Comments on: Coming Up: Bryan Cross Interview + Catholic Resources

By: Giovanni

Giovanni — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:34:11 +0000

[sarcasm] You are right dumb ox that is why the protestant reformation never happened because the Church loves just bending over for anybodies theology. [sarcasm]

By: Jim Martin

Jim Martin — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:00:54 +0000

I appreciate this list of Catholic resources. I have little knowledge of the best blogs, resources, and discussions (online) related to the Catholic perspective. Very helpful. Thanks.

By: rysch

rysch — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:59:14 +0000

If I remember correctly, its Robert Barron, not Walter.

By: dumb ox

dumb ox — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:33:47 +0000

I think it ties into iMonk’s number one reason to leave evangelicalism when you don’t have to: idealizing non-evangelical options. Is the Catholic church a monolithic, unified body under one agreed interpretation of scripture and religious practice? Without going into specifics, I think the answer is a resounding “no”. It has also been addressed that the Catholic church isn’t expecting Anglicans to check their very Calvinistic articles of faith at the door. Popular evangelical converts to Catholicism still look and sound distinctively evangelical.

Is it still better than 30,000+ protestant denominations? Hmmmm. Of those 30,000 organizations, how many distinct theological differences are there? Are there 30,000 schismatic or heretical positions separating those bodies? I’ll leave myself guilty of begging the question, because I simply can’t answer that question. I personally think the answer is a much lower number. As it has been addressed in previous posts, the distance separating these groups on several issues isn’t that great.

Do I wish there was a unified, centralized authority which could address heresies, such as faith-prosperity? Sure. But without any global means to enforce pronouncements across international borders, I question the effectiveness. Would such an order have authority to remove heretical publications on the internet? Could it stop para-church missionaries in foreign countries from teaching heresy? Would the church merely be able to say that the teaching diverges from official church teaching – a papal paper tiger? Or do the conspiracy theorists have a valid point after all, that a unified religious authority would have to be followed by a unified civil authority? My answer echoes the refrain of an old song: “..You can’t go back to Constantinople…”. Likewise, we can’t go back to the holy Roman Empire. Reconsidering McGrath’s opinion may be a better answer.

I do love the Catholic church and wish it well. Chesterton and Newman are among my heroes. I’m just a cautious ecumenist. I think ecumenism could potentially destroy those things that I (as a protestant) admire the most.

By: Christopher Lake

Christopher Lake — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:59:29 +0000

TomH,

Father Barron is not making a statement of purely subjective conviction here, regarding the role of the Catholic Church. Consistent Catholics do believe that the CC is the original Church, founded by Christ Himself, with Peter as the first Pope. They also believe that, as Christ would not leave the Church to itself, from the time of Peter up to today, there has been an unbroken line of Popes (the term is “apostolic succession”) presiding over the Church. Therefore, Father Barron’s statements are not arrogant; they simply reflect his theological and historical convictions. I write these words not as a Catholic apologist but as a former Catholic (and now a Reformed Baptist) who still desires Catholic teaching to be correctly understood.

By: ParkerW

ParkerW — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:26:04 +0000

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock i will build my Church, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven but you are a flawed umpire, . And then after you die, its everybody reading the bible which i will drop from heaven. Given your aforementioned flaw sometime in the next 1500yrs the gates of heaven shall have prevailed”

By: iMonk

iMonk — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:34:48 +0000

I think it was a flawed analogy, open to a lot of counter arguments. Umpires are certified by…..the league. I actually deal with this at some length in my book. All levels of the game depend on the love and passion for the game experienced at the lowest levels. Not on the umpire’s call.

Would that Rome would make real moves, however, to undertake the role of an umpire and not General Manager.

By: TomH

TomH — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:59:39 +0000

Regarding Walter Barron’s Youtube presentation…. He uses the analogy of the need for an umpire to make the final authoritative decision over interpretation, and then adds the role of the Holy Spirit. Thus, he claims first that the Roman Catholic Church is the one supreme umpire and that is the one supreme church guided by the Holy Spirit. To be honest, this comes across to me as arrogance. I understand the claim to need a final authoritative voice, but that voice can become very blind to other viewpoints if all authority is vested in one structure. This, I think is the root of Luther’s Reformation, and all Reformations, the need to legitimately question power structures, to consider other interpretive viewpoints. And, the reason why I disagree with Walter Barron is because I don’t see that freedom within the structure of Roman Catholicism. Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I usually observe from my Roman Catholic brothers in the final analysis is not to question church teachings, but finding ways to bolster church teachings.