heaven” and “our mother”, bowing down to their statues, etc is not a minor issue and should be seen as idolatry. At least, that’s is how it is done here in Brazil. And it is condoned by the Vatican everytime the Pope visits us.
Like or Dislike:
2
Mr. Patton,
What a nice, thoughtful and polite dissertation about something you don’t believe! Even though I am not a Christian I enjoyed reading it and appreciate your position.
TF
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] can be intellectually honest while Roman Catholics cannot. In his most recent post titled “Why I Hate Roman Catholicism, Part 2″ he begins by acknowledging the critique of some of those who have responded to him. He tells of his [...]
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5
Michael,
You might remember that scene in The Hunt for Red October where a Russian sub named the Konovalov fires a torpedo at another sub named the Red October, but the captain of the Konovalov was so confident that his torpedo would hit the Red October (because it was at such close range), he had deactivated the safety mechanisms on the torpedo, so that it became armed right at launch. But the torpedo misses the Red October, and subsequently locks on to the Konovalov instead, at which point, just before the torpedo impacts the Konovalov and destroys it, the Konovalov’s assistant officer turns to the Konovalov’s captain and says,
“You arrogant ass. You’ve killed us!”
I was reminded of that scene, when I read your comment above: “However, when it comes to theology and, most specifically, exegetical studies of the Bible, I don’t think he or she can be a scholar, since they lack the academic freedom to disagree with Rome.”
That’s because if you replace the word ‘Rome’ with the words ‘Jesus and the Apostles,’ you’ve just destroyed the possibility of Christian scholarship. And you have no non-arbitrary way of preventing that term-replacement.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Like or Dislike:
0
A fascinating post, it really makes your position very clear.
Like or Dislike:
1
I don’t see how the case of Hans Kung invalidates your prequel post. To the contrary, that corroborates your thesis. Yes, he’s still Catholic. He hasn’t been excommunicated.
But his *scholarship* is at variance with official Catholic teaching.
Patton’s point is not that an individual can’t be both Catholic and a genuine scholar. His point, rather (as I understand it), is that when Catholic scholars simply follow the evidence wherever it leads, unhampered by the official story, they frequently arrive at conclusions contrary to the official story.
That’s the tension he’s highlighting.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] of being drawn in to make responses in regard to Michael Patton’s recent controversial blog posts relating to the Catholic [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
I think you nailed it, CMP! Not sure suggesting that Catholics were like Mormons and you could just unplug one and plug in the other in your example just as easily is going to make things any easier on you though. LOL I happen to agree that they are both alike IN THAT REGARD though. Any time one is in total submission to a pope or prophet for all thing theological, there is no freedom to challenge or disagree.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] there. I get this sort of response to Catholicism. I, however, never wrote blog posts titled “Why I hate Roman Catholicism.” Patton has decided, after being taken to task both with the content and tone of his post by [...]
Like or Dislike:
1
Patton,
If you haven’t, you should read an excellent book on Protestants and Roman Catholics by Stephen Strehle entitled: The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel: Encounter Between the Middle Ages and the Reformation. It would help you.
There are plenty of other Roman Catholic Scholars like Hans Urs von Balthasar or Herbert McCabe who are in good standing, and are very constructive and thus scholarly Roman Catholic theologians; another who I know personally is Paul Molnar. Forget Kung, then.
Hays, I didn’t get that from what Patton was originally saying.
@Patton,
Yes, that was me who made the point about your 5 point Calvinism; but you missed my point. My point is that we all have “magesteriums” we are committed to. So you move from 5 points to 4 points; so you’ve simply shifted your magesterium. Once you are committed to a particular interpretive magesterium, that magesterium will inform the way you interpret the text (it will be what shapes your interpretive decisions, even with the Greek). You are still bound to that tradition (and thus the “freedom” you say the RC’s don’t have holds true for you as well). For example, as a Calvinist, you are committed to the same Thomistic concept of God that Roman Catholics are. Since you are committed to this Trad framing of things (say contra a Barthian frame); then this will serve as your interpretive magesterium; you don’t have anymore freedom, in that position, than the Roman Catholic. Sure you can move constructively into a Barthian doctrine of God, and remain an Evangelical; just as someone like Balthasar or Molnar can adopt a Barthian doctrine of God and remain Roman Catholics. Yet, each of us still have a functional magesterium dictating to us the kind of interpretive decisions we must make (if we are going to be consistent with our magesterial commitments).
I think your posts are ill-conceived, Patton; with due respect.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Do you also maintain that there is no theological or exegetical scholarship at Calvin College, since its faculty “must affirm that “the Bible is the authoritative, Spirit-breathed Word of God, fully reliable,” and that “God, the almighty creator of a good world, is sovereign over all of creation, granting to human beings, made in his image, the responsibility of caring for this world,” or lose their jobs?
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/08/15/a_professor_s_departure_raises_questions_about_freedom_of_scholarship_at_calvin_college
That is, are you claiming that there is no theological or exegetical scholarship at any college or university that requires its faculty to uphold a statement of faith of some sort? In other words, in your opinion, is scholarship possible only in colleges or universities that have no requirement that their faculty affirm some statement of faith?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael said: Every time I study the book of John, or talk with Dr. Hall Harris III, I become more 4-point.)
I say: YES!!
Like or Dislike:
2
Daniel writes:
“Any time one is in total submission to a pope or prophet for all thing theological, there is no freedom to challenge or disagree.”
Hugh Hefner writes:
“Any time one is in total submission to a wife for all things sexual, there is no freedom to play around or have girlfriends.”
Like or Dislike:
0
One thing that must be reiterated here (in case you did not know), Catholicism claims to be “the one true Church”. This makes membership in it much more important than it is in Evangelicalism or Calvin College. Neither Evangelicalism, Calvin College, nor, even, Protestantism is an organization with such claims. So, again, the parallels do not work. Even if someone could be excommunicated from Evangelicalism, it would not mean Evangelicals believe that they are anathema from the true Church. Rome has dogmatized such as stance (even if VII did lighten the load!).
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr Beckwith,
Great to hear from you!
I think only a Catholic could make that parallel! It only works if you assume first the legitimacy of submission to Rome. But even then, Paul says to test the prophets. I don’t think you are free to personally test the pope are you?
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael,
That the Catholic Church claims to be the Church Christ founded is irrelevant to the claim that true scholarship requires holding no theological claim as a dogma of faith.
But, if you wish to make your claim to be “Scholarship is compatible with holding any theological claim to be dogma except the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded,” you’ll need to show how your claim is not ad hoc. And you have not yet shown that.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
There are real life examples, as I’ve noted, of Roman Catholic scholars who disagree with the magesterium; and yet they remain in good standing, and continue to teach at Roman Catholic universities. This at least begs the question of your posts.
I think Bryan makes good points, esp. in his last comment here; I’d like to see you respond to those, Michael.
Like or Dislike:
0
Bryan,
It is not submission to dogma that is the issue. It is freedom to disagree and change. Since the Catholic Church claims to be the one true church, to be excommunicated, either explicitly or by virtue of disagreement, is a whole different issue. It is to be “outside the church”.
Even if Evangelicalism was an institution which claimed to be the one true church with the power to excommunicate through a human authority, there would still be room for more scholarship to exist as Evangelicalism does not speak to many issues.
The Catholic church requires submission about many many things. Have you ever read the Catechism?
The issue, for me, is pretty clear: The longer the doctrinal statement, the less freedom.
To use Beckwith’s illustration here is who you can marry:
1. Wife #1:
Requirements:
Provide for the family
Don’t ever leave me
Satisfy my physical needs
Don’t ever cheat on me
2. Wife #2
Requirements
Provide for the family
Don’t ever leave me
Satisfy my physical needs
Don’t ever cheat on me
Be home by six every night
Only watch channel 4 (the others are suspect)
No computers
No cell phones
No texting (all of which could cause you to be tempted)
Take out the trash
Mow the yard
Dress the children (of which we will have 4)
Rub my feet every night
Now, some of these are ridiculous. Some of them are reasonable. The feasibility of them is not the issue. The issue is the lack of freedom that the wife allows (all, from her perspective, for good reasons).
Which one allows more freedom? Just saying that the first wife has limitations as well does not really help anything. Of course the first one has limitation…these are the limitations of ANY marraige…the sine quo non of marriage.
Just because Evangelicalism has a few requirements does not make it comparable to Catholicism in this issue. Everyone should see this?
Like or Dislike:
1
Bobby, ask someone in the Catholic church this question:
If I disagree with the Catholic church’s interpretative stance on Matt 16 concerning the seat of Peter, is this okay for me to teach this and hold it personally? Would I still remain a Catholic?
Again, just because the church does not officially excommunicate someone, this does not mean they are in good standing. By definition, to disagree with Catholicism on ANY issue is to become Protestant according to Catholicism.
I suggest you go to http://www.catholic.com. Enter their forums and go to the “Ask a Question”.
I would highly suggest that you not look to “cafeteria Catholics” for answers to these questions. It is important that you go to the source. Popular Catholicism, like popular Protestantism, is not going to give you an official answer.
However, if you are Catholic and have not researched this, I would not suggest you researching. For right now you may be “invincibly ignorant”. If so, then these issue are not binding on you in the same way! (Another issue…another time)
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael,
So your argument seems to be this:
(1) Engaging in true scholarship is compatible with holding any theological claim, so long as one is free to disagree with that claim and change one’s position on it.
(2) Catholics, insofar as they are faithful Catholics, are not free to disagree with dogmas or change their position on those dogmas.
Therefore,
(3) Catholics, insofar as they are faithful Catholics, cannot engage in true scholarship in any area involving or influenced by the requirement to hold Catholic dogmas.
Before I respond to that argument, I want to make sure that’s an accurate formulation of your argument.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Like or Dislike:
0
I don’t know…hmmmm….sounds like a set up
I will just refer back to my Beckwith marraige analogy. I like that!
Like or Dislike:
0
Now, with that, I am going to teach on the deity of Christ here at the Credo House. These people will not be free to disagree with me because of my charismatic dominance.
As well, I will be out of these comments until Sunday night. Many many speaking engagements between now and then.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Your Parable of the Two Wives is revealing in that you imply you would choose the wife who makes fewer demands. Yet Paul uses the same marriage analogy to teach us to be willing to die for our wives the way Christ died for his bride, the Church. More often than not, this death is not a physical death, but a death to our own selfishness and a death to our desire for freedom from rules and demands.
Isn’t the abuse of our freedom at the expense of our obedience to God how we got into this mess in the first place?
Like or Dislike:
0
Did Frank Beckwith himself really respond to one of my comments? GULP! I feel like I’m in the major leagues now!
I met you, Frank, and your lovely wife, many years ago in Atlanta and have followed your writings and positions ever since. I’m a fan. And I didn’t even burn your books when you went back to Rome. Everyone is entitled one mistake. 
But I don’t think your analogy with Hugh Hefner is a valid one. In the RCC, the Pope isn’t just protecting you from the temptations that exist outside the church as defined by God. The Pope makes the rules and DEFINES church. To use the Hefner analogy, it would be like him (or the state) re-defining marriage or adultery. Hefner rejects the reality that marriage is what God defined it to be and substitutes his own definition. But he doesn’t seriously think that his version of marriage is universally applicable. He has a “true for me but not for you” kind of approach. Pope Benedict, on the other hand, DOES believe that, by decree, he can add to, change, or otherwise re-define some theological position (like marriage) and it becomes a universal truth that not even a future pope can change.
Evangelicals can, with a proper understanding of Sola Scriptura, appeal to Scripture as the ultimate authority on some topic and reach different conclusions on that topic. You were fully within your rights and abilities of being evangelical to study and decide that the RCC was the best church. So you are, in my eyes, both evangelical AND Catholic. But the freedom within the RCC to do the reverse of that doesn’t exist. You can’t come to a conclusion that doesn’t accept “God died and left the Pope in charge” and remain in good standing with the RCC. In other words, as a Protestant Evangelical, you have/had the freedom to change that and join the RCC if that is what you desired and decided. It was YOUR decision. You could say “I don’t believe X, so I’m out”. You had the freedom to do so. But once you swear allegiance to the church and submit to the authority of the Pope, you lost the freedom to ever re-examine that decision and come to a different one. He can make that decision FOR you now. As a Protestant, one can study and decide theological things. As a Catholic, you can accept the Pope’s opinion on it, leave, or be forced out. Just ask Martin Luther. To remain in good standing, the response to anything from the Pope has to be “always agree”. As a Protestant, you are free to challenge all kinds of questions of morals and ethics. As a Catholic, you can only support the opinions of the Pope if you want to remain in good standing in the church. If he’s infallible, I have no problem with that. But it’s a BIG “if” there.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
You’re not quite ready for the big leagues if you’re telling Francis Beckwith that the Pope can redefine issues of faith and morals (like marriage).
Besides, your statement contradicts itself if Benedict XVI can redefine something “that not even a future pope can change”.
You say “As a Protestant, you are free to challenge all kinds of questions of morals and ethics.” Perhaps Janis Joplin said it best – freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose.
Like or Dislike:
0
Can an evangelical christian come to the conclusion the Jesus did not rise from the dead and remain an evangelical christian in good standing?
If so, then the term “evangelical” is far too ambiguous to be useful for comparison with the Catholic Church.
If not, then evangelicals, just like catholics, have constraints on their scholarship.
I think any claim that there is a direct contradiction between being a “true” roman catholic and a true scholar is over reaching. At best, you are right in the sense that faithful Catholics have more constraints on what they believe and teach then faithful evangelicals, but we all already knew that. That’s a matter of degree, which is much different from the charge of contradiction.
Like or Dislike:
0
Luke, I’m WELL aware that I’m out of my league!
Feel like I’ve brought a slingshot to a gun fight. LOL But that doesn’t make me wrong. The Pope *can* further elaborate on issues of theology and it becomes cannon. He can come out and say “creation” can include evolution, for example. And if he says it “from the chair”, no future pope can say otherwise because some past pope made *that* a rule. So it isn’t “contradictory” at all. Any current or future pope can decree whatever they want as long as it doesn’t contradict the declarations of a prior one.
This topic reminds me of one I brought up today on Theologica about Michelle Bachmann and submission. If she is going to submit to her husband in all things, then he’s the one wearing the pants in the oval office. Otherwise, it isn’t “in all things”. If/when a Catholic submits to the Pope in all things theological, that comes with a loss of freedom to challenge them in any meaningful 1 Thess 5:21 kind of way. That is all CMP is saying, and I agree with him 100%. Total submission, even if limited to a particular area, equates to loss of freedom in that area.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] in point. He writes, One thing that must be reiterated here (in case you did not know), Catholicism claims to be [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
@TDC: You ask, “Can an evangelical christian come to the conclusion the Jesus did not rise from the dead and remain an evangelical christian in good standing?” Yes. They can come to that conclusion. But that decision on their part, by definition, means that they are no longer a orthodox Christian. It’s a oxymoron. So denial of historic orthodox beliefs automatically puts you in some other category. That isn’t the issue. The issue becomes one of the ability to test/validate a Papal decree on something like abortion, birth control, or something else. The official RCC position on birth control has been that those methods are wrong. Yet recently that changed to be it’s wrong if used to avoid pregnancy, but OK to use to prevent disease. It’s a further clarification. It didn’t deny a prior position, but explained it in a new way. It’s now official. And a Catholic isn’t free to say the Pope is wrong on that. As a protestant, I’m free to test/challenge my pastor and believe he’s wrong about some non-essential (say eschatology, for example). And I’m not kicked out of the church for suggesting that the pastor is fallible and wrong in something. But a Catholic doesn’t have the freedom to say the Pope is wrong. So 1 Thess 5:21 becomes “test unless it is from God’s mouthpiece on earth, in which case you accept it without question”.
Like or Dislike:
1
Daniel,
You said that an evangelical has the right to come to the conclusion that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but he will then cease to be an orthodox Christian. Exactly. There are constraints on a Christian’s scholarship if he is to remain a Christian.
A Catholic can also come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is wrong. Yes, he will cease to be an orthodox Catholic Christian at that point, but that’s the point. The evangelical and the catholic are in the same boat.
Either both can be legitimate scholars, or,if you apply Michael’s criteria, neither can.
Contrary to your reply, the issue is not about being able to test papal decrees (not specifically, at least). This isn’t about whether Catholics or Protestants are right. It is about whether they can both be true scholars while being faithful to their respective traditions.
At least, that is what I’m talking about.
I noticed you said that you are free to test your pastor on a “non-essential”. This implies that you could be kicked out of the community (or at least cease to be a true Christian) if you challenge one of the essentials. This grants my point. You have constraints, just like Catholics. And both are free to challenge orthodox Christianity and cease to be orthodox Christians if they so choose.
Like or Dislike:
1
while I agree with much of what CMP says in this post, I am somewhat convinced by a few of the RC arguements.
For example – I am a member of an SBC church – as such, i have covenented to hold to the SBC statement of faith. Should I fail to hold that, I could, concievably, be dismissed from my local congregation or the SBC. Now the odds of that happening are low, but none the less they exist.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
I believe that the key to understanding your argument is your assumption that the Sacred Scriptures, and they alone, are “the data”, the object of study. It is this study that you have in mind when you speak of “biblical and theological studies”, and that you conclude Catholics cannot do objectively.
When you look at how the perceived sources of reliable truth claims in each community limit the objective study of the Scriptures, you naturally must exclude the Scriptures themselves. Since, as you see it, evangelicals have no authority but the Scriptures, they lack significant limitations on their beliefs that Catholics have, that is, sources of truth claims, including interpretations of Scripture, that could potentially conflict with the Scriptures.
And so long as one respects the Scriptures as authoritative, one is by your definition a good evangelical, regardless of the interpretations one arrives at, whereas a good Roman Catholic is “under authoritative human leadership”, and must come to conclusions “that are already laid out” and “sing in harmony with Rome”.
So your argument is really only valid for a narrowly defined conclusion, and it is founded on a strong flavour of sola scriptura. Given your background assumptions, it may be reasonable for you to believe that Catholics can’t be scripture scholars.
Also, you effectively insist that to be scholars, we must objectively study the Scriptures from a vantage point outside the Christian belief system. You are aligning yourself with those of whom Lewis complained in his essay “Meditation in a Toolshed”, who insist that the external viewpoint is always superior to that from within. I’m sure you really are on the inside, like it or not, and I hope you will stay.
Like or Dislike:
1
Michael,
It wasn’t a set up — I simply wanted to make sure I understood your argument correctly.
My response to your argument is roughly what TDC says in comment #33. And TDC’s answer reveals the following dilemma for your position. Either your position eliminates Christian scholarship (since you believe there are Christian essentials), or if it allows scholarship to be compatible with holding Christian essentials, but doesn’t allow scholarship to be compatible with holding Catholic essentials (e.g. the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded), then it is ad hoc. So the horns of the dilemma facing your position are that either it eliminates Christian scholarship, or it is ad hoc.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Like or Dislike:
3
The author’s first position, “I don’t believe one can be a Roman Catholic and a scholar at the same time.”
The author’s second position appears to be a bit of a retreat,” I suggested that true Roman Catholics cannot be good scholars.”
Webster’s definition of a scholar:
: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
2a : a person who has done advanced study in a special field b : a learned person
3: a holder of a scholarship
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholar
Nothing in Webster’s appears to in any way preclude a Roman Catholic from being a scholar. The problem only arises when the author redefines “scholar”, or adds a corollary to the definition, to mean one who must be willing to have a change of mind.
To me this pair of articles is little more than a tempest in a tea cup, not big enough to require a teapot. If the author was not looking for sensationalism he took a strange way to show it. He could just as easily, and I believe more correctly written, “One cannot be a Roman Catholic and be willing to change ones mind about certain beliefs.” Who could get upset or disagree about that, but not very sensational.
Certainly not as attention grabbing as “Why I hate Roman Catholicism.”
Like or Dislike:
2
Daniel,
You wrote, “Yet recently that changed to be it’s wrong if used to avoid pregnancy, but OK to use to prevent disease.”
No, that’s not what the Pope said, nor is that Catholic doctrine, nor is any Catholic required to believe that. My suggestion is not to use the secular media as your source of information about what the Catholic Church teaches. Tim Troutman clarified the matter in “Did the Pope Condone Condoms in Certain Cases?”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/did-the-pope-condone-condoms-in-certain-cases/
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Like or Dislike:
0
god bless
Like or Dislike:
0
@Bryan Cross said:
“if you replace the word ‘Rome’ with the words ‘Jesus and the Apostles,’ you’ve just destroyed the possibility of Christian scholarship. And you have no non-arbitrary way of preventing that term-replacement.”
Yeah, you do. Christian scholarship is by definition the study of the words of Jesus and the apostles. You can choose not to believe/obey, but that’s different. “What do they mean?” That’s scholarship. “What do I do about it?” That’s different.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP,
I haven’t posted in a long while. Just been “lurking in the shadows” as one might say. It’s interesting that these two last posts and Rob’s posts on the LDS doctrine of theosis seem to be the two most popular ones lately
Oh well, controversial topics always generate more response.
With regards to this topic, even though I do agree to some extent, I have to say I find the titles poorly chosen. Although they generate interest, perhaps they also act as a red flag on a bull and people are reading your posts through the haze of being indignant.
I also would like to point out, as several others have done so, that even evangelicals have some boundaries or “holy houses” we can’t touch. Well.. we can touch them, but then suffer the consequences of being shunned by the leadership of our evangelical communities. Sounds a lot like ex-communication doesn’t it ? Examples ? Rob Bell, N.T.Wright, just to name a couple.
So can a Roman Catholic be a good scholar ? Absolutely. It’s just that the consequences if they should come to an interpretation contradicting a doctrine from the Magisterium would perhaps lead one to conflict, leaving or ex-communication. But isn’t our evangelical leadership “ex-communicating” our “evangelical” scholars like Rob for posing interpretations that don’t nicely fit within our doctrines ?
Scholars exist in every denomination. The consequences of their disagreements may be different.
Just food for thought.
In Him
Mick
Like or Dislike:
0
Hmm… Edit function not working in Safari
“Posing” should be “Proposing”
Like or Dislike:
0
ChrisB,
That’s not what I meant by “Christian scholarship.” On your definition, even atheists can engage in “Christian scholarship.” By ‘Christian scholarship’ I was referring to scholarship done by Christians in areas of theology or exegesis. And on my definition, what I said in #35 still stands.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Like or Dislike:
0
@TDC – Catholics and Protestants are only in the same boat if both the protestant pastor and the Catholic Pope and, by decree, CREATE an essential doctrine. If I challenge an essential of the faith (say the resurrection), I’m challenging Christianity and are therefore outside that tent. But even then, it is of my own choosing. With the Catholics, you can, on top of challenging some essential thing like the resurrection, find yourself in a different category where you have additional beliefs (things from the catechism, for example) or papal statements that are made that then become essentials. You are not free to challenge them. And, if you decide to try, it can actually be someone ELSE’S choice that puts your outside the “one true church”.
It is actually quite simple. When one belongs to a group where the leader can, by fiat, create new essential beliefs, they don’t have the same level of freedom to challenge positions as someone whose leader is seen as a fallible interpreter of an external list of essentials.
Like or Dislike:
0
“I don’t believe one can be a Roman Catholic and a scholar at the same time.” please does it make any sense here,, scholar, or not who cares,, this church is false,, and we cater not to upset ,,we dance around truth, yes my question is does one recieve true bible truth from the pope and his church,my sister-in -law is in this church,, if she follows its teaching will she get salvation,, answer,, no never she like all before her will end up in HELL,, is christ the only way, not baptism,, not mary,, not WORKS or confessions in the box,, to a priest,, is it true,, priests can forgive sins,, i was told its only christ,,now we are told mary helps in salvation,, lies apon lies,, we dont talk about the sex scandals, of the priests,, we just move on,, i feel my heart so sad, when i go out to tell people about christ on the cross and someone will jump up and say its OK I AM CATHOLIC,, like if they have a place in heaven,, well unless i misread the bible,, christ is the way not the pope,, or false doctrine,, this church is not far from being a cult,, i dont mean to be unloving,, loving means tell the truth,,not lies,,now we get false teaching if one lives a good life and try the best we can bypass christ,, when any church adds to the word then its false,, As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” -Romans 3:10-12
just how can one say mary is without sin,, not what i read,, above,,worship of mary,, and they expect savation,, never,, only hell,,For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” -2nd Corinthians 5:21
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” -Hebrews 4:15
The Scriptures are clear that ALL humans are sinners. ONLY the virgin born Son of God, Jesus Christ, was without sin. Please don’t believe the damnable heresies of Roman Catholicism. Mary was a sinner deserving of hell, as are ALL sinners (Romans 6:23; Revelation 20:15; 21:8).
may we wake up brothers and sisters and see this is a war ,,and lots of little catholics are heading to hell, this church is a fraud, a big hoax,,we are all sinners,, and should all be on the road to hell, but christ and grace,,its not or never was to upset anyone but if one stays in this church and bypass christs finished work on the cross, then its hell,, please,, leave this church,, get a bible read it join credo house,, find the truth,, study,, dont trust anyone with your salvation,, and your family ,, may my savour open up your eyes, and heart,, god bless,,.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Bryan: I don’t just rely on the popular press to get religious stories correct. When this happened, a Catholic friend and I actually went and found the official Catholic translation of the statements and read up with the Catholic News Agency said, as well as the later Vatican clarification of the statements. When the pope says something “CAN BE” a first step towards AIDS prevention, that shouldn’t be understood as “should not be” or “is still prohibited”. The pope said it is a step in the right direction, not that it is wrong and a step towards error. But arguing over condom use isn’t the real point of the original post. The point is that WHATEVER the pope said about condoms or birth control is binding on Catholics. They are not allowed to challenge it or “test” it as the Bible indicates in 1 Thess 5:21. My my pastor said something about condom usage or alcohol or something else, I’m free to take that as a personal preference or personal conviction and not an addition to orthodox doctrine. I can challenge it. And we can agree to disagree on it. There is no “agree to disagree” when it comes to something from the Pope. You cannot remain a member in good standing of the Catholic Church and disagree with the Pope. As suchm, and by definition, it limits dissent in a way that isn’t there for Protestants. It’s really quite simple. And I think the folks that don’t see that are more outraged by the “hate” in the title of the blog than approaching this objectively and logically.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
You write…
“Catholics and Protestants are only in the same boat if both the protestant pastor and the Catholic Pope and, by decree, CREATE an essential doctrine.”
Why? Give a reason for your criteria. How does that result in the term “faithful roman catholic scholar” being a contradiction while the term “faithful evangelical christian” remains safe? Give the exact thing the creates a contradiction in the former without touching the ladder.
“If I challenge an essential of the faith (say the resurrection), I’m challenging Christianity and are therefore outside that tent. But even then, it is of my own choosing.”
Exactly. And catholics can do the same to their own tradition. They can challenge their tradition and therefore be outside the roman catholic tent. And even then, it is of their own choosing.
“With the Catholics, you can, on top of challenging some essential thing like the resurrection, find yourself in a different category where you have additional beliefs (things from the catechism, for example) or papal statements that are made that then become essentials. You are not free to challenge them. And, if you decide to try, it can actually be someone ELSE’S choice that puts your outside the ‘one true church’”
Yes, they can challenge them, and cease to be orthodox roman catholics. Same as you and your tradition. How does the fact that there are additional constraints in catholicism result in a contradiction in the term “faithful roman catholic scholar”. You have failed to provide an argument for this. Whether someone chooses to make a doctrine essential or not is irrelevant. I can create a church that thinks a certain dating for the gospels is an essential. That is an additional constraint. However, someone can be part of that church and be an honest faithful scholar, in theory. Of course, he is free to argue against that church’s essential and cease to be a faithful member of that church.
“It is actually quite simple. When one belongs to a group where the leader can, by fiat, create new essential beliefs, they don’t have the same level of freedom to challenge positions as someone whose leader is seen as a fallible interpreter of an external list of essentials.”
I’ve never disputed that catholics have more constraints. We all already know that. That doesn’t prove the most contested point, which is whether faithful catholics can be true scholars. If your point is that evangelicals have more freedom because they have fewer constraints, than you have no reason to argue with me, because that isn’t the point I’m contesting. I’m arguing it is possible for someone to be both a faithful roman catholic and a scholar. To refute my claim you must show how it is impossible. Not more difficult, but impossible. Arguments of degree will not cut it here.
Btw, I’m not a faithful catholic anyway. I lost my confident faith as a catholic a while ago. I’m still unsure about the truth of Christianity or which Christianity, if any is true. if your criteria of scholarship is correct, than I can be more scholarly than all of you since I don’t have those essentials holding me down.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
“When the pope says something “CAN BE” a first step towards AIDS prevention, that shouldn’t be understood as “should not be” or “is still prohibited”.”
Yes it should. The movement from a greater evil to a lesser evil is a first step toward acting morally. But that does not mean that the lesser evil is no longer prohibited.
“The pope said it is a step in the right direction, not that it is wrong and a step towards error.”"
You are aware that the argument from silence is a falllacy, aren’t you? If the pope doesn’t say “x is wrong,” that doesn’t mean that the Catholic position is now “x is right.” Rather, everything that the Magisterium has taught on the subject still stands. Humanae Vitae still stands.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
And the Catechism’s teaching on this subject (CCC 2366-2372) are not overturned in any way by what Pope Benedict did or didn’t say.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2366
In short, nothing Pope Benedict said or didn’t say overturns the Catholic teaching prohibiting the use of prophylactics.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Like or Dislike:
0
I think we all need to distinguish two different claims here…
1) One cannot be a faithful roman catholic and a scholar
2) It is harder for catholics to be good scholars because they have more limitations on what conclusions they can believe while remaining faithful catholics.
Claim number 1, I think, is more like a claim of contradiction. It is obviously false, because there are faithful roman catholics who are also scholars. If someone then says, “well, they can’t be a TRUE scholars” it is more like claim number two.
However, any claim that faithful catholics will have a harder time being good honest scholars presupposes that the evidence doesn’t point towards catholicism or that catholicism is really hard to believe.
But if that is the underlying claim, then this post is mere preaching to the protestant choir, not really a point of dialogue between catholics and protestants, and can just be ignored by catholics.
In fact, catholics can just go and create their own post about how “true scholars” see the truth and become catholic. They can go on about how no “true” church historian could read the church fathers and remain protestant. In fact, I’ve seen this happen!
But what’s the point?
Like or Dislike:
0
@TDC, a scholar isn’t just one that studies. When scholars publish, for example, they are peer reviewed by other scholars. As a Catholic, a scholar might be able to peer review the writings of another peer, and can present a scholarly paper on why they thing some friar or priest got something wrong, but they have their hands tied with it comes to doing any kind of skepticism or testing or validating anything from the Vatican. If the Pope comes out tomorrow with a stance on something, you can’t really challenge that and remain in good standing in the church. Beckwith couldn’t write a book about how the Pope’s position on stem cell research was unbiblical or immoral and remain in good standing in the Catholic Church. Yet, as a protestant and ETS president, if a leading pastor (say some current or former head of the the SBC or some well known guy like Rick Warren or Billy Graham) he could have written a book in disagreement with one of their position and still remained in good standing in evangelical protestant circles. “Free to disagree” is something that Protestants have that Catholics don’t. And the inability to disagree is a limitation. If you can’t see that, I can’t think of a way to explain it in any simpler terms. Rob Bell is free to challenge an eternal hell and get challenged back by folks that won’t loose their church membership over it. But if the Pope comes out and says something about hell, the same kind of scholarly examination and possible disagreement with it is not possible by Catholics.
In OT times, a prophet was able to be tested to see if he was legit. If the prophesy didn’t come true, you could label him as a false prophet. Catholicism has brought this “mouthpiece of God” kind of position forward, but one is not allowed to challenge it. If you are a Catholic and think you DO have the same freedoms to challenge and test what comes from the Vatican, then test *that* and see where it gets you. Stand up after mass some day with your own 95 thesis of things you think the current or prior popes are wrong about. Let us know how that works out for you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Evangelicals have their hands tied when it comes to doing any kind of skepticism or testing or validating any of the evangelical essentials. Patton couldn’t write a book on how Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead and remain an evangelical.
If you are a Protestant and think you DO have the same freedoms to challenge and test the essentials, then test that and see where it gets you. Stand up after church some day with your own list of biblical contradictions and arguments against the resurrection. Let us know how that works out for you =).
Don’t take the above as an insult as I don’t mean I that way. My point is that so much of what you say can easily be turned around and pointed right back at you. That’s why your strategy is just an example of picking and choosing which beliefs to spotlight for your argument.
Remember, catholics don’t believe everything the pope says is infallible and binding. Catholics have plenty of “non-essentials” over which they are allowed to disagree. Many verses of the bible have not been infallibly defined. People are free to believe or disbelieve in the marian revelations. Catholic biblical scholars do not have to follow everything the pope argues in his book on Jesus.
You have your “essentials” and non-essenitals and catholics have their own. Both are free to disagree on the non-essentials and remain in good standing, and both are free to disagree with the essentials (or for catholics, dogma) and cease to be in good standing. The difference is only a difference of degree.
Like or Dislike:
0
Brian, if you think when the Pope says “CAN” that he means “CANNOT”, then we are not dealing in the same realm and I don’t think discussing the pope’s statement any longer is going to move the conversation forward. It isn’t really the topic anyway. The point is that Catholics ABIDE by what the pope says. They are not allowed to CHALLENGE what the pope says. So when the vatican comes out with a “clarification” and says CAN really still does mean CANNOT, that’s just accepted. It is the acceptance or ability to challenge that notion that is the topic at hand, not my trying to convince you whether the two words are the same or not.
Like or Dislike:
0
@TDC: I will try to put this in small words because prior efforts to explain this have failed. In BOTH cases, if you challenge a basic orthodox belief of Christianity, you are out. But a Protestant can challenge something that their pastor says as not being in the Bible. A Catholic can’t challenge the Pope if he were to make the same comment about something not in the Bible. Since the RCC is seen as the official interpreter of Scripture AND can add to it with further teaching, you cannot be a skeptical scholar and challenge that. Protestants are able to disagree over things like the age of the earth and evolution. But if the Pope gets up tomorrow and says that the earth is millions of years old, no Catholic scholar could write a book endorsing young-earth flood geology and saying that science shows that the Pope is wrong and remain in good standing. And since the Catholic and Protestant view of “church” are so different, getting kicked out of it is a lot more consequential. They are just not the same.
I’ll give you a personal example. I’ve been a deacon before in some churches. In one rather large church with a well-known pastor that I attended, I was nominated to be a deacon by one of the staff members. I didn’t become one because it was a position of leadership and I didn’t agree with the pastor on a couple of issues and let the staff know. But that was the extent of it. I was still a member in good standing and was even allowed to take on different roles in the church. BUT, had I been a Catholic and believed the Pope was wrong, that alone not only challenges something taught in the church, but the papal authority and infallibility. And as a core belief of the church, I would not longer be in good standing in the church. A protestant can disagree with some doctrinal stance in the church and still be an evangelical. A Catholic that disagrees with what the RCC teaches cannot remain a Catholic because one of the core beliefs is that the RCC is always right. Protestants don’t have that “My pastor is infallible” belief and are therefore able to disagree.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
“I will try to put this in small words because prior efforts to explain this have failed.”
Thank goodness you’re using small words, your superior language was so confusing to me!
I have affirmed over and over again that I know that catholics have more constraints and fewer things they can challenge. I’m not arguing against that! I am arguing that both catholics and protestants have constraints and limitations. I don’t deny that there are differences of degree.
Nevertheless, your description of the Pope’s power is not correct. Catholics are not required to believe everything the pope says. It has to be dogma to absolutely required. So if the pope just gets up and says the earth is millions of years old, there will still be catholics in good standing who challenge that.
You keep talking about how Protestants can disagree with their pastor. You’re picking and choosing again. We both know there are SOME things you cannot challenge and remain an evangelical in good standing. Sure, there are some things you can disagree about too. Likewise, there ARE things that Catholics can disagree about. Most catholic churches and popes believe that there are genuine marian apparitions and even preach on them. However, catholics are free to disagree about that and remain catholics in good standing. Both sides have their essentials and non-essentials. You may not have an infallible pope, but you have certain essentials that will exclude you from evangelicalism by definition if you disagree with them. Catholics have more, but that is only a difference of degree, not of kind, and thus does not exclude a scholar from being roman catholic.
Like or Dislike:
1
Having read through this and thought about it more, I think I would revise my position due to some very good conversation that you all have provided.
I would say this: 1) All scholarship is affected by the amount of presuppositions we bring to the table. To the degree that they see dogma as a presupposition, Roman Catholics will have a more difficult time in scholarship due to the amount of dogma to which Roman Catholics are required adhere. 2) Submission to Catholicism requires ultimate trust to be placed in the magisterial authority of the Church. When this authority conflicts with modern understanding, science, and scholarship, the Church trumps the scholarship. 3) Since Roman Catholic dogma is much more extensive than that of other Christian traditions, they are going to be more affected when it comes to being open to alternative interpretations of the data more often than other Christian traditions. 4) But this is only to the degree that they wish to stay faithful to Rome.
Like or Dislike:
0
The whole idea that the teachings of the Pope can be challenged unless he’s speaking “from the chair” are a bit of a cop-out. There is an issue of the authority of the church that doesn’t exist in Protestant circles. So it isn’t just the matter of the rare “from the chair” decrees. It’s a matter of the church being seen as an official interpreter of theology. To the Catholic, God speaks via the apostolic succession of the church leadership. To challenge it is to challenge God. To quote the catechism, “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.” This “remarkable harmony” of “always agree with the teachings of the church” is the kind of limitation that Protestants don’t have. It also speaks of the church’s infallibility. “Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on [the church] a share in his own infallibility” “”The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.” And that is why something isn’t just official doctrine if stated “from the chair”. When the Vatican “clarifies” the Pope’s comments about condoms, for example, that is an official position. And when the Pope or some group of bishops or cardinals teach something, it has the weight of apostolic succession behind it. Is it possible for the pope to have a personal opinion about something? Of course. But when he speaks AS THE POPE in a mass or something, a Catholic just doesn’t have the same level of ability to disagree as a Protestant would. You are, for example, much freer to tell me that I am wrong about this topic than you are if the Pope himself was stating his position no matter what chair he was sitting in at the time. There is a reverence for his position and office that extends beyond his furniture. And I can guarantee you that if my first post on this topic had been written by the Supreme Pontiff, Beckwith would not have responded with a Hugh Heffner quote. He had the freedom to challenge me that he would not have had if it had been the Pope saying it.
Like or Dislike:
0
To the point of “it’s not from the chair”, here is another quote from the Catholic Catechism that speaks directly to that (I was running out of characters before).
“Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, IN A PARTICULAR WAY, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, WITHOUT arriving at an infallible definition and WITHOUT pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ORDINARY teaching the faithful “ARE TO ADHERRE TO IT WITH RELIGIOUS ASSENT” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is NONETHELESS AND EXTENSION OF IT.”
Now THAT is the official teaching of the church. Even if the Pope isn’t speaking “from the chair”, the faithful are to agree with it. End of story. And end of my comments on the matter.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I’m glad you’re reading the Catechism. So, why do you value your freedom to disagree more than you value the truth and the authority of Christ’s Church? Why do you believe your personal understanding of the faith is superior to 2000 years of lived wisdom of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit? How is that a more authentic version of Christianity?
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ve dug through the catechism many times. Really see the benefit of well articulated official doctrine like that. But it isn’t a matter of valuing of freedom versus “the truth and authority of Christ’s Church”. While I *do* like freedom, it is more of a different in belief in what is “the church”. Just as I wouldn’t, as a Christian apologist, argue that we should believe the Bible because it says it is true, I wouldn’t argue that we should believe “the church” as some official organization just because it teaches it is both true and an official organization. Yet support for that position seems to ultimately be based on that begging of the question or anecdotal evidence of some NT example. I don’t know if you have ever seen Michael’s presentation of the “Stage of Truth” that he did in the 4th session of Intro to Theology in The Theology Program (it’s online), but it is the clearest expression of the differences between how protestants and catholics see things fundamentally different that I have ever seen. And it is that fundamental difference that is at the core of CMPs post here. If I see my church as A source of truth as opposed to THE source of truth, I’m more open to examination of it to test it (like a Barean) than to just accept it and adhere to it without question. There is just a big difference between “My pastor preaches truth as he understands it and I accept it” and “My priest/pope said it so it is therefor true and I *must* accept it”.
As far as “superior to 2000 years of lived wisdom” goes, it’s a nice talking point, but doesn’t reflect reality. The whole “Bishop of Rome is always right” thing has been an issue since it was first brought up. Just ask the Orthodox. It isn’t a belief that everyone in Christianity has always agreed with for 2,000 years. The very fact that one can believe that truth comes both from the pope as well as an agreement among the bishops and, way back when, not all the bishops agreed with this doctrine, should provide some level of self-refutation of the idea that there has been 2,000 years of agreement on this.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I actually don’t disagree a whole lot with your last two comments (about agreement with the pope and what not). I think there are more complexities to the matter, but its not really our main point of disagreement anyway.
So let’s say you’re right. Catholics are morally obligated by their church to agree with the pope even when its not infallible, etc. So that would increase the number of limitations on catholic scholars, right?
But you never really gave an argument defending the main point of the article. That is, you never made an argument that shows that “roman catholic scholarship” is an oxymoron. Wasn’t that the what we were discussing? If that isn’t your position, then we shouldn’t have even argued. If it is your position, where’s the argument? Simply listing limitations that catholics have that protestants both doesn’t show how the limitations that catholics have make “roman catholic scholarship” impossible or an oxymoron.
So let’s clarify here. Do you believe faithful roman catholic scholarship is impossible, or just more difficult? If the former, why? If the ladder, we have no disagreement to argue about.
Michael,
Your most recent formulation of his position is much more defensible, even if it may still be disputed. It was just the oxymoron thing that gave me pause.
Like or Dislike:
0
I posted on your Part 1, but this post reveals a whole new set of presuppositions that you would be wise to challenge.
That you “looked and looked for loopholes” reveals that your inquiry into Catholicism can not properly be called discernment. Discernment is seeking God’s will regardless of your own will, desires and prejudices. Instead, you tested Catholicism against a standard of your personal creation: whether or not you could disagree with a Catholic dogma and still be a “good Catholic.” Real discernment would have set even this personal standard aside.
“What if I disagreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation, believing that John 6 was not to be taken literally? Could I teach and believe accordingly? No. Well, not if I expect to be a true Roman Catholic.”
Buried here is the presupposition that the “freedom” to teach and believe something contrary to your church is a thing to be sought and a good standard with which to choose ecclesial affiliation. But is it?
Remember what scripture says of Jesus’ Church. Jesus promised that she would be guided by the Holy Spirit and the gates of hell would not prevail against her. He gave her the authority to loose and bind and Acts depicts her doing so, depicts her settling doctrinal disputes. Paul called her the pillar of foundation of Truth.
The “freedom” to contradict the Church as scripture defines her is no freedom at all. It is like the “freedom” to sin. It is only the freedom to reject God’s truth. Your presupposition guarantees that you will not join yourself to the Church described by scripture.
An additional presupposition here is that your personal conviction is a good and reliable arbiter of Truth. Put aside for the moment whether or not the Catholic Church is actually who she claims to be. Every piece of dogmatically defined belief within Catholicism rests upon numerous minds at least as good as the best minds available today, spending more time on that one isolated bit of dogma than any of us have spent on this planet. (And note, this is before the belief was even dogmatized, so your “the only good Catholic scholar is a bad Catholic scholar argument really doesn’t apply even if it were sound.) Your conviction is based on your personal opinion, including your personal opinion of the scholarly work of others. In this post, I can identify at least three significant errors as to Catholic belief. If your conviction that you understand Catholic belief is so manifestly false, if your personal opinion is so fallible when it comes to things that can be known with certainty (such as what the Catholic Church teaches) why should it be the ultimate standard of Truth for those things that cannot, or perhaps even cannot, be known with certainty? To what can be appealed to justify this premise, this presupposition?
Like or Dislike:
0
I believe true and full scholarship is more than just being a student. A scholar is seen as one that adds to the depository of knowledge. That is why tenured professors are often required to submit articles to peer-reviewed journals and students wanting to graduate with one of those scholar-level degrees have to write dissertations. So, from a Catholic standpoint (as Mormon as well), you can have a “scholar” in the sense that they can write some deep paper with big words defending what their church teaches, but are limited is seriously questioning it. When you think of scholars”, you think of universities where both education and inquiry takes place. That is particularly the case in areas of science where inquiry and testing is a large part of the scientific method. And that is a BIG problem that I had with some of the teaching my kids were taught. It may as well have been the Pope in the lectern. When my son challenged the teacher on something and asked why a particular argument was valid in one case when used against “the opposition” (evolutionists) and not another (what the teacher espoused), the response was of the “because I said so” variety to a “Why” question and he was told he had a “heart problem” or spiritual issue for even questioning the teacher on it. So, while they said they TAUGHT science, they didn’t PRACTICE science. They practiced indoctrination without question. They went so far as to have a commencement address where the graduating students were told that they were to hold on to and defend what they had been taught in high school and not “compromise” their beliefs based on what they were taught in college. That isn’t being a student where inquiry and further exploration is allowed. And telling 17-yr olds that they now have leaned the truth and shouldn’t listen to anything contrary to it is the last thing they need to hear and Proverbs 18:17 speaks directly to that. And the same can be said at the upper levels of education for a “scholar”. When you can’t ask why or say “that makes no sense”, you can’t really explore knowledge. How valid would our judicial system be if you only were allowed to hear from one side or, by law, you had to totally believe whatever one side said? The whole idea that X is true because Y said so is a fallacious appeal to authority and if learning and education is going to be illogical at it’s core and not allow for testing or validation or challenging questions, then it isn’t scholarly learning and exploring of a topic. And it isn’t scholars having the ability to increase their understanding in any kind of “iron sharpening iron” kind of way. It is little more than acceptance by faith regardless of any facts to the contrary. Not really what a true scholar would do.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
A couple of notes about infallibility. You are missing a very important detail here: the meaning of the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium is the successors of the bishops teaching in accord over both time and space. It is differentiated from the extraordinary magisterium which is an ecumenical Council or the Pope teaching “ex cathedra.” The ordinary magisterium is understood by Catholics to be infallible. So the quote you offer essentially says, “the pope is infallible when he teaches the same thing that is already infallibly taught.”
So no, Catholics do not have to accept every single thing the pope says, nor every single thing a bishop says. We are only bound to accept what has been infallibly defined, regardless of how it is infallibly defined.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Beckwith probably wasn’t too happy with Michael Patton’s post on Rome Hate, but at least he [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I’m with you on the idea that scholarship involves inquiry that we can’t only listen to our side or base knowledge purely on appeals to authority.
But i’m not sure you answered my question. Is faithful roman catholic scholarship just difficult or is it impossible?
If you say difficult, I’m with you. If you say impossible, I want to know why it isn’t equally impossible for protestants to practice true scholarship with regard to their essentials.
Like or Dislike:
0
TDC, you asked “Do you believe faithful roman catholic scholarship is impossible, or just more difficult?” I believe one can approach Catholic doctrine BY FAITH, or AS A SCHOLAR, but not really BOTH in the full sense of what a scholar normally does. By definition, being Catholic means accepting BY FAITH all the teachings of the church. So unless you speak FOR the church, you are not really allowed to add anything to the knowledge base of theology. I guess may it is possible for a Bishop to write some official position or clarification of something, and in that sense he’s adding theological understanding, but even then he’s not allowed to challenge the validity of some position and offer an alternative understanding of something. So his ability to do “scholar stuff” is limited. In a sense, it comes down to a Catholic being Catholic first and scholar in submission to that. Whereas a protestant can be both protestant and scholar equally. One isn’t subject to the other. And again, it really isn’t the same about “essentials”. Like CMP laid out in his marriage example, Protestants have few. We don’t have the huge catechisms. But Catholics have, AS an essential, the requirement to believe what the Pope says even if he’s speaking about something non-essential. It is an extension of faith, not some scholarly approach. That “adhere to what the Bishop of Rome says with religious assent” is not mere suggestion. Its binding. It not only makes full scholarship difficult, but makes it impossible if “scholarship” is going to mean anything other than “accept this as true”. And since I don’t see it as the ability to do FULL scholarship, I don’t see it as TRUE scholarship.
As a Protestant, I can approach the text in one of two ways. I can approach it for spiritual insight or apologetic/scholarly insight. And there is validity to both approaches. But I need to keep them in balance so both my heart and head get fed. But when a Catholic approaches tradition and church teaching, the scholarly academic study is done with the precondition that it is true and cannot be disagreed with. The unity that provides has merit. But it is like the unity of only letting the state have a say in any court case. It isn’t the best way of obtaining truth when dealing with fallible men. And that is the big difference between the Catholic and Protestant understanding of tradition and church teaching. Protestants don’t assume infallibility. Catholics do. As the catechism says, it is promised to the church. So to doubt the church is to doubt God’s promise. When you can’t doubt/test your teaching because that is to doubt God, you can’t really scholarly investigate it. You just accept it by faith. And faith is religion, not scholarship. I’m not saying one approach is better than the other, but they are definitely not the same. Make sense?
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Yes, I understand. But then that also applies to the Protestant essentials, whether there are many or few. Thus, the difference is a matter of degree. Both have their limits.
So when it comes to the divinity of Christ, the existence of God, or the resurrection, evangelical christians can’t be truly scholarly without suspending their belief for a while.
So anything written by william lane craig on the resurrection is not true scholarship, since he’s been convinced for decades, and knowingly uses his abilities as a servant, not a judge, of the gospel. In fact, he’s convinced that reason and faith can’t contradict, and says he would believe even if the evidence was against christianity due to the witness of the Holy Spirit. So his new stuff on the existence and coherence of God also ceases to be true scholarship as well. Are you willing to say that?
If my application of criteria is faulty, where did I go wrong?
Like or Dislike:
0
OK. Let me try to address this from the difference in essentials then. My list of essentials are very short. And it is NOT essential that I agree with my local church on all that it teaches because not everything is an essential belief. For Catholics though, part of their essentials is that they have to affirm, by faith, and agree with the infallible teaching of the church in ALL things. As such I can disagree with something my pastor says. If he teaches something about the tithe or predestination or sanctification, it isn’t essential that I have to agree with his interpretation of that. In that sense, it isn’t a matter of degree as in some are essential and some are MORE essential. There are essentials and non-essentials. But, for the Catholic, you have essentials “from the chair”, and non-essentials that you have to essentially believe just as if they WERE from the chair. At least that is my understanding from my my study of Catholicism and the quotes I posted from the catechism.
William Lane Craig is a great example. I’ve met him several times and am a huge fan. And I can see where he might say if there was no evidence for something or there was evidence to the contrary that he’d still believe it by faith. The witness of the Holy Spirit is evidence in than case and would trump some other evidence that seems to contradict that. But he’s a great example of a scholar because he also questions and challenges belief. His work as it relates to God and time, for example, push the envelope and don’t always agree with what others believe. He also believes in Monilism. Now I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand all of that or even know the Catholic position on Monilism. But the point is that it IS a controversial topic and not all evangelicals agree on it. But he’s still free to have and defend that position. Were he a Catholic though and there was/is a position on it, I don’t believe he would be free to offer some controversial thing like that. So he won’t be kicked out of protestantism for having some controversial opinion and neither would the calvinists on the other end of the spectrum, but to stir up controversy like that within the Catholic church could end up with him (or the calvinists) being kicked out of “the one true church”.
In short, the Protestant can disagree over non-essentials with his church. It is *essential* though for the Catholic to agree with his church. It whole repository of tradition and teaching is essential. So if WLC disagrees with his pastor, he’s fine. If Beckwith disagrees with his Pope, he’s not. They are not in the same boat because WLC and CMP can respectfully disagree over the monilism/calvinism thing and remain in the same protestant boat. But everyone in the Catholic one has to believe whatever the Captian says or you’re out of the boat.
Like or Dislike:
0
Many years ago I found Jesus through the Catholic Carismatic Church, there I once understood that Jesus was alive and had to be received by each one. Even being a Catholic during all my life, going to Church every Sunday and having Eucharisty every Sunday also, I did not know Jesus as my Savior and less than my Lord, until I understood there that faith was the way.
You can read many books but here in South America (living in Peru and Bolivia) the common Catholic think that Mary and the Saints are the one that bring the healing or restauration asked, and not Jesus.
As Erico Rempel said at the begining of this block, idolatry is part of the Catholic view of life to Mary and the Saints.
Clerics may say that they only venered her or the saints but in their minds they belief she / them is / are the provider and bring all they need.
The common Catholic doesn’t even know their doctrine and cathecism. There are many Catholics divorced, and married or living new lifes and participating in the Church without any fear, they don’t care about the Church doctrine.
Also you know that the actual Pope declares that his church is the savoir arc and no one has salvation outside it. There are so many diferences with the Holy Scriptures, and that is why Jesus demands His believers to run out of it in Revelations. Of course there are many believers and justified people and the bottom of their hearts are only know by the Holy Gost.
I belief that it is impossible to be a catholic scholar and a christian at a time, as being a real Catholic requires many works of flesh to get to heaven…
God bless you always…
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I know Catholics have more restrictions. I know they can’t disagree with the Church on an awful lot of stuff. There’s no need to continue telling me about Catholic restrictions. I am well aware of them.
However, if those restrictions prevent catholics from being scholarly on those issues (to which their restrictions apply), than William Lane Craig’s essentials prevent him from being scholarly on the resurrection and the existence of God.
I’ve never denied Protestants have more freedom with their pastors (in theory). But if you fairly apply your criteria to both sides, you must say Craig cannot be a scholar when it comes to his essentials.
Like or Dislike:
0
@TDC, your analogy to WLC doesn’t hold because that would not be a case of a Protestant challenging church beliefs on non-essentials, but a case of a non-Christian challenging Christian beliefs. Anyone that says that Jesus isn’t God, for example, is neither Protestant OR Catholic. They’re lost. So it just isn’t a valid comparison. The point is that a Protestant goes to a church where non-essentials are taught and are free to disagree with them. A Catholic goes to a church where it is essential to agree with whatever is taught. As such, there is a whole realm of theological topics (say anything not specifically spelled out in the Nicene Creed) that they can have different opinions on and offer alternative understandings of. By definition a Christian cannot deny certain core beliefs. But we can’t pretend that that list of core beliefs is the same as the entirety of Catholic catechism, tradition, and teaching so therefore Craig and Beckwith are equally free to disagree with their pastor. When EVERYTHING is an essential, there is just not the same level of freedom as there is when the only essentials are some bare bones basics that both Protestant and Catholic believe in.
You’re basically suggesting that the guy that walks into the local car dealership today has the same ability and freedom of choice to select the car of his choice as the guy did back when your only choice was black Model T’s because in both cases they were limited to what was made. Freedom to choose though only exists if there are other choices. Freedom to disagree only exists if there ARE things that are non-essential. The guy today has multiple choices of make and color of car. The guy dealing with Henry Ford didn’t have true freedom of choice. It was “buy what everyone else is buying or you’re not a car owner”. The Catholic church is like Henry Ford or AT&T only selling black rotary phones. You had them or didn’t. You were in or out. The Protestant Phone Store though has a ton of options. And you are welcome to choose a different one from your pastor. It boils down to Protestant Diversity and Catholic Unity. Catholics can’t brag about the unity and criticise all the Protestant diversity and then also claim that both Protestants and Catholics have the same level of freedom to dissent.
Like or Dislike:
0
@wineinthewater: Sorry to be late to responding to you. You point about infallibility MIGHT be the valid interpretation of that quote, but I think the actions speak louder than the words. Just look at the Great Schism. As such, I think it is more properly understood that the Bishops are also infallible when they agree with the Pope (“in communion with the successor of Peter”), not that the Pope is only infallible when his off-the-chair positions agree with all the Bishops. Not all the Bishops agreed with the supremacy of Rome. Didn’t matter. You basically ended up with a conflict between the infallibility residing among the united agreement of the Bishops and the infallibility residing in the office of Bishop of Rome. They both can’t be right because they disagreed. So it isn’t just a case of the Pope only being infallible when he’s in his chair or in agreement with all the Bishops. It doesn’t say “with the approval of” or “in agreement with” the ordinary Magisterium. It says “in the exercise of” the ordinary Magisterium. So it’s when the Pope is teaching (the role of the ordinary Magisterium), or when He’s “from the chair”, or when “THEY”, the ordinary Magisterium, teach “in communion with the successor of Peter” (the Pope). And we should not confuse the “ordinary Magisterium” with the “ordinary and universal magisterium”. The distinction shows that infallibility resides in the Pope when he’s “from the chair”, OR when he’s in the role of teaching (“ordinary Magisterium”), OR when a Bishop teaches and it agrees “with the successor of Peter”, OR when the united Bishops (“ordinary and universal magisterium”) do something like come up with a creed. In other words it is ALL of church teaching and tradition. It is ALL either accepted as infallible or rejected by those who are in turn rejected. Look at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#Levels). The first five all require assent and for the faithful to adhere to. And while you don’t have to adhere to the teachings of the last two, since they too have to adhere to the first five it’s all the same thing. “Free to disagree” just isn’t there.
Like or Dislike:
0
I think you can put the conversation re: Catholic Scholarship to bed with a simple quote. “Obsequium religiosum” requires adherence to the teachings of the church with a “religious submission of mind and will”. Can a Scholar even BE one if they don’t have mental free will? The official vatican source for “Lumen gentium 25a” this is at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.
The fat lady sings….
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Don’t know about any fat lady, but a fat man (G. K. Chesterton) once said: “Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
Once you redefine the word scholar from “seeker of knowledge” to “holder of opinions” further debate is purely semantic.
I’m still interested to know if you believe that your version of Christianity is more authentic and more efficacious to my salvation than that of the dogma-bound Church. How would I benefit (in an eternal sense) from embracing your way?
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m not redefining scholar to “holder of opinions”. That’s a straw man. I disagreeing with the prior assertion that a scholar is nothing but a student. They *are* students and *do* learn, but there is a big difference between learning and being indoctrinated. One allows for reason and choice of belief. The other does not. One one has to submit their mind and will to that of another and always agree with and believe whatever they say, that isn’t true learning, being a real student, or having the ability to be a scholar in the true sense of everything that that title entails.
As far as “my version of Christianity is more authentic” or whatever, that is a red herring and definitely outside the scope of the original post. So I’ll pass on the “authentic Christianity” aspect of that. But I will address the benefit of embracing my way. Besides the fact that you’d be in great company, not to mention being right (and yes that is a joke), the benefit is that you actually become a thinking Christian in a more wide range of thought. I’m not saying that Catholics turn their brains off, but a Protestant is able to “test everything” in a 1 Thess 5:21 way and “reason together” in a Isaiah 1:18 way to produce a “iron sharpening iron” in a Proverbs 27:17 way that a primary focus on unity doesn’t really allow. Take Michael’s current examination of gifts with Sam. Because they have been able to struggle with the topic and had to defend their positions and address the strengths of the other position, they are stronger for it. The struggle has brought a deeper understanding of what they believe in the same way a James 1 trial increases one’s faith. So it is almost like the Protestant side of the house has a deeper and more solid understanding of doctrines because they’ve actually had to study it and make a choice. The Catholic side has a deeper respect for unity and church history. There are benefits to both, and we can both learn from that, but they are different. And I took that as Michael’s whole point. You can’t really do Catholic Scholarship in the same way you do Protestant Scholarship. A child that asks “Why” and is given an answer usually learns more because it leads to further “Why” questions. The one that is told “Because I said so” hasn’t really learned anything other than “always obey and agree”. And I think the “have to agree with the church” position does the same thing. It doesn’t mean that what they are teaching is wrong, but it’s a different teaching/learning style and doesn’t have the same mental exercise as the other approach.
Like or Dislike:
0
[Continued from last post]
When my kids were young, I had a different parenting philosophy from my wife. She had a focus on teaching them what to do. I had a focus on teaching them how to learn and how to make the right decisions. My wife’s list of rules is like the Catholic Catechism. Her “Do this” is like the long list of “This is true”. But that can never be complete. It, like the Bible, can be true, but doesn’t answer every single question we have. My wife’s approach lead to tons of “But what if…” kinds of inclusions and exclusions. And it let my the child that followed that kind of instruction being more dependent, to this day, on her for truth. The “Mom told me” approach led to an inability to really figure out things on her own. My son, on the other hand, took more to my approach. He’s more of the skeptic and tester. And he’s made more mistakes. I’ll admit that. But he’s wiser FROM those mistakes and experiences and choices. The other approach may protect from more harm, but doesn’t lead to the same kind of wisdom as the “learn this list” approach. So, in the same sense that experience leads to wisdom and that is different from knowledge, a Catholic Scholar can be very knowledgeable, but hasn’t taken the same path as the Protestant one. The choice and diversity in the Protestant camp doesn’t mean we are less likely to make mistakes, but we end up better because of learning from our mistakes. So, if you can see the benefit of my approach and the fact that while he may sometimes get it wrong he doesn’t always have to call home for a decision over my wife’s approach where my daughter doesn’t trust her own abilities and lets Mom do it if possible, then you’ll understand a bit of what I was trying to express when it comes to the benefits of my approach. Hope that makes some sense.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Thanks for your response. I guess I see the disadvantage of your way as an over reliance on own ability to figure things out for ourselves (Rationalism + Americanism) which can easily lead to error.
It seems common in the Protestant world to quote isolated Bible verses – like you did with Isaiah 1:18 since it includes the word “reason”.
18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
But look at the next two verses to see what is meant by “reason”:
19 If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good of the land; 20 but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be eaten by the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.
What you call “freedom to disagree” is a euphemism for “refuse and rebel”. In the present age, “the mouth of the Lord” is his Church, led by his Holy Spirit. We’re called not to mindless conformity, but to willing obedience. This is true metanoia – a change of heart and mind – the freedom to disagree with our old self-centered way of believing and acting. To “trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding”.
Teaching your children to think for themselves in their worldly affairs is great, but I’m sure you also taught them to “honor your father and mother”. Cyprian wrote “You cannot have God for your Father unless you have the Church for your Mother” and John Calvin wrote “‘For what God has joined together, it is not lawful to put asunder,’ so that, for those to whom he is Father the church may also be Mother.”
Whatever your definition of “church”, I hope you’ll reconsider your definition of “freedom”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Upon rereading, I see that my comment was far from precise, I apologize for that. There are a lot of theological concepts packed in here.
There is a weakness in your Great Schism argument. The bishops cannot be in union with each other if they are not in union with the pope. Throughout early Christian history, being in communion with the pope was the sign of unity. So, bishops not in union with the pope are incapable of infallibility. This you do see in play in the real world. Since the Great Schism, the Eastern Orthodox have not had an Ecumenical Council. Since Communion with the pope was lost, so was the ability to teach infallibly. (Of course, they may be right that the Patriarch of Rome has fallen into heresy and needs to return to orthodoxy, but they still cannot teach infallibly.) So, to say that the disagreement of bishops who had withdrawn from communion with the rest of the bishops sets infallibility against infallibility is to misunderstand the process.
Yes, there are three levels of Catholic teachings that Catholics are “obliged” to accept. Your quote is about the third and lowest level: the religious submission (obsequium religiosum) due to non-infallible, non-definitive, yet authoritative teachings of the ordinary megisterium. First, we need to establish that obsequium religiosum does not preclude questioning. Donum Veritatis allows for the possibility of questioning of these teachings and gives guidance on the spirit in which this questioning is to be done.
I think that our culture may have difficulty with the concept of simultaneously questioning and assenting to a teaching (as I think Michael’s original post and the subsequent comments demonstrate) but not so in Catholicism. And that is at the heart of all of this. See my comment (#14) at Michael’s previous post. A truly good scholar is able to engage in study and inquiry while “suspending” any of his first principles, premises and presuppositions. A good scholar can “question while assenting.” In that way, the Catholic approach actually arms the scholar, does not disarm him.
Your parenting example sets up a false dichotomy. I doubt your parenting approach included absolutely no definitives. Likewise, the fact that Catholicism includes a “list” of definitives, no matter how long, does not mean that Catholicism does not also teach about how to come to good decisions, theologically or morally, for those things not definitively defined.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
In regard to this: “So it is almost like the Protestant side of the house has a deeper and more solid understanding of doctrines because they’ve actually had to study it and make a choice.”
I don’t think this assertion really stands. You have to remember that every Catholic teaching went through exactly the process you describe before it was definitively taught. But in the case of Catholicism, we are talking about thousands of minds sometimes over hundreds of years.
As to those of us contemporary Catholics who have received those teachings, there are other ways to establish depth than just hashing it out and establishing the conclusion yourself. Peter tells us to always be prepared to offer an answer and a reason. We cannot be prepared if we do not understand and we cannot understand if we do not examine.
Plus, we have all those non-Catholic Christians challenging our beliefs for us.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, (response to comment 22)
I don’t claim they necessarily have the same freedom to dissent or the same level of freedom. It seems your entire response is against that claim and its not one i’m making.
I claim that, if you use your criteria to decide of someone can be a scholar on a particular topic or not, then WLC can’t be a scholar on the existence of God or the resurrection. My claim is that both sides have limits, as you seem to imply yourself in your car analogy. Your only response has been to continuously point out how protestants can disagree on more and focus on the essentials, but this doesn’t really touch what I said about WLC. Sure he has freedom with regard to a lot of protestant non-essentials. How is that relevant to whether he can be a scholar with regard to the resurrection or the existence of God?
“Freedom to disagree only exists if there ARE things that are non-essential.”
There are things that catholics believe are non-essential. The roman catholic church doesn’t say you have to be a thomist or a molinist, for example. But this isn’t my main point, in any case. My main point is the one above.
Like or Dislike:
0
The Great Schism is a messy topic and I hesitated to even bring it up because the Catholic view of it is remarkably different than the Orthodox view of it. But the point is that if a bunch of Bishops get together and say the Bishop of Rome is wrong about something (like a power grab), they are not seen as being infallible because they are all agreed. They are seen as “out of communion” with the Bishop of Rome – which begs the question that he IS the successor to Peter. So it is an example of how dissent or criticism is handled. Agree or get out.
And I know my analogies are not universal equivalent examples. Like all analogies, they are not perfect. There’s just a difference between knowledge gained by memorization or acceptance by faith and the kind of depth of wisdom that is gained by some kind of experiential learning process. There are pros and cons to both, but we can’t pretend that the process and outcome are identical. And that is the kind of thing we are dealing with in this area.
I really liked Pope John Paul. Thought he was really wise. So it is not like I’m suggesting there is no wisdom in the Catholic Church. In that way, the analogy falls flat. So let me try to clarify that with another analogy. The prosecutor in a murder case, assigned by the District Attorney, can be sincere and honest and well versed in a case where he prosecuting what he believes to be and has been told is a murderer. But his approach is not going to be the same as the investigative reporter that has no loyalty to the police and no assumption that the grand jury reached a valid indictment. He’s objective and faces the case with no bias about guilt or innocence. He’s kinda like the jury in the fact that he can consider evidence from ANY source, not just the prosecution’s case in an open and objective manner. The guy starting with a list of assumptions isn’t going to go through the same objective examination of the evidence where each of those assumed elements must be examined and decided upon. In that same way, a Catholic CAN examine their beliefs. And they can have wisdom. But they are going to start with a foundation of assumptions that the protestant isn’t going to have. The protestant is going to have BUILD that foundation. And in that sense, his study is going to get deeper. And that is a benefit. And the fact that he is allowed to come to a different position than the one the assumptions lead to is a difference.
Like or Dislike:
0
@TDC, my continued reference to freedom to disagree is to try to keep things within the context of the topic at hand. And I agree that WLC can’t challenge the resurrection and remain a protestant. And that is because if he did, he wouldn’t be an example of a Protestant challenging belief, but one of a non-Christian doing so. So he doesn’t prove your point. He proves mine. And I appreciate you continuing to bringing him up to remind everyone that a protestant can have a controversial opinion that differs from his pastor and still remain a member in good standing. Not everything his church teaches is essential and he can disagree. The Catholic can’t say the same. The Catholic MUST submit his mind and will to the teaching of the Catholic Church. WLC doesn’t have that requirement. The issue is NOT that both have limits. The issue is that since the Protestant doesn’t have the “everything is essential” assumption, the Protestant has both limits and freedom. The Catholic only has the limits. And if you can’t see the difference there, I’m wasting my time. I know you want to limit this to WLC being a scholar in the resurrection, but MY example was his work as it relates to molinism and eternity. That is more of an area of scholarly study than him being known as a great debater on the topic of the resurrection. In the example of the resurrection, he’s an apologist. He’s not proposing a doctrine and defending that interpretation in the sense that a scholar would propose molinism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
What do yo mean he doesn’t prove my point? He proves that Protestants, by your own standards, have limits to what they can be true scholars about based on their “essentials”. That’s my only point with Craig, and it seems as if you agree with it, just as I agree with you on your point given the truth of your criteria for scholarship.
And just like catholics must submit to the teachings of the catholic church or cease to be orthodox catholics, craig must submit himself to the essentials or cease to be an orthodox christian. And your criteria of scholarship therefore precludes him from being a true scholar with respect to the essentials.
You say you’re trying to keep things in within the context of the topic at hand by constantly referring to the freedom to disagree. Remember though, I don’t necessarily disagree with you there. That’s why I ask why you keep bringing it up. It isn’t relevant to my point, and its not really a point of contention between us. So let me make it clear, I agree that, on your criteria, protestants have more freedom than catholics (though catholics do have some freedom on things like molinism and thomism).
I am well aware that Protestants have fewer essentials, fewer things they have to agree on, etc. I’m not trying to limit Criag’s scholarship to the resurrection as you said. I’m only trying to show you that your criteria means he cannot be a scholar “with respect to” the resurrection or the existence of God. Sure he can be a scholar in other areas outside his limits. So can catholics, even though they have more limits. You seem to imply that you agree that by your criteria he is an apologist, rather than a scholar, on the resurrection.
That’s the bullet your criteria forces you to bite. If you’re willing to bite it, thats fine. I wanted to see if you would, because I don’t think everyone would want to. But if you have no problem with it, then I commend you on your consistency.
Like or Dislike:
0
I say protestants have more freedom. You hear protestants have no limits and try to prove otherwise. Serious breakdown of communication. The reason your “no limits” interpretation doesn’t make sense is that if WLC denied the resurrection, he wouldn’t be Protestant *OR* Catholic – but something else. So it is a straw man all around. Whether he’s a scholar or apologist in the realm of the resurrection is really a red herring and doesn’t address the fact that he has a lot more scholarly freedom in areas he can explore and positions that he can take than anyone that has to submit their mind to the beliefs of another.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Yes, there is serious miscommunication.
I don’t think you’re saying protestants have no limits. I keep repeating that protestants have limits cause I have felt throughout this conversation that you have argued against me while ignoring the only claim i really care about. My point has been that if catholic scholarship is an oxymoron, then certain aspects of protestant scholarship falls under the same umbrella, though I realize not all.
You continuously responded by pointing out that protestants have more freedom, which I don’t deny given your criteria. I keep trying to tell you that I agree with you given your criteria, because it is not a point of contention between us. It’s a red herring.
What I am doing is showing you the logical conclusion of your criteria for scholarship using WLC as an example. IF the catholic limits and constraints make it impossible for them to be truly scholarly in the areas on which they have those constraints, then protestant limits and constraints make it impossible for them to be truly scholarly in the areas on which they have constraints.
Thus, the result of your criteria for scholarship is that Craig cannot be a true scholar in the areas of the existence of God or the resurrection.
The reason this is important is because most people DO see craig as a scholar in those areas. So most people would not be willing to accept the conclusion of your criteria, so would not be able to accept your criteria.
But if you’re willing to bite the bullet, that’s fine.
I need you to be clearer on why Craig ceasing to be a Christian if he challenges the resurrection affects the argument I have laid out. I don’t see the difficulty.
Like or Dislike:
0
OK. I’ll try. Christians believe certain things. Depending on who you ask, you may come up with slightly different lists of what those essentials are, but for the sake of the argument let’s go with the Nicene Creed. If you deny those things, you are not a Christian. If you affirm them, you are. So if WLC denied that Christ was God or denied that He rose again, he would not be an example of protestant freedom, but of a non-Christian skeptic. Same could be said of Beckwith. He would not fit in the characterization of Catholic Scholar. Where this impacts your argument is that WLC has both that list of essentials that his church teaches AND a long, long list of non-essentials. Beckwith does not. If his church teaches it, it is essential to believe it. As such, WLC has a freedom to explore lots of areas that Beckwith does not. So again, the fact that both have limits is irrelevant. It’s the fact that one only has limits on a small set of things that, by definition, would make him non-Christian to challenge. Since Protestant, by definition is Christian, he can challenge things as a Protestant. The only things he can’t challenge wouldn’t make him a Christian Protestant anyway. Beckwith though can’t challenge ANYTHING his church teaches. So Catholic is, by definition, aligned with unity and the antithesis of dissent. For WLC, the entire systematic theology taught at Johnson Ferry Baptist (or wherever) covers a wealth of information not articulated in the creed. He’s welcome to explore any of that which still defines him as Christian. But since Catholic requires unity with the catechism and traditions of the Church, Beckwith doesn’t have that same ability. WLC can challenge anything other than what makes him Christian. So you can have “Protestant Scholar”. Beckwith isn’t allowed to challenge anything Catholic OR Christian though. So you can’t have “Catholic Scholar” in the same way.
And, BTW, I know many would consider WLC a “scholar” with regards to the resurrection. In the sense that he’s a student of that and knowledgeable of the topic, the definition fits. But that isn’t in the same level of detail and distinction that we’re trying to make here of what makes someone a “scholar” versus just a student or apologist. As such, and with those distinctions in mind, I’d say that Catholics can have knowledge, wisdom, students, apologists, defenders, and what have you, but any kind of “scholarship” that would include challenge of a belief or fleshing it out some doctrine. That kind of behavior, in the Catholic world, is limited to the organization of the church. In the Protestant world, it is open to the organism that is the church. And if none of this makes sense, I apologize. I don’t think or express my thoughts as clearly as I once did. I don’t even understand what about this is so hard to understand.
Like or Dislike:
0
Folks,
You simply cannot compare the obligations to Evangelicalism in the same way as the obligations to Rome. One is an Evangelical organically. One is a Roman Catholic institutionally. The parallel simply does not work.
It would be better if you used denominational affiliation such as Baptist or Presbyterian. But, again, the parallel is not strong since association with these organizations does not amount to being in or out of the “one true church” with the land beyond the borders being anathema.
Frankly, the best parallel you are going to be able to find, with regard to the subject of this post, is Church of Christ (though they have lightened things up), Seventh Day Adventist (though they are not as ridged as Rome), Mormonism, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. While the latter two are the closest, I just want to reiterate, the comparison is simply with their authoritative (sometimes infallible) structure and the consequences of falling outside their borders.
As well, I would only say this concerning post Trent Catholics (possibly post VI). So Aquinas does not qualify!
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael,
Yes, I’ve engaged Roman Catholic dogma; you presume too much, methinks, in re. to your own development or something.
The issue I am highlighting is not tangential to your premise, but deals with the “principle” and theory of authority upon which you wrongly critique the Roman Catholic. My point has been, and is, is that your critique can be levied just as easily at the power-structures inherent to Protestantism as Roman Catholicism. Marc Cortez has written a post (which I’ve only seen the title of thus far, but that alone has great illustrative force) discussing whether or not a “Confessional Protestant” needs to check his brains at the door (I can only imagine his post is a parody of yours … although I don’t know since I still need to read it). But this is the point I’m driving at in re. to your point on RC’s and scholarship; it is a non-starter, and absurd to think that what you are saying does not apply to you or any other Protestant. Can Peter Enns be in good standing with the Westminster Confession of Faith and WTS? Obviously not. Can he still be considered an Evangelical? Yes, by some at least.
I would suggest that you attempt to think through your logic a bit more; as of now all you’ve done is dug in your heels (in lieu of the many attempts to correct your thinking on this in the blogosphere) into the sand of your own wrongly construed thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0
@Michael,
Here’s that post by Cortez if you haven’t read it yet: Check Your Brain At The Door
His point in the post is mine, at least in principle.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Ok, thanks for clarifying. I think I understand where you’re coming from. A protestant can challenge his churches teachings and can remain protestant, while a catholic can’t challenge official church teachings and remain catholic, right? Then, I think, you see the stuff that is required to be a christian (resurrection, god, etc.) as in a different category, so you think my comparing the catholic and his catholic limits to a protestant and his mere christianity essentials is like comparing apples and oranges. Correct me if I misunderstood.
I agree that beckwith has more limits to his scholarship given your criteria. But whether Craig’s limits are mere christian essentials or something broader, by your criteria he is limited and can’t practice that particular kind of scholarship that includes challenging that belief. I disagree that Beckwith can’t explore ANY non-essentials. What about molinism and thomism? As far as I know catholics are free to explore on that issue. I also don’t see why they can’t “flesh out” some doctrine as long as it stays in line with past church teaching. They both have their list of required beliefs, and the catholic one is longer.
So…if my point is that both have limits to their scholarship by your criteria, do you disagree? It seems like you would agree, as long as it is clear that catholics have many more limits, given your criteria for scholarship.
Honestly, if all you’re saying as that protestants can disagree with their church while catholics can’t, and all I’m saying is that both have their limits, do we really disagree?
Michael,
I’m glad you don’t include aquinas. It would be really strange to say he wasn’t a Christian scholar.
I’m not trying to say that catholics and protestants are the same. My concern is that the underlying criteria/presupposition that is driving your criticism of catholic scholarship will also end up hitting your own side if you’re consistent.
Bryan set out the challenge quite well. There needs to be a clear criteria that does not end up challenging your own side but is not just an ad hoc criteria designed to target catholicism.
But…maybe we just don’t see eye to eye on this issue.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’ll give an example. I was once arguing with a prochoice girl who said that as long as the unborn is inside the woman, it is not a separate person but just a part of the woman.
I asked her what location had to do with personhood.
So she backpedaled and said that it was because the unborn was connected to the mother.
I pointed out that so are twins.
Realizing that neither criteria worked, she said that it works when they are put together. When something is inside and connected to someone, it is only a part of that someone and not a separate person.
The problem is that was clearly an ad hoc attempt to save her faulty criteria. The criteria was designed solely for the purpose of excluding the unborn from personhood.
I think (though I could be wrong) that some catholics think you’re unfairly doing something similar to them.
Like or Dislike:
0
sorry, I meant some twins, not all twins are connected physically, obviously.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel (#32),
The Great Schism IS messy. But you have to remember, popes die, popes are forced out, popes are declared anti-popes (which means that they never really held the office and therefore never really had the authority) and popes are beholden to the magisterium just as much as any other Catholic. We’re talking a long game here, so an individual pope’s authority is very limited. The Great Schism was great in size, but only a minority of bishops broke communion with the Pope (even if a large minority). A pope facing the majority of bishops wouldn’t stand a chance, and history supports that, that’s how the Western Schism was settled and the Avignon Papacy was ended.
But to you central point, I think it is a fair one. The approach you describe does have the advantage of leading to a certain deeper grasp of the conclusions. But that approach comes at a couple of disadvantages as well.
First, there is the issue that this process requires the time to build the foundation. What of the walls, the towers, the roofs, the furnishing? Catholicism came to each of its infallibly defined beliefs after centuries of study by thousands of the best minds in the Church. The Catholic may stand on the shoulders of those giants standing on the shoulders of giants. Since he isn’t spending time re-inventing the wheel, he can invent the turbo-charger. And additionally, to continue to metaphor hop, the Catholic examining and wrestling with something not definitely taught by the Church must still understand what is definitively taught.
Second, there is the risk of pride of authorship. The conclusions that we come to ourselves do have a deeper hold upon us. But what about when they are wrong? They are also then all the harder to correct. And ultimately, isn’t the aim to discover and embrace Truth, not just come to scholastically defensible conclusions?
And finally and perhaps most importantly, it isn’t the process described in scripture. Scripture calls the Church the pillar and foundation of Truth, it says nothing about individual believers building the foundation of Truth. Scripture sets the precedence for how doctrinal dispute is settled, it is taken to the apostles and elders. The guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit is promised to the whole body of the Church, not to each individual member. The individual going through the process you describe does not benefit from gifts Jesus promised the body of the Church.
I see the advantages of the process you describe. But frankly, I think the disadvantages outweigh them.
Like or Dislike:
0
@wineinthewater: I too see the risks and disadvantages. So while I would agree that there are some benefits, I wouldn’t say my approach is universally better. That is kinda what I liked about the parenting example I gave. It’s two different processes that produce different results and which one is better probably depends on when you ask.
Thinking long-term though, the teachers that I learned the most from challenged how I thought more than just added to what I thought. And that is why I love CMP’s Theology Program so much. It tears down all the “whats” and makes sure you have a proper “why” built on a proper foundation of “how” to do theology. You end up with something a lot deeper, richer, and more firm in your mind that you can defend from the bottom up. It just a lot more solid to me that a foundation built on strength of belief or faith in the infallibility of what one man or one church teaches.
Like or Dislike:
0
@TDC: I agree that a Catholic could explore some topic outside of what the church teaches. But that is more of a case of them being both Catholic and Scholar than it is “Catholic Scholar” in the sense that they are coming up with some alternate understanding of anything that Catholicism teaches. But I see scholarship in areas outside of “Catholicism”, which would include all theology, is a different thing than scholarship within Catholicism.
That being said, I think there is an exception to the general rule that Michael proposed. And I suspect that he’d agree with me on this. Scholarship as it relates to alternative understandings or dissent on something is not possible as a lay person in the Catholic church, but I can see where what the magisterium does. In that sense, the individuals involved are doing scholarly theology. But, since they are speaking AS the church, it is more of a case of the CHURCH doing theology and expressing theology and clarifying theology than it is a MEMBER of the church in no official capacity being able to do that.
As far as limits go, I do agree that both have limits. But I’d say that Protestant or Baptist is not a limit. Christian would be. Catholic or JW or Mormon would be a limit thought. I’ve been in Baptist churches where belief that baptism had to be by immersion wasn’t even a requirement. I’ve even seen Baptists sprinkle folks. As such “Baptist” or “Protestant” doesn’t equate to a list of essentials. There are lots of different flavors of “Baptist”. But Catholic equates to essential in a much more rigid way. And that produces unity and uniformity. But it is totally different than what most protestant denomination members experience. Baptist, in a way, is like a stereotype of broad generalities and exceptions. Catholic isn’t like that. You are in agreement and in communion with the church or you are not.
Like or Dislike:
1
Daniel (#45),
I think the only problem I have with your parenting example is that it sets things forth as an either/or. I think that is one of the consistent differences between Catholicism and the progeny of Protestantism, Catholicism tends toward both/and and is less mutually exclusive about ideas. A parent can parent with a synthesis of the two approaches you describe, it doesn’t have to be one or the other.
And I don’t think Catholicism is one or the other (what or why) when it comes to those things definitively taught. Catholic teaching contains not just whats, but the whys and hows behind the whats. All of Catholic belief is so interconnected, that you cannot move past the “whats” of definitive teaching to the whats of the undefined realm *without* understanding the whys and hows behind the definitive teaching. In fact, you often cannot even understand the whats at all if you do not understand the whys and hows. I think this a big part of why non-Catholics often have such difficulty accurately understanding Catholic teachings: they usually don’t have the whys and hows that interconnect that Catholic teaching to myriad other Catholic teachings. Often, they insert their own whys and hows, at worst they have no whys and hows at all.
For example, it may not be obvious, but the Catholic (and historical Christian) belief about the perpetual virginity of Mary isn’t really about Mary at all, it’s about the Incarnation of Jesus. To call Mary theotokos tells us very little about Mary, but tells us a lot about Jesus. All Catholic teaching about Mary is actually an assertion about Jesus. To really understand what Catholicism teaches about Mary, you have to understand why she teaches about Mary in the first place, you have to have something deep, rich and firm.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I’m afraid you’ve lost me.
So…wait, a Catholic layperson using the bible and philosophy to analyze molinism and thomism doesn’t count as Catholic scholarship? Even though they are both theological topics, both stem from catholic theologians, are extremely related to settled catholic doctrine,and are being done by a catholic academic?
I don’t know what Michael would say about your proposed exception to the rule, but I’m curious how your criteria allows for that. Could you lay out, as succinctly as possible, preferably in a sentence or two, what you require for true scholarship?
If baptist and protestant have no theological limits, then they are theologically meaningless. Most of the time, though, people who call themselves protestants mean something by that: they reject roman catholicism, they believe in sola scriptura, usually sola fide, etc. It doesn’t really matter though. I don’t care whether protestants or baptists have limits as protestants/baptists or as Christians. As long as we agree they have limits to their scholarship by your criteria, which I think we do. And I agree that, by your criteria, protestants have more scholarly freedom.
Like or Dislike:
0
If molinism is outside of Catholic teaching, then I think a Catholic can study it all they want and determine if it is valid or not. But when one believes that theology comes through the church, than the church at some point has made comments on that topic that are binding. It kinda comes down to whether one is learning theology or *practicing* theology in a way that could lead to a private interpretation. Private interpretation is not really possible when your mind is in submission to the church. True submission requires that where you have reservations about something, you have to relinquish that and believe by faith that your church is right. Sola Scriptura is a huge part of this topic. Someone that studies something knowing that there are multiple interpretation available of a topic is going to go through a different process of study and investigation than one who has the “right” view pre-supplied. Is a scholar truly a “scholar” in every sense if they are not allowed a private interpretation or original position on something? I would think that would be a requirement for true scholarship. I’ve referenced it before in the context of adding to the body of knowledge on something. But I think “private interpretation” is a more theological term for the same thing.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Molinism and thomism are theological positions that flow from established soteriology. Those studying it are not bound to one or the other, so far as I understand, but at the same time the topics are not separate Catholicism. They are explorations, interpretations, etc. of established teaching.
I’ve gathered from your reply that the possibility of private interpretation and an original position are necessary for true scholarship, and that true submission by faith precludes that possibility. Is that a fair assessment?
Like or Dislike:
0
I think that is a fair assessment. Makes a nice summary. The key there is POSSIBILITY. When I think of the *evidences* of scholarship, it would include that concept of ability to come up with something new or add to existing knowledge of something. I think of it kinda like an expert witness in a court case. How much they have published, what they’ve authored, and whether or not they’ve participated in the peer-review process is evidence of their expertise. It’s like someone who teaches business or is a business student versus someone who, as a businessman, has created businesses. Is it theoretical or is it practical experience? That is what I was getting at with reference to learning theology versus practicing theology.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I made a point at Michael’s original post that no one has addressed and I think gets at your point directly. All of your conclusions have been based on a premise that has gone largely unchallenged and that I don’t think has been established: that Michael has actually offered a definition of a good scholar.
I don’t think he has. I think he has offered a definition for a mediocre scholar. As such, I think you have only shown that it is likely that Catholics cannot be the kind of mediocre scholar that Michael describes.
As I say there, a good scholar must be able to do more than doubt:
“At the most basic level, a good scholar must be able to recognize his first principles as first principles. But beyond that, a good scholar must have the ability to set aside any of his premises and presuppositions (whether they be first principles or not) while engaging his study. His inquiry must be able to allow that a premise is flawed, his inquiry must be able to proceed completely neglecting a premise without concern for whether the premise is correct or not. The ability to doubt your presuppositions is really a poor replacement for this ability. A good scholar must be able to set aside any of his premises, no matter how fervently or absolutely held, not just the ones he doubts.
There is no reason that a Roman Catholic cannot do this. It is a basic intellectual exercise. Of course, any scholar of faith runs a risk here, that they may come to a conclusion that forces them to jettison a premise that was an article of faith for them. For the Catholic, the stakes may just be a little higher. The loss of any infallibly defined belief is the loss of the infallible character of them all, and the loss of the belief that the Catholic Church is who and what she says she is.”
The point is though, that a Catholic can proceed with study without the assumption that he is going to end up where the Church ended up and without the assumption that what the Church has already defined is truth. It’s not about doubt and “freedom” to disagree, it’s all process, all intellectual exercise. A scholar who cannot set aside his most cherished premises for the duration of his inquiry is simply not a good scholar. A scholar who merely doubts his premises and presuppositions and allows that they might change is merely mediocre.
Like or Dislike:
0
So a Catholic Scholar can set aside the presupposition that the church is always right and he must believe what they say? OK. But if he does, is he truly a “Catholic” scholar doing independent study, or is he an independent NOT in submission to the church teaching at that point? I’d submit that as soon as they entertain the idea that the church is wrong, he’s out of submission to the church and not acting as a “Catholic Scholar”. If his conclusion is ALWAYS that the church is ALWAYS right, then it isn’t really submission of his mind and will the the church. It’s just agreement. Submission occurs when you believe otherwise but abandon your personal belief or personal interpretation or private interpretation for that of the church. Just like a leader isn’t a leader unless someone is following them, my wife isn’t submitting to me in all things if she’s following her own path that just happens to be the same one I’m on. We’re just two cars on the same road and she’s not really following me unless she’s taking all my shortcuts even when she’d rather take the main roads. If I’m not yielding to the will of another, I’m just coincidentally on the same path. And if I’m in total agreement with the church, I’m just learning what the church teaches and why. That is a student. Not really someone doing new research or going in new directions.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
I find it interesting that this has been a hard concept for people to grasp. Throughout my higher-ed academic career, this was seen as a basic skill. To set a premise aside is not to stop believing it, but merely to take your inquiry through its course without that premise. A chemist can run a chemical reaction experiment leaving out an element to see what happens, it does not mean that the element does not exist, just that he isn’t including it in the experiment. A good scholar can do the same kind of “thought experiment” leaving out one or more of his premises. This is because a good scholar recognizes his premises as *premises*.
The Catholic scholar is completely free to end up in a place contrary to where the Church ended up. Just as a Christian scholar is able to end up at a conclusion that precludes his Christianity. But at that point, he is going to have to make a decision. He can give up his conclusion, accept the teaching of the Church and cease to be a scholar in a meaningful sense. He can give up his “Catholic premise” and break Communion with the Church or live in that odd partial Communion limbo that some try to claim. Or, he can re-engage the process, submit his process and conclusions to peer review, review to make sure he actually properly understood the “Catholic premise,” consider other variables that might change the outcome .. because another feature of a good scholar is the understanding that he is fallible, and can be wrong about all kinds of things.
Your definition of scholar does not preclude Catholics. There is so much that the Catholic Church has not definitively taught, so many new things that must be related to existing teaching. Unless you define “new direction” and “new research” to *necessarily* include contradicting existing research, that definition of scholar does not exclude Catholics. But if that is your definition, then you have not defined a good scholar, you’ve defined a bad scholar. A good scholar does not assume that he is going to end up somewhere different than where his predecessors did any more than he assumes he is going to end up in the same place.
Also, your characterization of submission is such a dominance notion: that it is only submission if the party loses something, gives up something. It is so much more Hupeiko than Hupotasso. Your definition of obsequium religiosum would only allow people who intellectually disagree with the Church but give up their own opinion to be Catholic. What an odd ecclesiology, it certainly doesn’t match the Catholic notion of religious submission.
Like or Dislike:
0
But this isn’t a case of a chef setting aside salt to see how the biscuit recipe would turn out. Since unity and “must submit” is key to Catholic doctrine, it would be more akin to setting aside their Catholicism in order to study something without that presupposition. That is why it is a Scholar OR Catholic kind of situation instead of BOTH. If one sets aside the requirement that you have to believe what the church says, of course that results in ability to have a personal interpretation of something. But that doesn’t prove your case because it is based on an example that can’t really exist. You can’t set aside your Catholicism and yielding your mind and will to the church AND still be in good standing and in full communion with the church. The very fact that you are setting something aside shows that you are not submitting to it. So the chef that experiments with biscuits without salt isn’t making Catholic Biscuits if the only Catholic recipe that is allowed has salt in it. It’s like Paula Dean having a cookbook that doesn’t have butter in it. It’s an oxymoron. If they want to get into something the church has never taught on, say fractal math, that’s fine. But I’d say that they couldn’t even go into something like a promotion of molinism if the church has never talked about that topic as that would still be theology and theology has to come through the church in a top down manner and not contributed from the bottom up. When theology is through the church, that becomes your foundation. You can’t go off and do a Protestant type Scripture study and come up with a private interpretation of molinism because that process of developing any kind of theological position outside the teaching of the church is also not allowed.
But I think I’ve probably beat this horse enough. I’m going to let it rest. I think the posts I did quoting the catechism and Vatican really settle it. If your mind and will is subject to another, you can learn what to believe and why they believe it, but don’t really have the liberty to go elsewhere in your beliefs and study in any objective manner without breaking that submission to the church. That is official church doctrine. If the church officially taught your position, I’d think there would be quotes from the Vatican to show that and not all this other back and forth. So I’ll be monitoring and if that level of rebuttal of CMP’s assertion shows up indicating that a scholar is capable of independent practicing of theology and developing theology in a scholarly manner, I’ll respond. Otherwise, I’ll be back over on the several discussions on Theologica that I’m currently involved in.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel, (reply to comment 101)
Ok, I’m glad I’m not misrepresenting you. Let me summarize my position.
I agree that your position is consistent given your criteria for scholarship, your description of catholics, your presuppositions, etc.
However, I think there may be difficulties with a number of those presuppositions and criteria. I’m focusing on one, your criteria for scholarship. I think that your (and CMP’s) criteria leads to strange conclusions (Craig was my example, see previous comments), and so we have reason to doubt the validity of the criteria. You are willing to bite the bullet and accept those conclusions. Those who can’t accept the conclusions–e.g. that Craig cannot be a true scholar on the existence of God or the resurrection– cannot accept the criteria and remain consistent.
Like or Dislike:
0
Daniel,
Perhaps my choice of words (or allegories) is getting in the way. But when I say, “set aside a premise,” I do not mean that the scholar sets aside their Catholicism, or stops believing the premise. It simply means that the scholar proceeds through the process of inquiry ignoring/disregarding the premise, or as if the premise did not exist. It is to remove the premise “for the sake of argument.” I did it in my original comment to Michael: “Put aside for the moment whether or not the Catholic Church is actually who she claims to be.”
Like I said, this is a basic academic process. Your request for official teaching permitting it is like asking for official teaching permitting the use of the Dewey Decimal System, literature reviews, peer reviews or the scientific method. Referring to official teaching that Catholics are obliged to obsequium religiosum doesn’t really apply, because the scholar never ceases to believe what the Church teaches, but merely goes through an intellectual exercise.
Like or Dislike:
0
I always thought the obvious problem that nobody could possibly miss about praying to dead saints is exactly THAT.
We are forbidden to communicate with the dead!
The only person we know of who has ever been resurrected is Jesus Christ. Nobody else.
Jesus Christ is alive.
All of these ‘saints’ are still dead. Even Mary.
I was raised a roman catholic and forever voiced this exact line of thinking to my superiors and was always told that I didn’t know what I was talking about and to forget it.
I’m not a roman catholic now and stopped being one once I was old enough to read the bible for myself. There are countless errors in the roman religion and this was just the easiest one to notice from a young kid’s standpoint, or so I thought.
I never really thought of it as ‘worshipping saints’, just praying to the dead, which would seem, according to scripture, to be a much bigger problem.
Like or Dislike:
0
Faith is not underwear. You can’t just wake up and decide what you’re going to go with today. Five point calvinist one day, anyway the wind blows up my skirt the next… “A man who is double minded is unstable in all his ways…”
Like or Dislike:
0
You cannot be a good thinker as a Christian either, as the “freethinkers” claim, because your views are constrained by those advocated by Christ, or your honest interpretation of what the Bible states. If your being dishonest then by definition you cannot be a good thinker. A true intellectual will submit his will to those who he believes has “infallible authority”. That is completely logical, and I believe the Church has sufficient evidence for its claims to be the ONLY Church founded by Christ himself through the Apostles, and its claims to have divinely instituted authority in matters of theology and morality. Submission to the rightful authority leads to true freedom, because it leads to truth.
Aren’t you submitting to the authority of Christ and therefore limiting your freedom in thought?
“Catholic doctrine and discipline may be walls; but they are the walls of a playground” – Chesterton
Like or Dislike:
0
May Our Lord Jesus Free you from this distress, that you may be able to love everyone, sinners and saints. No one is fully sinless or no one is fully sinful not deserving God’s Grace. He has washed away your sins on the Calvary, why then do you want to commit more sins? May your actions sound good as you Love the Lord wholeheartedly. Amen.God bless you My Dear Friend.
More Comments: