I was recently reading Jamie Smith’s review of Francis Beckwith’s book Return to Rome along with Beckwith’s response, and I was reminded of a post I wrote at the time of Beckwith’s departure from the ETS. Since FIRST THINGS is a place where evangelicals and Catholics can come together in conversation, I am going to repost my own thoughts on why swimming the Tiber can be attractive… at least to me anyway.
______________________________________
With the resignation of ETS president Francis Beckwith, because of his ensuing conversion to Catholicism, evangelicals are emblazoned with reactions ranging from mere condolence to outright rage. Yet for all the blog bluster and open letters there is little reflection as to why someone would give up the “Reformation truths” and “come home” to Rome. My own reaction has been one of curiosity, and the speculations that follow are those that try to satisfy the question “Why do evangelicals convert to Catholicism?”
If you are an “evangelical” you probably are not sure how to define that word without referring to belief in the inspiration of scripture, a personal encounter with Christ, and the belief that an inner change resulting from his death and resurrection has occurred and is occurring in your life on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this muddled definition does nothing to distinguish one from “being a good Catholic” as any Catholic worth his or her salt would readily attest to the same. This lack of formal theological identity is perhaps the most influential reason why evangelicals find themselves attracted to the Roman Catholic Church.
If you are an “evangelical” you probably have met many a brother and sister who have left Catholicism in the name of a more vibrant and personal relationship with Christ over against the stale function of religious ritualism. Yet there are many of these Catholic converts who miss the traditionalism and ritual as it represented something sacred and beautiful. With the evangelical tendency to reduce worship to entertainment services in gymnasiums interlaced with the prattle of announcements and irreverent humor, all the while leaving the Eucharist to be practiced once or twice a month and baptisms performed in swimming pools, the forms of Catholic worship can make a strong call back to the fold in terms of their standards and substance. Evangelicals disillusioned with the current state of worship can be very attracted to something with such a rich tradition that has survived for centuries.
If you are an evangelical you probably have had a heated argument or two with a Catholic family member or friend who feels the need to defend the Church from your Protestant beliefs. Some of the more zealously Reformed even go so far to call the Pope the antichrist (see the Westminster Confession) and Catholic adherents “papists!” Yet evangelicals have a love-hate relationship with Catholics as they politically support the five Supreme Court Justices that are deemed conservative, two of which that have been appointed by the evangelical flavored George W. Bush. This is because Catholicism has a rich intellectual pedigree that remains competitive in today’s marketplace of ideas that evangelicals hardly match. Catholics have traditionally been leaders in such high professions like law, medicine, and education, and Catholic universities often compete with and far surpass those funded by the secular public. For a Christian intellectual, Catholicism can be an antidote to evangelicalism’s rampant anti-intellectualism.
If you are an evangelical you probably have had a run in with the ongoing problem of church polity, or how the church is governed. Debates swirl within evangelical churches over whether the congregation has the final say in matters, what the role of elders are, should there be a senior pastor, and where women fit into the mix. The uniformity and hierarchy of the Catholic magistrate can be seen as a definitive answer to those who are simply seeking clarity and resolution to those delicate issues. Moreover, the magistrate’s teachings are mandated to each parish giving them the sense of serving the on the same team, not competing with one another by the means of building a ministry around a cult of personality, which so often drives evangelical ecclesiology.
In spite of all these, however, I remain an evangelical. The theological issues of Scriptural authority and the nature of justification are too divisive to gloss over. Also, the idea of transubstantiation has never made sense to me nor the Immaculate Conception and the high view of Mother Mary. Still, I have a growing respect for Catholicism that is found in its rich missionary history, its unparalleled intellectual tradition, and strong cultural convictions. Not only that, some of the best “devotional” writers are Catholic (Merton, Nouwen) as well some philosophers (Augustine, Aquinas).
Francis Beckwith is in good company, though I wish he remained rooted in the tradition of Protestantism.
For more on why evangelicals go Catholic see Scot McKnight’s intelligent article.
March 25th, 2010 | 9:38 am | #1
To respond to the titular question: (1) The Bible. (2) The Holy Spirit. (3) Christian history.
March 25th, 2010 | 9:40 am | #2
“Francis Beckwith is in good company, though I wish he remained rooted in the tradition of Protestantism.”
As Frank himself would say: He did.
March 25th, 2010 | 9:53 am | #3
Oh brother. I admit it: this is why I hate this discussion.
Let’s compare the “rich intellectual pedigree” reflected in Supreme Court Justices with … what? As I read Adam’s piece here, I feel like he’s simply painting an apple red and then delighting in Mother Nature’s handiwork.
As I mull this over, it’s a conflation of a lot of things which, frankly, should be better disambiguated by the author:
1. the fact that it’s the Protestant cultural heritage that makes the greatest allowance for the coexistence of all denominations — as in, it’s not a crisis of conscience or society that Catholics are Supreme Court Justices. That’s not something that the Vatican came to until very late — and in that, under the guise of Lumen Gentium which can escape the accusation of universalism only by the death of a thousand qualifications.
2. The very-funny accusation that it is the “zealously Reformed” who are the party in the wrong. Honestly: Trent anathematized any who deny that the book of Tobit is Scripture, and 80+ years later the WCF takes the position that the Pope (for doing so) is antichrist for putting people out of the church whom Christ would not turn away, and it’s the Reformed who are the zealous ones.
3. the idea which seems to have up-ended a lot of people that we can think that someone who has made a disasterous theological/religious mistake can actually be a good citizen and a fellow partner to live in justice and good will. How is it a love-hate relationship at all to say that Chief Justice Roberts is a great ally of the innocent and the defenseless, and will judge rightly in matters of interpreting human law, but to fear greatly that his faith in the Mass and other such Catholic distinctives leaves him defenseless in the Final Account past which all men must go? It seems like that kind of reason does a man justice: that he is neither a white hat nor a black hat but a man like me with both credible talents and credible weakenesses — and the right approach to this is to say frankly that we agree on the social issues but that the Gospel is not a social issue.
4. That this disambiguation of a man’s social contribution over and against our concern for his soul — not letting the latter overly-inform the former — is, again, a Protestant result in society.
Whether Adam’s post has any merit or not I leave for the readers to decide, but this little bit of his argument ought to make us look closely at what he’s trying to sell here — as it is a hard sell from a section of evangelicalism which, frankly, has ecumenical love and charity for anything but the most conservative expressions of the Protestant confessional faith.
March 25th, 2010 | 10:01 am | #4
Are people drawn back to Rome because of baptisms in swimming pools? Really? Those kinds of things strike me as attractional in the same way as the worst forms of attractional “seeker churches.” Do you come to church because of entertainment or architecture? I don’t mean to defend the worst in modern evangelicalism. Just asking what the difference is. To me it is like saying, “I may be a glutton but at least I gorge on fine cuisine unlike those hay seeds who gorge on chips and hot dogs.”
Besides the gigantic problem of Justification, it bothers me that Rome is so fractured and disunified. One of the arguments from Rome against Luther was that it would lead to many denominations and no unity in theology. They said that no one would look to the church for answers on theological questions. And they were right about that to a certain degree but I wouldn’t call Rome unified today. Why do some Bishops announce their opposition to ObamaCare and then some nuns announce their support? How is it possible that politicians who support abortion are able to remain members and not face church discipline? Can we get an answer from Rome and then some enforcement on questions related to origins? Why is it that in many third world countries the local Catholic church is synchronized with the local religious myths? Can’t Rome use its centralized power and remove those priests?
Maybe there are good answers to those questions. I don’t ask them rhetorically. But bottom line for me is this question: Why does Rome seem to get the superior argumentative position of the status-quo? At what point do they carry the burden of proof? We have to explain the circus at some protestant churches but they don’t have to explain their issues, why is that? Am I wrong here?
March 25th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #5
It’s funny what Rev. McCain and I agree on. He’ll make a great Baptist some day.
March 25th, 2010 | 10:12 am | #6
“The very-funny accusation that it is the “zealously Reformed” who are the wronged party”
Dear Frank: I didn’t understand this part of your response, unless it was simply a slip of the fingers. Did you mean to say that the “very funny accusation” was that the Reformed “are the party doing the wronging” and that Catholics were the “wronged” party?
Sorry for the nitpicking, but otherwise it doesn’t make sense to me, considering your overall argument.
_______________________________________
Frank replies:
Thanks — my typing should make me anathema as well. I have fixed the original comment.
March 25th, 2010 | 10:20 am | #7
“Mr. Payne, you should have added: (4) Because Jesus’ mother told me to convert.
You know, just to make your response entirely silly.”
Dear Rev. McCain: I admit that my initial response was rather short and could be taken as flippant–but it wasn’t intended as silly.
Evangelicals have a very difficult time (I know, believe me) with the idea that Catholics could possibly be biblically more accurate than Protestants on any topic at all, or that the Holy Spirit could draw someone into the Catholic Church. And, after reading elsewhere Frank Turk’s very moving account of his conversion, I have a great deal of sympathy for this resistance. (Speaking of Frank’s conversion in this way is not intended at all to belittle the theological and biblical arguments he presents, but just to say I also understand and appreciate where y’all come from as human beings, not simply as theologians.)
However, the “final straw” leading to my decision for Catholicism was not philosophical or theological study (those had come previously), but study of the Bible.
Not silly, really–but man oh man, especially considering my own background, what a surprise.
March 25th, 2010 | 10:25 am | #8
Frank, why do you insist on playing the anathemize card when you know that you are offering a misleading account of it? You’ve been told many times, by me and others, that the “anathemas” of Trent are a term of art, and certainly not equivalent to “damning one to hell.”
It’s okay to think Catholicism is wrong and that those who embrace Catholicism with a clear conscience have a one-way ticket to the realm of split foot and his minions. I can respect that. But I can’t respect is a thick-skullishness that is unteachable.
Here’s Akin’s carefully crafted piece on the matter (sigh…., yet again): http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp
BTW, the term “separated brethren” referring to Protestants pre-dates Vatican II at least by 160 years. It was used by Bishop Carroll of Baltimore in the mid-19th century in his explanation of Catholic beliefs.
Vatican II was clarity not invention (for those who have eyes to read)
March 25th, 2010 | 10:41 am | #9
“Better to embrace fully the force of the words and strive to convince us that we are in fact erring so fundamentally as to place ourselves outside salvation than to try to persuade us that we are simply not understanding the words.”
But the problem is that the Catholic Church does not teach that.
Actually, you yourself pointed to the answer (in the same post!):
“the grace of God which can work its way even through errors embraced and through inconsistencies in belief and confession.”
Is it so improbable in your thinking (so improbable as to be impossible?) that a Catholic could believe that you yourself are also saved by this very grace?
March 25th, 2010 | 10:44 am | #10
Dr. Beckwith said:
I have, in fact, responded many time to that statement as well, but it doesn’t stop you and others from saying over and over, Doctor.
Please don’t link to Jimmy Akin’s article anymore unless you can find a way to reconcile it with this statement from Vatican I:
And then of course this:
That’s from here. It is utterly transparent that the Vatican I view of Trent is that Trent condemned errors and specifically those who promulgated them. You know: “let him be anathema”. Akin’s end-run around Vatican I’s view of what happened at Trent is very creative, very intriguing, and very kind of him to mention — but it’s flatly wrong.
It’s flatly a denial of the teleology of the document. It’s flatly a denial of how Vatican I views those who were under the anathema and those who followed them.
Please: believe what you want, but don’t simply ignore the fact of history and of the stated position of the Magisterium which has never ever been repealed or overturned.
March 25th, 2010 | 10:46 am | #11
Craig said:
Indeed. I’m sure the immaculate conception of Mary is in there someplace …
March 25th, 2010 | 10:52 am | #12
Rev. McCain, that is a bold statement to say that those who embrace the teaching of the Roman Church on justification are outside salvation if you are, in fact, saying that. Are you saying that in your response to Mr. Beckwith? Does that mean that every Christian in history prior to the Reformation is outside salvation? (I don;t think you mean that because I know you have a great deal of respect for the Fathers as you have written about them before.) As I understand it, you think that only post-Reformation Christians will be in heaven. Is that what you are saying because really that is very brazen of you to say. Could you please clarify?
March 25th, 2010 | 10:56 am | #13
Let me say, as I have also said elsewhere, that the most common attribute of individual Catholics is their own personal understanding of the error of anathematizing Protestants — even among Bishops and Priests. The most common attribute of Catholicism is what the average Catholic cannot bring himself to accept from the Magisterial teachings because, frankly, he has to live with himself and his faith in Christ. Hodge is probably the best Reformed advocate for this phenomenon and leverages it to say that one ought to rightly abhor what Rome teaches but seek out those who, in the midst of that false gospel, are actually part of Christ’s people.
I mention that only to underscore that I have no problem conceding that millions (perhaps billions) of actual Catholics would agree with the formula “separated brethren”. That Bishop Carroll of Baltimore ever said it does not repeal the anathemas against those who protested against the false Gospel in the 16th century, not against their heirs in the faith 500 years later.
March 25th, 2010 | 11:01 am | #14
Rich –
Welcome to the party. You are not wrong.
March 25th, 2010 | 11:06 am | #15
For the record, I think Frank’s points in #3 are fair ones to consider. If there is a heartfelt concern for a Catholic’s soul that may get some things right but weightier matters wrong, that is one thing. However, if there is simply invective spewed against Catholics that are clearly meant to judge their internal character as something menacing, then the cognitive dissonance between condmening a person’s theology yet supporting the same person’s politics is a sight to behold. The consistent thing to do would be to resist both, for an evil tree cannot bear good fruit.
March 25th, 2010 | 11:10 am | #16
I am going to cease and desist from posting further on this thread because I don’t want to engage in “spewing invective,” as Adam states against Catholics. I am not Catholic, and I am not as informed of their theology as the rest of those posting here.
March 25th, 2010 | 11:17 am | #17
“Mr. Payne, you are either sincerely ignorant of these matters, or choose to remain so. I prefer to charitably assume the former, not the latter.”
Well, umm….thanks, I think. I appreciate the charity. (I think.)
Regarding the other comments by you and Frank Turk: There is a great deal more to Christian doctrine than the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. In those two particular instances, regarding their relationship to the Bible, all one really has to demonstrate is that they do not directly contradict the Bible, but are compatible with its teachings. (As opposed to, for example, sola fide, which does directly contradict the Bible.) If one takes the further step of accepting the Catholic Church’s authority, then there is no biblical problem in accepting those teachings.
However, rather than get bogged down at this point in a doctrinal discussion, I would simply point out the question of the original thread: “Why do evangelicals convert to Catholicism?” My original post gave my answers: I was convinced by my study of the Bible, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, and by my study of Christian history. On what authority could a Protestant possibly tell me that that response is not true?
Yes, please tell me: It’s not true because of your reading of the Bible and Christian history, and because of what the Holy Spirit is telling you. :)
March 25th, 2010 | 11:17 am | #18
I love your zeal for evangelism, Rev. McCain.
It pleases me that you care.
:-)
March 25th, 2010 | 11:29 am | #19
“it will ruin the stereotype of Lutherans most here cherish.”
Perhaps we could all get together around a potato-tot casserole?
March 25th, 2010 | 11:37 am | #20
Rev McCain,
I have been a member of a protestant denomination called Great Commission Churches for over ten years. They were formed in the 1970s and seem to have a lot in common with the SBC or GBC and share the same leadership structure as Sovereign Grace Ministries. They are very much dedicated to church-planting.
You might consider me an evan-jelly-fish. I grew up in a charismatic Lutheran mega-church. Think multi-campus buildings that house over 5,000 members where Vineyard revivalism meets ELCA liturgy. You can probably already see why I don’t really “fit” anywhere and that is how I felt until college. At that church I did hear the gospel, but I didn’t see myself growing spiritually there and so I got involved with the Navigators and nearly completely abandoned church altogether. That is when I discovered GCC. I am also a member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians and work for a parachurch ministry that is associated with the Assemblies of God (though I don’t consider myself “charismatic.” “Open but cautious would be my label).
I am very much interested in philosophy of religion and would like to attend either Denver Seminary or Talbot School of Theology. I try to appreciate whatever I can from each strand of the Great Tradition.
Not sure that helps you “figure me out” but that is my story and I am sticking to it.
March 25th, 2010 | 11:42 am | #21
Frank Turk,
Having reading Jimmy Akin’s article on how the RCC uses “anathema,” and your two quotes from Vatican I, and having no dog in the little fight over what the RCC means by it, my opinion is that there is no conflict between them.
March 25th, 2010 | 12:06 pm | #22
Jeff –
I think you didn’t read the Akin article. Here’s how we can find out:
1. What’s the “later” meaning of “anathema” in church history?
2. Has that meaning ever been overturned?
3. How does [2] impact the view we should abide by today?
March 25th, 2010 | 12:07 pm | #23
Rev. McCain: you’re the exception that proves the rule.
March 25th, 2010 | 12:16 pm | #24
I’m also not clear on how Frank’s using the Vatican I quotes. However, I’m looking at Akin’s article, particularly what he identified as errors–numbers 1 through 4. Accepting those statements at face value, doesn’t that still mean the following?
Anathemas are judicial penalties, given only for grave sin. If teaching a certain heresy warranted an anathema, then teaching the heresy is grave sin. (Anathemas aren’t automatically applied–they need specific formal declarations about particular people. But a general “let him be anathema” still means that the heresy is a grave sin, whether or not a particular heretic has been judged in court & anathematized.)
So an anathema classifies a heresy as grave sin, even if it’s later “taken off the books” of canon law as a judicial penalty. If that heresy was accepted “with the requisite knowledge and consent”, then it’s not just grave sin–it’s mortal sin, leading to damnation. If such a heretic dies without repenting, he is damned, whether or not the church court ever sentenced him.
So the anathemas of Trent weren’t exactly equivalent to damning all Protestants to hell. But they did mean that we’re on our way to hell if we believe those Reformation heresies “with the requisite knowledge and consent”, and do not repent. And that includes rejecting the book of Tobit as Scripture.
And that’s still the case, even though the judicial penalty was removed from the Code of Canon Law in 1983.
Dr. Beckwith, can you clarify? Am I misreading? If I’ve got it right, then how is Akin’s article a substantive correction?
March 25th, 2010 | 12:20 pm | #25
I read it, Frank. I’m not going to try to prove it to your satisfaction — I think you are simply dissatisfied when people don’t agree with you. If you want people to examine these things for themselves, then you will have to let them come to their own conclusions on it — nobody is obligated to come to yours. Having examined it for myself, I have given my opinion on what it looks like to me. It is rather insulting for you to suggest that I have not read it, or that I have not read it correctly because I don’t happen to agree with you.
March 25th, 2010 | 1:01 pm | #26
Frank quotes Vatican I:
“Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the Church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed.”
That seems pretty much correct: many people lost faith in Christ as a consequence of the divisions within Christianity. In fact, Jesus actually promised that it would be so: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.”
Frank, when you read time-bound documents, it does a disservice to your intellectual and spiritual development to read them anachronistically.
You know how frustrating it is when a Mormon reads our view of the Trinity as a “three-headed God.” Well, that’s how we Catholics feel when we read comments such as yours. We think to ourselves, “the guy does not even think he is morally required to wrestle with Catholicism on its own terms and by the lights of those that practice and know it best. Can you believe it? I would be embarrassed to conduct my public disagreements in such a sophomoric fashion. Apparently, he does really believe in faith alone, since he seems to possess neither charity nor joy.”
March 25th, 2010 | 1:01 pm | #27
Well, this has been one interesting comment box.
I have to say that Rev. McCain is my most favorite Lutheran. He makes me mad and happy in equal parts, just like Luther.
March 25th, 2010 | 1:05 pm | #28
“The enforced celibacy of its clergy [and look at the problems that result from that!]”
Christianity has the enforced chastity of the married, which has its problems as well. :-)
March 25th, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #29
Rev. Paul, I was actually joking.
However, you would agree that what Henry VIII did, by descramentalizing marriage was a terrible thing?
March 25th, 2010 | 1:40 pm | #30
I like it that the discussion has taken this turn:
See: make the accusation that I am the one with the “anachronistic” and “joyless” and “uncharitable” view, substantiate it not one whit, and then refuse to engage the evidence.
The evidence is plain: historically, “anathema” is a term of “excommunication” which even Jimmy Akin admits. At Trent, the anathema was applied to all who, for example, would omit Tobit from the canon of Scripture.
Before I finish my point here, think about that: even if it could be managed to say that the other anathemas do not make it categorically clear that the Gospel of Protestantism is not the Gospel of Catholicism, that singualr anathema expresses the utter contempt Rome in Trent had for those in disagreement with it. That’s why I keep going there rather than to the question of any of the 5 solas: it speaks to the breadth of the contempt of the men against whom that council was chartered.
But in Dr. Beckwith’s view — which, btw, I will admit is a very popular view, or at least one of many harmonious popular views which whitewash “anathema” in order to not have to call Baptists, Lutherans and Presbyterians “heretics” — because the definition of “anathema” after the fact by 400 years is now different, and will probably never be used again by Rome, I am the anachronist for reading what Rome meant then, and has never formally repealed, in the way they meant it at the time.
When Rome repeals the anathemas of Trent, or can say honestly, “We disagree but we do not abhor, and that expression of the faith is co-equal and valid,” I will make my amends. Until then, let’s simply not pretend that Rome has somehow sheepishly opened the gates of hell so that the Prots who spent 4 centuries in there can come out now, and no hard feelings. That is not what happened.
March 25th, 2010 | 1:49 pm | #31
Dr. Beckwith,
I hope you’ll have time to reply to my question in comment #33, on what still seems to be the case about the anathemas of Trent, even taking Akin’s article at face value.
March 25th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #32
On the record:
I think the Henry VIII argument is ridiculous; I think the question of whether celibacy is fit for ministers of the Gospel is settled by Paul in 1 Cor — and he says “yes, it is.” The question is whether it ought to be mandatory, and whether there is some harm in that.
Also on the record:
I think the essential issue in the scandals Rev. McCain has pointed out here is not enforced celibacy — it is the failure to enforce moral accountability in the ranks of alleged ministers of the Gospel.
Listen: evil men will creep into the roles of ministers. It is inevitable. What the church (local church, if I must point that out) must do is hold its ministers accountable to the moral standard of “blameless”, as in Titus 1.
The irony, if you ask me, is that the standard of celibacy has been violated in these cases, and not in some common way as if they got married off the books. These men are not celibate, yet their actual crimes have been covered up rather than adjudicated.
That is a far more damning issue: that somehow the keeper of the keys to the kingdom will let loose the unmentionable sins of its clerics and cover them over rather than seek justice for the innocent and uphold the highest standards of morality for its ranks.
March 25th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #33
Rev. McCain, would you please clarify whether you believe that a celibate clergy in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church turns otherwise healthy men into sex perverts or merely creates situations which attract the already sexually-disordered? Your statements have not been exactly clear. For example, when you write,
“The Lutheran Confessions are quite plain-spoken about the evils that result when you coop men up, who are men with all their sexual desires intact, and make them all act as if they have been given the special gift of celibacy, which Christ our Lord is said only given to a few.”
it seems to imply that the priest abusers would have been normal, heterosexual males had they only had wives (which would be odd, given that about 80% of the abuse has involved adolescent males). On the other hand, statements like,
‘The root cause of many of the problems the Roman Church has experienced is to be found precisely in the fact that there has been constructed a haven for homosexuals who think they can “escape” into celibacy. It is not working.’
seem to indicate that you think celibacy short-circuits recruiting, attracting disordered men rather than making healthy men disordered. There’s a huge difference between saying that a celibate priesthood makes straight men into homosexual molesters and saying that it leads to recruiting already unhealthy individuals. Is the problem intrinsic (i.e. related to celibacy) or extrinsic (i.e. related to the social perceptions/ behavior created by an expectation of celibacy)?
Also, you might be interested in Philip Jenkins’ research on the question of priest abuse:
http://www.zenit.org/article-3922?l=english
March 25th, 2010 | 3:10 pm | #34
As they say in my corner of the internet, “AHA!”
For example, Trent actually says, “Si quis autem libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in Ecclesia catholica legi consueverunt, et in veteri vulgata latina editione habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susceperit, et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens contempserit, anathema sit.” I realize this is a lost art, but “anathema sit” means “let he/she/it be anathema”, and the antecednet of “sit” will tell us if there is an “it” anathematized (like a doctrine) or a “he/she” anathematized (like a person”.
“Quis” is a person — the subject of the sentence, that is the pronoun “who” or “whoever”.
These are persons who are anathematized.
March 25th, 2010 | 4:03 pm | #35
“My point is that these anathemas must be interpreted through the whole of Catholic teaching. You cannot simply talk about Trent as this it is the end of Catholic teaching when it represents a stage along the way.”
Doesn’t that translate to “You need to be willing to read it anachronistically”?
March 25th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #36
This certainly raises the issue of whether any pronouncements from the Vatican ever have any authority, given the simplicity with which they are so easily over-turned.
If Trent meant “condemned” when it said “anathema”, and clearly it did, then either it was over-turned by Vatican II, meaning it had no authority in the first place, or Vatican II was trying to speak to issues it had no right to speak to.
Either way, this whole issue makes one of two things plain. Either the Vatican cannot condemn anyone as a heretic, or the idea that the Vatican represents an unbroken chain of apostolic authority from Peter (or any other time) up to now, is a fallacy.
Certainly this would demonstrate that no one can be certain of anything the Vatican teaches, that cannot be found in Scripture, cannot be called trustworthy, until the very end of the world, at which time we’ll all be able to see exactly how much eventually has been overturned.
Who knows? Perhaps Vatican III or IV will come along and name the Marian dogma’s as heretical and wrong. Then what?
March 25th, 2010 | 4:28 pm | #37
Dear Jugulum: Well, I don’t think so. There is a development of doctrine, as some famous convert or another once wrote.
I think the question many Protestants are grappling with is something like, “How can there be a ‘development of doctrine’ when the Catholic Church claimed authority THEN and also claims authority NOW?” Can there be a binding claim to authority, in other words, when doctrinal statements can develop and be modified through the history of the Christian faith?
This is also why many Protestants (not the ones writing here, I think) flee into the false security of “That’s why we believe the Bible only, not how anyone ‘interprets’ it.” (This is not a slam against sola fide–see above for that–but a statement about a certain form of biblicism.) EVERYONE interprets. The question is, where, under the Holy Spirit, is the authority?
March 25th, 2010 | 4:30 pm | #38
Oops. I posted the above before reading Daryl’s post. But at least I was on track. :)
March 25th, 2010 | 4:33 pm | #39
“Certainly this would demonstrate that no one can be certain of anything the Vatican teaches, that cannot be found in Scripture”
Except, of course, when the Church infallibly decided which books belong in Scripture?
March 25th, 2010 | 4:42 pm | #40
Adam begin with Jaime Smith’s review of my book and my response. So, I have a follow-up that may interest you guys: http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2010/03/follow-up-on-smith-review-of-return-to.html
March 25th, 2010 | 4:43 pm | #41
Craig,
(to comment #1)
Because they don’t know better.
Frank,
(comment #3)
Sounds good to me. :0
Paul,
Cult of Mary? Didn’t Martin Luther accept Mary’s perpetual virginity? Has Lutheranism changed in this regard?
March 25th, 2010 | 4:46 pm | #42
“Cult of Mary? Didn’t Martin Luther accept Mary’s perpetual virginity? Has Lutheranism changed in this regard?”
What, forced celibacy, for the Mother of God? Not on the Rev. Paul’s watch. :-)
March 25th, 2010 | 5:02 pm | #43
Mr. McCain,
Vatican II does not deal with the doctrine of justification, which is why you’ll find Trent quoted often in the CCC on that particular point. You can’t read Trent in light of Vatican II on justification because there is nothing there to read. So, I don’t think your point holds on what I said.
March 25th, 2010 | 5:04 pm | #44
Dales said:
Please let me know where the anathemas of Trent or officially “untaught”. I’d love to know.
March 26th, 2010 | 12:45 pm | #45
Hm. Is it just me or are there a lot of disappearing comments lately without explanation? I get confused by it.
March 27th, 2010 | 4:12 pm | #46
Albert, to answer your question, for some us Frank Turk seems like the actor in this SNL skit:
http://www.movieweb.com/tv/TE25X368VILt57/HUduReiicP28ge
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact