Before you read this, I know: I’m a guest here, and that as a guest it’s best for me to honor my hosts’ platform and objectives. And in that, I don’t mean to be an ingrate or to offend advertisers who make this blog possible.
BUT…
Is anyone else bothered by the banner ad at the top of the page for that movie about the visions at Fatima and books by the current Pope?
If not, fellow contributors, are there any ads (apart from pr0n) which would cause you to wonder whether or not it’s right to partner here?
I’m curious …
October 28th, 2009 | 9:38 pm | #1
I am very fond of the current pope, his predecessor and probably many, many of those other gentlemen. No problem for me. And I’m more than happy to see ads about Fatima. Seems to me the old Sam Adams bit about not being a bigot and being more than capable of hearing a prayer from a man of piety and virtue with whom he disagrees.
October 28th, 2009 | 9:59 pm | #2
As for me, I was rather happy to be challenged right from the get-go by Beckwith. I’m not big on ECT or any other type of reunification. I consider this “evangel” section just that — an evangelical community within a Roman site. At this point I don’t see any compromise being here — as an evangelical. The Romans may do as they wish.
October 28th, 2009 | 10:10 pm | #3
Yes. Quite a bit actually. And if the purpose of this site is to be an “evangelical community within a Roman site”, that makes me a little queasy too. And just when I was about to have dinner, too. Great.
Thanks for asking, Frank.
October 28th, 2009 | 10:35 pm | #4
It amuses me to see an Evangelical section on here. I subscribe to First Things and appreciate the ecumenical contributions but there is no mistaking the Catholic emphasis. As for how one should feel about the ads on this site, I tend to ignore them so they don’t bother me, but I get your point. Would a contributor be in some sense contributing to the distribution of Catholic material by helping draw traffic to a site that advertises said material? Or might a contributor be said to condone such material? I would tend to not worry about that. The Evangel section really is more in the category of invited intruder. Most contributors (Hunter and a few others notwithstanding) would not be fond of such materials and I suspect visitors, and certainly regulars, would catch on to that.
October 28th, 2009 | 10:42 pm | #5
I subscribe through Google Reader, so I never have to come to this site. I get all of the great blog entries from the evangelicals and never have to see anything RC. Be salt brothers.
October 28th, 2009 | 10:50 pm | #6
Maybe it would help if you define what you think it means to “partner” here. I haven’t looked at it that way. It’s not like we are planning a church plant and trying to work out the details. How is this blog a “partnership”?
October 28th, 2009 | 11:10 pm | #7
Wow. Just wow.
And here I naively assumed that the evangelicals on this site were accepting Catholics as fellow Christians. “Contributing to the distribution of Catholic materials”–as if that’s possibly a sin? “Never have to see anything RC. Be salt, brothers”? Salt to fellow Christians–if they are fellow Christians? “Bothered” about ads for books by the current Pope–one of the most outstanding theological thinkers of the past century?
Well, well. And I was enjoying the new blog. But now I’m seriously wondering: Should I read this blog? Couldn’t it harm my Christian faith to read materials from (shudder) evangelicals?
Wow. Just wow. I really was not expecting to see this level of bigotry, this soon. Or at all, really.
October 28th, 2009 | 11:15 pm | #8
And while I’m on the subject, it’s not “Roman,” as in “a Roman site” or “the Romans may do as they wish.”
The word is “Catholic.”
October 28th, 2009 | 11:34 pm | #9
Craig,
Not sure why Roman Catholic will not work. I.e. Just search the Papal Encyclicals.
October 28th, 2009 | 11:50 pm | #10
Craig,
I believe I have Catholic brothers and sisters in the faith. I believe that Catholic brothers and sisters are probably the exception within the Catholic church. I have major problems with Catholic teaching and problems with the very office of the Pope. I respect much of what Benedict XVI has said and done, but there is also much I disagree with. On the whole I disagree with Catholic teaching and I would not want to promote Catholic material, I would want to promote good, solid, truthful, biblical material, a string of adjectives that do not apply to much of the teaching of the Catholic church. Why should this surprise anyone? I’m a Protestant. This should be no more surprising than back when Benedict said that the Catholic church is the true church and all others are outside the true church.
October 29th, 2009 | 12:02 am | #11
Faithful Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ (though Christians whom I have disagreements). In this age, what we have in common is usually more important than what we do not have in common.
It is an honor to be here on this ecumenical site with fellow culture warriors. . . and I would feel lucky to ever do or say much of anything as well as the present Bishop of Rome!
October 29th, 2009 | 12:13 am | #12
John Mark,
What do you mean by “Faithful Roman Catholics”?
It seems to me that (doctrinally) those who are most faithful to the teachings of Rome are those whom we should be concerned about within the Roman Catholic church.
For the record, I agree with Frank in having a problem with the ads, though I don’t think it’s significant enough for me to cease participation. I was going to say more, but Chris Robert’s comment (#10) said everything else I was thinking.
October 29th, 2009 | 12:23 am | #13
Roger: I mean those members of the Roman Catholic Church who have a living and vibrant relationship with Christ (as opposed to nominal Catholics).
We all know members of all Christian groups who are nominal. I do not mean to paper over my real disagreements with some important Catholic teachings.
October 29th, 2009 | 12:56 am | #14
We will soon have advertising from evangelical publishers on the site (as we do in the magazine) so I suspect we’ll hear the same types of questions from our Catholic readers.
(By the way, if you don’t like the ads, the easiest way to change it is to encourage other organizations to advertise on here.)
Also, why not review the work that you disagree with and explain why it is in error? After all, “ecumenical” does not mean we set aside our disagreements. It means we set aside our pride and habits of setting up “holy huddles” and engage in dialogue those with whom we share much in common.
The minimum, I believe, that is necessary for ecumenical engagement on this site is to be able to say, as did the magazine’s founder Richard John Neuhaus, “Jesus Christ is Lord. That is the first and final assertion Christians make about all of reality, including politics. Believers now assert by faith what one day will be manifest to the sight of all: every earthly sovereignty is subordinate to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ.”
October 29th, 2009 | 6:45 am | #15
I had no idea that the disagreement == bigotry formula would also show up here. It’s common in discussions of homosexual issues, but usually not theology.
I find no other starting point for faith other than being born again — a personal faith and repentance response to God, through Christ alone. It is not through the church as manager of grace. Eccumenical appeals would dillute that core of reformation and anabaptist theology.
October 29th, 2009 | 6:53 am | #16
Joe –
That’s a very constructive approach, and I thank you for inviting me here in spite of myself; I think this is an extraordinary opportunity to provide people who have a certain kind of theology (on both sites of the theological divide) an opportunity to mix it up in a civil and intelligent way. And I also thank you for receiving the question in the way it was asked.
I have a handful of reasons for asking the question, and none of them, I think, resemble “bigotry”, but let me be honest that one of my reasons is that I want to bait those who will make that charge to make it as often as possible to expose the poverty of their position and of their alleged “ecumenism”.
The massive blind spot for those making this charge is demonstrated in at least 3 ways. The first is this: the journey from Roman Catholic orthodoxy to any Evangelical orthodoxy is rightly called “conversion” — that this, these are philosophies or theologies which stand in opposition to each other foundationally and intentionally, and to move from one to the other is not a minor thing or a concession of superficial changes in systematic theology. The modern Catholic Catechism, in spite of its Lumen Gentium language, is a monument to this as it calls those baptized but not in alignment to the Pope people without a church, people akin to Jews and Muslims (but in a good way, which is of course the objective of Lumen Gentium). To call recognizing this “bigotry” is simply mindless — it’s like calling someone who plays baseball but not hockey a “bigot” for complaining that someone else wants to bring a hockey stick onto the field of play.
The second reason is this: if there can be any real ecumenism between Protestants and Catholics in real life, and not just on paper — that is, if I can treat my Catholic neighbor as a neighbor who is dreadfully wrong about something and not as an enemy or a threat to the social order — especially in the field of co-belligerence in terms of political matters, there are boundaries to the degree to which we can cooperate. To ignore that is to simply relinquish my own views — to give them up as utterly unimportant.
I was re-reading Norman Geisler’s recent book Is Rome the True Church? (Crossway) last night, and he makes the point that Rome is a church in the Nicean sense — that is, if the basis for orthodoxy is affirmation of the three ecumenical creeds, then we can’t really deny that Rome is one true church among many true churches. But even Geisler (after berating Calvinists) admits that saying this is not hardly nuanced enough — because while any Catholic can and does recite a creed every time he goes to Mass, we have to ask whether there are diverse practices encouraged and required by Catholicism and the Mass which militate against that confession.
Is Geisler a bigot for saying what the whole of Reformation theology said? Or does he simply depart from Roman theology and practice, and say so for the sake of maintaining his own personal integrity?
And I say that to underscore the Neuhaus quote you provided above, Joe: that’s not hardly the definition of essential Christianity even if it’s a massive part of it — and the parts that are missing nuance this statement to the place where there are bound to be significant and unresolvable differences. In that, we may have common social ends. However, I think we are going to find that we are at odds about the right means by which to achieve those social ends.
If we do find ourselves at odds over those things (and I think we have already), calling the other side “bigots” is exactly the wrong thing to do — especially as a response to criticism. It’s what Obama’s henchmen do, for pete’s sake, and if that’s the most compelling response to criticism we have, we’re just sort of self-congratulatory and self-ignorant about our level of actual intellectual engagement and real cooperation.
Third: one has to imagine a lot of things are true to get where the “bigot” charge can stand up by itself — like the imaginary claim that somehow all Catholics are going to hell and all “evangelicals” aren’t. It’s such an entry-level truth of the Christian faith that some who say, “Lord! Lord!” will be rejected by Christ on the final day that I have to wonder why pointing that out is the basis for being the object of scorn.
I have called a lot of things “idolatry” in the 10 days we’ve been blogging here, and nobody got their nose out of joint to call it “bigotry” when I said, for example, that asking the state to do what the church or the individual Christian to do (or to do what only God can do) is idolatry. Isn’t the consequences of that statement obvious — that those who worship the state and not Christ (or the state as well as Christ) are not saved? So why is that less offensive than to say, for example, that I still hold a grudge about what happened at Trent?
There is a list as long as my arm of things which confessional people do which may lead them to hell — and I am sure that if you read any of my blogging, you could start to make a list for yourself. What I would caution those who will call me a “bigot” to do is to think about the seriousness of any of those errors, and consider for yourself if you’d like to be associated with any of them — I personally do not.
So when I say I am “bothered” by ads for a movie which obviously promotes the acceptance of whatever it is that happened or is suspected to have happened or is believed by declaration and faith to have happened at Fatima, I’m fairly confident that no one would blink an eye if I said, “I’m bothered to see ads for Benny Hinn’s new book,” or some other such thing. No one would call that bigotry — although I am 100% confident someone will call the comparison another example of “bigotry”. The problem, of course, is in which eye the log is resting.
So what to do about it? I have friends who have told me they would never post here — they’d decline your invitation, Joe. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why. This is a massive opportunity to put the broad Reformed tradition and the broad Baptist tradition (insofar as I am a legitimate son of either or both) into the mix of serious cultural discussion in a vigorous and serious way by making it clear what it really is and not stripping it down to some mere ghost which anyone can dispel with the wave of hand like a little bit of cigarette smoke.
It does unimaginable harm to actual faith in Christ to present the Christian faith as something which is “merely” about one or two aspects of the massive Truth advocated by all of Scripture — something small enough not to offend but big enough to hang almost any kind of ornamentation imaginable upon it. So as this discussion unfolds, Joe, I am sure it will bother some of our readers. It is my intent to bother them. They should be bothered that someone like me is here to upset the apple cart of a safe and soft “ecumenism”.
What they should expect is that, like Paul, people who are Christians are turning the whole world upside down. Christians cause trouble, especially when it comes to all the forms of idolatry.
That’s the kind of trouble-maker I am, not a bigot. And I’d thank my detractors to at least get that much right.
October 29th, 2009 | 6:59 am | #17
I also have some stuff to say about Joe’s definition of “ecumenical” and JMR’s statements about accepting some Catholics as Christians, but my early morning is over and I have to get to work. I’ll try to stop by this afternoon and pick up the pieces.
October 29th, 2009 | 8:12 am | #18
Frank said
So what to do about it? I have friends who have told me they would never post here — they’d decline your invitation, Joe. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why.
Your friends are fools.
When Paul spoke at Mars Hill, did he demand that the statutes to other God’s be taken down? Did he forebear to share the truth because the greek philosphers he shared a podium with offended his sensibilities?
blech. To have the opportunity to share the gospel and not take it is the greatest foolishness of all.
October 29th, 2009 | 8:20 am | #19
I myself am unequivocally a Reformed Christian and, as such, I have basic disagreements with Roman Catholics, but also with Lutherans and Baptists, while not wishing to monopolize the label Christian for the Reformed alone. As one of the bloggers here, I have definitely had the sense of being on the “away team” at First Things‘ home court. (I rarely use sport-related metaphors in any context, so this is a bit of a stretch for me!)
That said, I was quite taken by an article in the December 2007 issue of FT by Avery Cardinal Dulles, Saving Ecumenism from Itself. There he argued against a “least common denominator” approach, which has so often characterized past ecumenical efforts. Dulles argued instead for an “exchange of gifts” approach in which each party to the dialogue, instead of searching for areas of minimal agreement, offers its own distinctives, along with the reasons for holding to them. He foresaw a process of mutual enrichment.
Speaking from the Roman Catholic side, Dulles had this to say:
Might the Evangel blog be one way of contributing to the dialogue that the late Cardinal Dulles envisioned? Rather than thinking of ourselves as token evangelicals at a Roman site, might we perhaps see ourselves as contributors to this process of mutual enrichment?
October 29th, 2009 | 8:22 am | #20
John Mark, would you clarify what you mean by “faithful Roman Catholics?” To be faithful as such seems to mean holding faithfully to their church’s own teaching.
In line with what Roger said, many have said that Roman Catholics who are saved are so in spite of their church’s official teaching. Do you agree?
Al Mohler’s words offer more clarity on the same topic.
Do you agree with Dr. Mohler?
Thanks.
October 29th, 2009 | 9:07 am | #21
I’m with John Mark Reynolds on this one. And I think he’s made it clear what he means by “faithful Roman Catholic.”
October 29th, 2009 | 9:26 am | #22
Always glad to jump in a discussion, even when my contribution is “simply mindless.”
Shall we go back to the original question, since many of the (very lo-o-o-ong) responses to my objection miss the point? The original question, boiled down, has nothing to do with papal encyclicals or Reformed theology or most of the other topics brought up. The original question: If a website contains advertisements for Catholic materials, should an evangelical Christian (such as myself, I might add, although I am also in the process of entering the Catholic Church**) post on a blog on that website?
A negative answer to that question would be at least implicitly, and in some cases explicitly, stating, “Yes, it would be wrong, because these materials are spiritually harmful.” In fact, this answer is not required; the question itself implies the answer.
This is the position to which I was objecting–I was not objecting to histories of Catholic/Protestant relations since the Reformation. I was simply surprised that someone familiar with First Things, its editors, its history, and so on, would even find the question necessary.
(**Also known as “The Romans.”)
October 29th, 2009 | 10:06 am | #23
I am saddened when I read many of the comments above. Have you not read, “… know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. ” (James 4:4)
We can be loving toward those in false religions as human beings, and we should. But it is not true love toward them to hide from them that their path is the path that leads to hell not just for nominal members of that religion but for devout, zealous, and sincere members as well.
To answer Mr. Turk’s question, the advertisements are simply a byproduct of the venue. If this is a missions effort to evangelize lost Roman Catholics who are devoutly following the false gospel of Rome, it is simply something that you must deal with. You would put up with the baseball cards on a Las Vegas street if you were there, deal with these here.
If, on the other hand, you are here to extend an ecumenical hand, I hope that those advertisements awake within you your conscience – just as I hope the baseball cards would your conscience in Sin City.
Our gospel and theirs are as opposed as virtue is vice: true love demands that we be clear about this.
-TurretinFan
October 29th, 2009 | 10:53 am | #24
Craig — as the resident bigot, I’d call it even.
Here’s what I asked the first time:
You know: because if there were ads at the top of the page for Playboy or some other unsavory purveyor of goods, I think we would agree that it would be somewhat incongruous to have either Evangelicals or Catholics. But is pornography the only thing which would cause any of us to just say “no”?
How about a Mormon site? How about a Marxist site? How about a book about the end times which says Israel must be destroyed (far-fetched, I know: but you get the idea)?
In some sense, the blogging we are doing here is promoting a movie which allows people to believe what they believe about the events at Fatima — not indirectly, but directly.
Given that you don’t have any objections to Catholicism per se, Craig, how about the idea that on 13 May 1917 the Virgin mary appeared to some children, and did so repeatedly over the next 6 months, divulging to them eschatological truth and prohecies, and a game plan for the world to worship the Immaculate heart of Mary? I’m not sure that ever all Catholics would agree that this sort of thing is entirely wholesome, spiritually.
That’s all I’m asking, and if that is offensive, I guess someone will have to redefine how dialog works so I can do that.
October 29th, 2009 | 11:07 am | #25
The tension here is inevitable I think. For exactly the reasons you post here Frank.
This a mission field. Ecumenical dialogue (by the most common definitions of ecumenism) always must be for Evangelicals (I’d say Christians but you know the problem’s that might cause…)
As Turretinfan has noted “Our gospel and theirs are as opposed as virtue is vice: true love demands that we be clear about this.”
That doesn’t preclude good hearted dialogue, but it does point out the obvious, that the two contrary faiths will collide.
They must, if only for the sake of the unbelieving.
October 29th, 2009 | 11:54 am | #26
Roger didn’t mind my endorsing his new book. Apparently, Catholics are good for something. I’m sorry, I should say, “Romans.” Collin, thank you for not saying “Papist,” “Popery,” “Romanist,” “Jesuitical,” “Cookie-worshiping,” “Mary-praying,” or “Mackeral-snapper.”
And Frank, you are a guest, just as I am at Baylor University. Toward the end of my recent Journey Home interview, I share with the audience my approach to being a Catholic at a Baptist institution: http://gallery.me.com/francis.beckwith#100008 Perhaps others can glean something from my comments.
Having been on both sides of the Tiber, I am so appreciative of the many Evangelicals with whom I continue to be friends as well as those from which I learned (and continue to learn) so much. I am also aware that we walk in a field of piety littered with land mines put there over centuries by our predecessors, both Catholic and Protestant. Believe me, I’ve stepped into far too many of them since returning to Catholicism.
October 29th, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #27
A measure of cordiality and learning (in various ways) from each other is certainly valuable. At the same time, we must recognize that Unum Sanctum states: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” Yet Scripture gives universal jurisdiction to Christ alone: “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15) and the Psalmist declares: “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:6) which the Apostle tells us plainly refers to Christ: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:22).
I realize that making this an either/or choice between pope and Christ is not appealing but it is truly written: No man can serve two masters.
October 29th, 2009 | 12:40 pm | #28
Dr. Beckwith –
I’ll take a listen to that link tonight if possible.
What’s your take on the whole Fatima/Virgin Mary thing? Do you think that represents the best and most credible part of the Catholic faith?
October 29th, 2009 | 12:43 pm | #29
And I think that some of the comments in this thread so far haven’t been as charitable as they could be.
But at least nobody has called anyone “Turkey” or “Jerky” yet. I’m always impressed when that gets tossed into the exchange …
October 29th, 2009 | 12:52 pm | #30
I’d like to see an ad here for turkey jerky.
October 29th, 2009 | 1:24 pm | #31
Dr. Beckwith:
I’m not RC, but I wanted to thank you for your work, Return to Rome, which I just read last week. My wife was raised part RC, part SBC, so I’ve taken interest in learning more about RC.
Frank Turk:
Big fan of your writing and subscriber of your blog as well as Team Pyro. RC ads don’t bother me a bit.
Anyone willing to help:
I’m currently writing a paper comparing and contrasting Protestantism’s view of imputation of righteousness with Roman Catholicism’s view of infusion of righteousness. Anyone wanna help a brother out with regard to resources??? Suggestions???
October 29th, 2009 | 1:38 pm | #32
“Craig–as the resident bigot, I’d call it even.”
Dear Frank Turk,
I’ve been on the receiving end of the label as well, so I know the sting you might be feeling. You are probably also thinking, “This is not really fair” and perhaps “This person is not taking the time to understand what I was really asking.” You are probably also struggling, perhaps a bit, with the whole charity/walk in love/follow Jesus’ commands issue all Christians deal with, and thinking to yourself, “Okay, I’m going to forgive and walk in love, no matter what.”
Since this is the struggle we all have, I’m in sympathy and willing to agree with you: Even.
Regards in Christ, Craig
October 29th, 2009 | 1:39 pm | #33
I prefer to think that the evangelicals have been p’wnd, bringing brought to a heavily Catholic site.
October 29th, 2009 | 1:47 pm | #34
Deek, you’re very kind. Thank you.
Let me recommend three sources:
1. The Catholic Catechism section on grace and justification: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm
2. Taylor Marshall, The Catholic Perspective on Paul. http://tinyurl.com/yfwd8m9
3. Robert C. Koons, “A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism.” http://tinyurl.com/yh2hucl
One more thing, the question about Baylor is found at the 45:00 mark on the video, which you can find here: http://gallery.me.com/francis.beckwith#100008
As for Unam Sanctam, I recommend Mark Shea’s carefully crafted piece: http://tinyurl.com/yjf7y7z
October 29th, 2009 | 2:07 pm | #35
I am sure that all our base are belong to Rome.
October 29th, 2009 | 2:10 pm | #36
As a “convert” to Roman Catholicism from an evangelical background, I was happy to see an evangelical blog on this website. In my discussions both with Catholics and evangelicals, I’ve found that there is a lot of misunderstanding, on both sides. I would love to see more posts on the divide–what do we have in common? What are points of disagreement, and the reasons we have for disagreeing? If you take issue with the recent encyclical, say why, and present an alternative view.
Also, while you are exposing your readers to what you might see as “dangerous” content in the ads, First Things is also exposing its Catholic readers to what many Catholics might see as the “dangerous” content of this blog. I hope, instead of being antagonistic to one another, we can disagree without being disrespectful, and be respectful without glossing over our differences and having a huggy we’re-all-Christians-isn’t-that-nice party.
October 29th, 2009 | 3:23 pm | #37
@ Dr. Beckwith:
“Roger didn’t mind my endorsing his new book. Apparently, Catholics are good for something.”
I didn’t consider religious affiliation to be a deciding factor for whether or not I wanted an individual to endorse the book. If you had asked me to endorse your forthcoming book on politics, I would have no problem with that. If you write a book arguing for papal authority, I would not endorse it. It’s not about whether “Catholics are good for something” as you put it, but whether the specific issues at hand are common ground for us or not.
Would you be entirely comfortable contributing to a blog that ran ads against the Pope?
October 29th, 2009 | 3:36 pm | #38
You get invited to blog at the website of one of America’s leading Roman Catholic journals.
You accept the invitation.
You take exception to the presence of Catholic banner ads.
Surely I can’t be the only one scratching my head and thinking, Well, um, duh?
October 29th, 2009 | 3:53 pm | #39
Dave –
I suggest you review the way I asked my questions, and the questions themselves. I didn’t “take exception”.
I asked if anyone was “bothered” by the ads, and if not then what kinds of ads would bother them. It’s odd how that second question is sort of lost here, and how it contexts the first.
I get it: I’m a guest, and the ads make this place possible. I am all for that as selling ads is not a crime. But among the readers here even: Fatima?
It’s not like this is a movie about what a devil Luther was: it’s Fatima. What do y’all think about having an ad on this site which is about Fatima?
What if this was my favorite blog in the universe (Pyromaniacs) and there were banner ads there rockin’ the release of a movie about the Azusa Street revival?
October 29th, 2009 | 4:17 pm | #40
Dave You get invited to blog at the website of one of America’s leading Roman Catholic journals.
Although the magazine is almost entirely to blame for the misperception, First Things is not a “Roman Catholic journal.” I know a lot of people think that is the case, but we’re trying very hard to clear up the confusion on that point.
October 29th, 2009 | 4:21 pm | #41
I think most Roman Catholics would accept Fatima as “legit.” Consider then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments: http://miniurl.org/FZj
October 29th, 2009 | 4:58 pm | #42
Roger asks: “Would you be entirely comfortable contributing to a blog that ran ads against the Pope?”
I would have to know the Pope, the blog, and the ad. I have no idea how to answer your question in the abstract.
In the present case, the question is whether an ad for something about the Miracle at Fatima should be posted on an Evangelical Blog. I suppose that is up to the owner of the blog. If the participants are “uncomfortable,” then they should quit and create their own blog in which they can freely subject Fatima to endless ridicule and derision.
First Things, as I understand it, is a magazine dedicated to the better understanding of religion in public life. It allows you and others to voice your opinion on one of its blogs, just as the public square allows you to share your faith with others. But just as the public square will not sequester theological views with which you disagree, I suspect that FT has no obligation to comply with your request.
As for the book endorsement, I would do it all over again, since it is a nice collection of essays. But what I find particularly disturbing is this comment: “It seems to me that (doctrinally) those who are most faithful to the teachings of Rome are those whom we should be concerned about within the Roman Catholic church.”
So, are you suggesting that the person that believes the Nicene Creed, lives the theological virtues, and participates in the full sacramental life of the Church is in danger of Hell? Do you really believe that? If so, then you realize that the residents of hell include St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa Avila, St. Joan of Arc, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, and Avery Cardinal Dulles. If that’s Hell, I’m not sure I want to go to Heaven.
October 29th, 2009 | 5:13 pm | #43
Here come the “both sides of the tiber” analogies…this will be a long comment section.
October 29th, 2009 | 5:41 pm | #44
“Although the magazine is almost entirely to blame for the misperception, First Things is not a ‘Roman Catholic journal.’ ”
Dear Joe Carter:
I recognize that this is the case, but I have had an argument with myself for several years about whether this is a “de jure / de facto” distinction.
Some of the evangelical commenters in this blog post have referred to themselves as “visitors” and “invited guests.” Maybe this isn’t the place to open up this discussion, but I wonder how many of the Jewish and Orthodox writers for First Things feel the same way?
I know the editors do not think of First Things as a Catholic journal, while many among its readers (myself included) do. However, at this point, in what reasonable way (without transforming the journal) could this perception be changed without alienating subscribers?
October 29th, 2009 | 5:44 pm | #45
“I would have to know the Pope, the blog, and the ad. I have no idea how to answer your question in the abstract.”
Francis,
With respect, having once claimed to be an evangelical, and, no doubt, understanding the reasons evangelicals have for rejecting the Pope as the head of anything, it would further your cause, I think, to at least give an honest answer.
As you are aware, problems with the Pope don’t relate to who the guy happens to be, but the office of the Pope itself.
October 29th, 2009 | 6:13 pm | #46
FB wrote: “So, are you suggesting that the person that believes the Nicene Creed, lives the theological virtues, and participates in the full sacramental life of the Church is in danger of Hell?”
Yes, of course. The path of salvation is through faith in Christ not assent to doctrine, moral living, or sacramental participation.
Moreover, Roman Catholic doctrine itself would teach that such people are in danger of Hell, since in Roman Catholic theology such acts would provide one only with assurance of present justification and not with assurance of eternal life.
Indeed, Trent declares plainly:
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
But, no. That doesn’t mean that everyone on that list is in hell. That basket you provided includes folks like Chrysostom and Augustine were part of a fundamentally different religion from folks like Newman and Dulles. The former were catholic bishops, the latter Roman Catholic cardinals.
October 29th, 2009 | 7:26 pm | #47
Dear TurretinFan:
I think your separation of faith and life, with regards to salvation, is truly an essential separation between Catholics and Protestants.
Your post would provoke many comments and questions, but I’ll content myself with one of each: Can one live a reasonably long life without loving or charitable actions, and still make it to heaven because of one’s faith? Can faith and life truly be thus separated?
And the comment: I’ve read several times now your quote from Canon XVI of Trent, and cannot at all see anything in it with which a humble and devout Christian would disagree. Can any believer say with absolute certainty that he or she knows himself or herself well enough to know there is no danger of ever falling away, apart from God’s gracious gift of perseverance?
But I snuck in another question there. Sorry!
October 29th, 2009 | 7:57 pm | #48
Separating faith and life with regard to salvation is what the Apostle commends when he writes “Not of works, lest any man should boast,” (Ephesians 2:9) but trying to separate them with regard to practice is what James condemns when he writes “faith without works is dead … .” (James 2:26) We must maintain the truth of both Paul and James.
A person who lives like the devil shows that his heart does not have a true and lively faith but rather a dead faith. Fruits show the heart. (Luke 6:44-45) So to answer your question, truth faith demonstrates itself by works and is thus inseparable in the life of the believer, but yet it is not those works that save a man but grace alone through faith in Christ.
You may wish to re-read Canon XVI: its focus is not on the need for the gift of perseverance (though it certainly mentions that) but on the impossibility of assurance of eternal life, prior to death. There is an exception for folks who get a special revelation from God that they are among those to whom God has granted perseverance.
This position is at odds with Scripture, such as the teaching of the beloved disciple, who explained: “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13)
You will recall in his gospel his more full explanation of eternal life:
John 10:28-29
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
October 29th, 2009 | 7:59 pm | #49
Francis,
I use the term “Romans” because we all know the term “Catholic” means “general” and to use it narrowly, of a particular ecclesiastical body, seems a contradiction.
October 29th, 2009 | 8:29 pm | #50
“A person who lives like the devil shows that his heart does not have a true and lively faith but rather a dead faith. Fruits show the heart.”
How many fruits does one need in order to reveal a true and lively faith? Is “fruits” just a word used to avoid the word “works”? And I would repeat my question: Does one need to live a life of love and charity in order to make it to Heaven?
You actually don’t have to answer these questions. I am pretty sure this particular blog is veering way off from its inception (and yes, I take partial blame). The argument seems now destined to travel down a well-worn road. At least Catholics and Protestants can agree that we are not saved by works, even as we disagree that we are saved by faith alone.
October 29th, 2009 | 8:34 pm | #51
Okay, I’m sorry, just one more comment. (I realize I’m treating this blog like a sore I can’t stop picking at.) (To use a somewhat disgusting image.)
“Separating faith and life with regard to salvation is what the Apostle commends . . .”
I would really recommend that anyone on this blog who agrees with this assessment of the Apostle Paul’s position to think about, think about, really think about this for a long, long time.
October 29th, 2009 | 8:47 pm | #52
“How many fruits does one need in order to reveal a true and lively faith?”
That line isn’t easy or necessary to draw.
“Is “fruits” just a word used to avoid the word “works”?”
No. It’s a word used (by Christ himself) to emphasize the causal nature of the relation between the heart and works.
“And I would repeat my question: Does one need to live a life of love and charity in order to make it to Heaven?”
a) Love and charity are synonyms.
b) If “need … in order” is supposed to indicate a relationship of cause and effect (as though our eternal state were dependent on our merit), then the answer is “no,” but if the “need … in order” is simply intended to convey that a heaven bound person will consequently act like his new citizenship then the answer is a resounding “yes.”
“I would really recommend that anyone on this blog who agrees with this assessment of the Apostle Paul’s position to think about, think about, really think about this for a long, long time.”
Contrariwise, I’d recommend those who disagree to pick up their Bibles and read Ephesians 2 and note that Paul does divide between grace and works and between faith and works.
October 29th, 2009 | 9:00 pm | #53
OK — so the questions I asked originally are going to be pretty much ignored?
That’s a shame.
October 29th, 2009 | 9:58 pm | #54
Craig,
Some of the evangelical commenters in this blog post have referred to themselves as “visitors” and “invited guests.”
I might be wrong but I just assumed that they meant they were invited to participate on this blog. By “visitors” I thought they meant “non-staffer” not “non-Catholics.” (Of course that could be what they mean and I’m mistaken.)
I wonder how many of the Jewish and Orthodox writers for First Things feel the same way?
Actually, two of our contributors (John Mark and Mark Olson) are Eastern Orthodox—and evangelical.
However, at this point, in what reasonable way (without transforming the journal) could this perception be changed without alienating subscribers?
That’s an interesting question and one I think FT’s staff needs to ask readers directly in order to find out how to answer it.
I’ve always been surprised that people think its a Catholic journal (as opposed to Catholic-friendly). I admit that I don’t read a lot of Catholic publications but I can’t imagine that they run many articles by evangelicals, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, and mainstream Protestants.
Of course when FT writes about theology it’s almost always from a Catholic perspective. That, I think, skews the perception. For example, even though Alan Jacobs (an evangelical) writes an article in every issue, its almost always on non-theological topics so it may go unnoticed that he’s not Catholic.
Also, the over-shadowing presence of Fr. Neuhaus—not only was he the founder but he wrote over 20,000 words for every issue—shaped the perception so much that it will be hard to shake. But I think over time it is necessary to change it so that we can better fulfill the mission of the magazine and expand the readership.
October 29th, 2009 | 11:03 pm | #55
Frank “OK — so the questions I asked originally are going to be pretty much ignored?
That’s a shame.”
Yes and yes.
Frankly, (if you’ll pardon the expression) you are the last person I would have expected to be invited to this party, but the one I knew who would liven it up. Thanks for keeping everyone on their toes here.
October 29th, 2009 | 11:13 pm | #56
Dr. Beckwith,
I think you’re reading a lot into what’s been said here (perhaps understandably given the typical fervor that drives these sorts of discussions). None of us have claimed FT has an “obligation to comply with our request”- we haven’t made any request that I’m aware of.
Likewise, I think you read too much into my comment, ““It seems to me that (doctrinally) those who are most faithful to the teachings of Rome are those whom we should be concerned about within the Roman Catholic church.” Though I would phrase it a bit differently upon reconsideration, let me explain what I meant and believe.
If we see a brother fall into sin, we will likely become concerned and do what we can to help them move toward conviction, repentance and right living. Similarly, if we see someone hold beliefs we believe contrary to biblical teaching, we will likely be concerned and do what we can to convince them of what we believe the Bible teaches. In as much as Roman Catholic teaching differs from what I understand to be biblical teaching on justification, church authority, etc., I have concern for those who believe those errors. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, I have not issued any sweeping anathemas for those who disagree with me. Nor have I suggested anyone is going to hell.
For whatever it’s worth, I would never make a sweeping claim like, “All Roman Catholics are going to hell,” or “All Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.” I don’t believe I have the authority or knowledge to make such a claim. And more importantly, I believe my own beliefs aren’t perfect. If God has no mercy on those who fail to have perfect beliefs, then we are all doomed (I guess I did make a sweeping claim there). Whether God overlooks our false beliefs or covers them with Christ’s atoning blood, I have to believe that even God’s elect hold false beliefs. It’s His call, and I believe His mercy is wide enough to cover a good many Roman Catholics who faithfully trust in Him for their salvation. However, I also believe there are many Roman Catholics who do not trust in Him.
“So, are you suggesting that the person that believes the Nicene Creed, lives the theological virtues, and participates in the full sacramental life of the Church is in danger of Hell?”
I think (and/or hope) we should be able to agree that though good, none of these things save a person. I think it’s likely there are people who have met that standard, yet trusted in these things to save them instead of the work of Christ on the cross and Christ did not know them.
October 29th, 2009 | 11:14 pm | #57
Frank “OK — so the questions I asked originally are going to be pretty much ignored?”
It seems to me a few of us did answer your questions, then everything exploded.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:13 am | #58
“FB wrote: “So, are you suggesting that the person that believes the Nicene Creed, lives the theological virtues, and participates in the full sacramental life of the Church is in danger of Hell?”
Yes, of course. The path of salvation is through faith in Christ not assent to doctrine, moral living, or sacramental participation.”
So when one says “I believe” (or “We believe” for some of us) at the beginning of each of the three paragraphs in the Nicene Creed that’s not a statement of faith being declared in the subsequent sentences?
If not, could someone point me to the place where I know what I say with my mouth equals what I believe in my heart (and vice versa)? Apparently for some evangelicals the mere confession of faith in Jesus may not be good enough or sincere enough to receive salvation in Christ.
Would that we could be pointed to what else is needed for salvation.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:48 am | #59
“Actually, two of our contributors (John Mark and Mark Olson) are Eastern Orthodox—and evangelical.”
Does that mean that Frank Beckwith can be Catholic–and evangelical?
Just wondering. :-)
Joe, you provided the can of worms. I brought the opener. :-)
October 30th, 2009 | 12:55 am | #60
I use the term “Romans” because we all know the term “Catholic” means “general” and to use it narrowly, of a particular ecclesiastical body, seems a contradiction.
Collin, we all know the term Reformation means reforming. Yet, out of courtesy and respect to my Protestant brothers and sister I refer to the Reformation as the Reformation, even though I don’t believe that the Reformation ultimately reformed anything (I don’t want to appear simplistic here; so, let me say that I do not believe that the reformers were wrong about everything, let alone some of their criticism of the abuses within the Catholic Church).
The history of the term Catholic is what is at issue, not the non-proper version of the word you can find in a dictionary. After all, if you had spelled your name “Colon,” it would not be appropriate for me to find out who you are by looking up the word in the dictionary.
So, on that note, I suggest we put this issue behind us.
October 30th, 2009 | 1:58 am | #61
Mary (and particularly Fatima) is a sticking point for many Evangelicals. One thing I think perhaps is not said enough is that Marian apparitions -when they are deemed “worthy of belief” by the church (and that usually entails years of investigation and theological debate; it’s not something done in a herky-jerky way)- are nevertheless not something the Catholic faithful are REQUIRED to consider.
Fatima and Lourdes are two stand-out apparition sites (and there was just a few weeks ago a news story of a woman cured of Parkinsons, or something in the spring) which have particularly drawn the interest of many Catholics (and not a few Protestants, if my email is to be believed), particularly those who are intrigued by “end times” story lines or who are interested in the meeting points between the spiritual and the material.
The apparitions, though, not part of the Deposit of Faith, and no one is required to believe in them at all, or to engage in devotions. They are, however, spiritual mysteries that remind us of a humbling truth: that the Holy Spirit can use the most confounding and unexpected people to effect movement and change in the world. At Fatima, the impoverished and ignorant children who knew nothing at all of Russia or communism told of Mary’s messages about those earthly evils. At Lourdes, a young girl so ignorant she had trouble learning the very basics came away from an apparition instructed to tell her priest, (who had sarcastically demanded of Bernadette that she “get the woman’s name…”) “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Bernadette had never heard the words before, had no idea of the concept; she had to repeat the words over and over to herself as she ran back to the priest and burst through his door mirroring Mary’s movements as she recited, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
Does anyone have to believe it? Absolutely not. Can God allow the Theotokos to demonstrate the truth that Eternal life is really, truly, actually, demonstrably Eternal Life by presenting herself to the faithful who understand her (via Jesus’ words to John) to be their spiritual “mother”? Yes. God can do anything. Is there any benefit to God allowing Mary to reach into our world in ways that seem so instinctively strange and even off-putting to us? Why not. He let his Son come into the world in a way that some find instinctively strange and even off-putting. God’s ways, after all, are not ours; His mind, not our mind.
“By their fruits you shall know them.” I have never been to either Fatima or Lourdes, but I know people who have been to those places. One priest in particular went to Lourdes and came away with his faith renewed because of the depths of faith he witnessed there, the shared prayer, the fellowship, the Christian witness, and the deep love of the Christian people, for God and for each other. Upon his return from Lourdes, he recommitted himself to his vocation and to serving others. I know others who have turned a visit to Lourdes into a lifetime commitment to volunteerism and service to those less fortunate. This, to me, seems like a worthy fruit.
While the Fatima apparitions have never rung my bell, the rosary has become an indispensable tool in my life for contemplative prayer. One of the things I love about it? Every day I am focusing on some parts of scripture that are ordinarily only looked at briefly in the year. I love having the Nativity of the Lord brought into my conscious awareness during a common weekday; who can ponder the Mystery of the Incarnation enough? Or the Transfiguration? Or the Baptism of the Lord, or His Passion?
Btw, I am not a girl who is into apologetics, so I’m not going to be engaging in a whole lot of debate on this. I just wanted to make the point that no one, Catholic or otherwise, is required to do spend a moment thinking about Marian apparitions if they do not want to.
October 30th, 2009 | 11:12 am | #62
I don’t know, Joe. I don’t know if your experiment is going to work.
As a long-time Catholic reader of First Things, I am interested in thoughtful contributions from writers of any faith tradition. There has been a good mix here, and historically, there have been interesting, substantive discussions in these pages on matters on which faith traditions disagree – contraception/women in ministry/various other bioethics issues.
But other than some kerfuffles about Mormonism, your pages have not been marked by a member of one denomination baldly stating that another denomination has falsehood at its core. I’m pretty uninterested in Frank Turk’s contentions and the fact that his notions have quickly become the central focus of this blog, which you say, in turn, hints at a shift in the publication…
makes me far less interested in the publication.
October 30th, 2009 | 12:57 pm | #63
“OK — so the questions I asked originally are going to be pretty much ignored?
That’s a shame.”
My sincere apologies on that. Got off on the “false gospel” claim. You know, arguing on blogs is just not so good for my spiritual development; I’m going to have to cut back.
You had asked earlier regarding what exactly constitutes valid criticism. Here’s my take: Let’s say there are three groups of Christians here; call them E, O, and C. It appears to me that among the writers for First Things, C disagrees with E and O, but accepts them in good faith as fellow Christians. I can’t speak for O, but I assume the same holds for them with regards to C and E.
However, it now appears I cannot assume the same for E; in other words, there are writers representing E who do not accept C (and O?) as Christians participating fully in the life of Christ. In fact, it appears that the C group may be perceived as being anti-Christian, in promoting a false gospel which leads many, perhaps millions, to damnation. This, to me, defines the line: it goes over the edge into bigotry rather than legitimate argument.
I am not (repeat NOT) accusing you of this. And it appears you would prefer to limit this discussion simply to the question of off-putting ads on this page.
But surely you must have known this can of worms was down there beneath the original question, just begging to be opened?
October 30th, 2009 | 5:22 pm | #64
CP wrote: “In fact, it appears that the C group may be perceived as being anti-Christian, in promoting a false gospel which leads many, perhaps millions, to damnation. This, to me, defines the line: it goes over the edge into bigotry rather than legitimate argument.”
With all due respect, calling it bigotry is not a legitimate argument nor is it wise to dismiss the issue of the authenticity of a group’s gospel with charges of bigotry. Paul exhorted the Galatians to be on the lookout for other gospels, charging them: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)
Obviously, part of the barrier in discussions between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals is the definition of Christian. We (Evangelicals, at least historically) don’t include those with a false gospel as being “Christians.” Roman Catholics, at least sometimes, do.
To provide a prominent example, we see Cardinal Ratzinger writing: “Christians themselves are not shielded from reproaches [by the New Testament]. The Letter to the Galatians contains some very serious ones. The Galatians are accused of turning away from God to follow “another gospel”, which is a false one (Ga 1:6); they have “cut themselves off from Christ”, they have “fallen away from grace” (5:4). But Paul hopes for their return (5:10). ” (The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures, Section 53, Heading (II)(B)(8)(b))
It would be wrong to accuse either then-cardinal Ratzinger or the apostle Paul of bigotry for asserting that the Galatians had fallen for, or were in danger of falling for, a false gospel. So too, it is not bigotry when we point out that now-pope Benedict XVI’s gospel is a false gospel.
It is a very serious reproach, and it is one that ought to be taken seriously, not brushed aside with charges of bigotry.
November 1st, 2009 | 8:36 am | #65
@ Craig Payne | October 28th, 2009 | 11:10 pm | #7
Always remember: Bigots never disappoint.
November 3rd, 2009 | 4:03 pm | #66
The comments by evangelicals here show that ecumenism is a non-starter (at least in its present form) as is civility. Anti-Catholicism really is the last acceptable prejudice in America. Thanks for proving that nativist anti-Catholicism is still alive and well.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact