The IMonk Spends Five Hours With Scott Hahn: The Full Report
June 5th, 2008 by iMonk
UPDATE: OK. Here we go again. I’m not putting up with it this time. You want to respond respectfully, great. But anything less than calm and reasonable isn’t going to make it.
If you don’t know about my wrestlings with Catholicism, I can’t catch you up. Hit the search engine or ask someone who obsessively reads this blog.
I’ve avoided Scott Hahn completely. For a while, my wife and I had a deal his books wouldn’t be in the house. (I’ve since given up those kinds of ridiculous compromises. I’ve even given her one of his books recently.)
Hahn is a former conservative Presbyterian professor who has been called “Luther in reverse” since his much noted and retold conversion in the mid 1990’s. Today he is a prominent Catholic scholar, apologist and Bible teacher, doing much to encourage Roman Catholic adults to understand their faith and especially its sources in scripture.
Hahn’s conversion and subsequent speaking and writing career have resulted, according to Catholic sources, in…..a large number of conversions. (I’ve actually heard the term “millions,” which seems a bit enthusiastic.)
If you’ve read my writing about my own journey in relation to Catholicism, then you know I don’t like attempts at conversion. (Yes, the 135 of you who tried it, I mean you.) I like my Merton, my Nouwen and my Vatican II ecumenism. I don’t like Catholic Answers, The Journey Home and the big gun- Scott Hahn. (Be like Amy W and Alan C, people 
But I’d never read or listened to much more than Hahn’s testimony, so being in a car many hours this week, I had a chance to remedy that. I went to Catholic Audio and found a five session conference Hahn did training adult Catholics to explain five of the most controversial areas of their faith: The Pope, Mary, the saints, purgatory and the Eucharist. (Get the mp3 link at the end of the post.)
I made it through all five presentations and I want to give a brief summary of my thoughts. This isn’t a response by any means. Hahn is a Ph.d and a trained scholar. I’m a lowly seminary grad and high school teacher. I’d love to hear him in a debate with any number or Protestant apologists, but his calling is more that of a teacher. Nonetheless, in these talks, he made extensive reference to his own journey from Protestantism (which he always speaks of very respectfully and positively) to Roman Catholicism. He is quite open about where he had the most difficulty embracing Roman Catholic teaching, which I appreciate.
1. Hahn’s presentations on the Pope, the saints, the Eucharist and especially Purgatory were outstanding. Were I in a position to consider conversion, they would be extremely helpful presentations. I recommend them to anyone on that journey. Of course, I disagreed in places and had questions, but the majority of these presentations were enjoyable and beneficial to work through.
2. The presentation on purgatory was particularly good because Hahn related his own objections and his strong belief in the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. His focus on the application of that atonement was, in many ways, similar to what I’ve heard from reformed teachers like John Piper. Hahn related purgatory to an overall view of suffering in the Christian life and did an excellent overview of that theme in Romans 8. I recommend this presentation above all the others.
3. Though we might have some substantial differences on the subject of purgatory, I felt Hahn’s view would make for an interesting conversation with the views of C.S. Lewis, who believed in purgatory, and N.T. Wright, who rejects purgatory but believes scripture teaches much on an interim state.
4. Many of Hahn’s Biblical insights in these presentations were brilliant. It is obvious that his Catholic setting as a scholar has placed him in a different position to approach the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, than many Protestants can appreciate. It is a richer, deeper sense of interpreting the Bible from within the church than many Protestants would attempt. Again, I would not join him in all of his conclusions, but his method was admirable, usually sound and often very suggestive of deep and helpful Biblical themes.
5. But then there was the presentation on Mary. Much of that material can be found here and perhaps elsewhere on the net.
I know that many of my RC friends believe I have a “Mary problem,” but that is really not the case. I would agree completely with Scot McKnight’s views on Mary. I believe that the great common areas of Marian doctrine that can and should be affirmed in the three major Christian traditions should be emphasized without embarrassment or reluctance.
I share a strong view of the communion of saints and the active role of those who have gone on to the church triumphant. I am not distressed by ideas of prayer that include the intercession of those who are with Christ. I am not opposed to the honoring of Mary as the mother of the divine Son of God, the incarnate Jesus, a model of the church and source of particular imitation and inspiration.
But in the one hour plus I listened to Hahn on this topic, I could feel the pain. And I didn’t bring any Tylenol either.
I could feel the pain of the Marian dogmas that have been propagated and made mandatory most recently, and the lack of simple, obvious Biblical evidence for those dogmas.
I could feel the stress of following a trail through scripture that was worthy of an Indiana Jones movie. And that is not an exaggeration. Hahn’s wild ride through the Old Testament to prove his points made the dispensationalist teaching of the rapture seem like John 3:16.
Again and again, Hahn told of “little known” aspects of the Queen-Mother theme in ancient middle eastern monarchies. Again and again, he said that “deeper study” would reveal the role of the Queen Mother. Again and again, he attempted to prove that the ark of the covenant is a Biblical symbol for Mary. With full knowledge that NO Protestant scholars buy his equation of the woman clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 with Mary, he persisted in insisting that the ark in the temple at the end of Revelation 11 and the woman in Revelation 12 are the same person.
These are fascinating views and have deep roots in Catholicism, but they aren’t laying there in the texts of scripture to be found and believed. They are a brew of centuries of Catholic scholarship finding what needs to be there.
Taking every available shortcut, and totally avoiding Mark 3, Hahn gave the expected view that Mary was ever virgin and had no other children. He cited the Protestant reformers as allies in this view, which is hardly a useful tactic if you intend to say those same reformers were wrong about so much else. Again, plain statements of scripture? Not available apparently.
He nobly attempted to explain why Joseph would have not had sexual relations with his wife despite the plain language of the Bible by saying Joseph would have considered marital sex and other children as an “unworthy use” of the virgin’s womb. One analogy compared Mary’s womb to fine China and marital sex to a picnic with plastic plates. This negative view of marital sex is something that simply can’t be brought into Christianity without deep negative consequences. Defending such an unnatural marriage with such analogies is insulting to those of us who are willing to listen and think through these difficult topics.
Word to all readers: Augustine was screwed up on the subject of sex and so were lots of other revered early church writers. MAJORLY SCREWED UP. Being great pastors and theologians doesn’t help straighten out the view that Joseph wouldn’t have wanted to defile the holy womb with regular marital sexual relations. Read Paul’s writings on marital sex and ask yourself if Augustine and Jerome were paying attention.
After all this desperation, Hahn never attempted a justification of any kind of the assumption of Mary, only resorted to a logical explanation of the immaculate conception and took for granted that Marian appearances, titles and piety contained nothing of interest. As seems to be the case so often, when we’ve gotten this far into what the church teaches on scanty or no evidence, there’s little hesitancy to put the brakes on or answer the huge questions that emerge.
As I said, a Protestant like myself feels that this sort of presentation is a painful exercise. Much of the “Biblical evidence” was of a kind that could never be brought into a neutral setting and presented seriously. It was as if the subtext was supposed to overtake the text: If you can believe all the rest, you can find a way to wrap your mind around this and make it work.
In other words, how much do you want to be in communion with the true church?
The issue for Protestants like myself is that the core Marian dogmas are important and almost all affirmable. But the more recent ones, and the more recent attempts to make all of this “Biblical” via various exegetical adventures, almost seems like tests for how much a Protestant is willing to surrender over to the teaching of the church what cannot be discovered or articulated any other way except dogmatically. If you persist in sayng these matters must be clearly demonstrated from scripture, something is going to have to give. See what the church sees and forget what you don’t see.
As I said, that’s real pain for some of us.
For many of us, that is also an insurmountable obstacle. Better- far, far better- to just say “The Church teaches it,” than to send Scott Hahn out to try and convince me that the Queen Mother Bathsheba proves the exalted role of Mary. Please.
I appreciated Scott Hahn’s presentations and learned much about his faith and his journey. It was helpful. He anticipated almost all of my objections to most of his subjects and answered them well, if not convincingly.
But on the subject of Mary it remains impossible to see why one must affirm the assumption of Mary in order to come to the Lord’s Table. Such a dogmatic hoop is there only to emphasize the necessity of submission of the mind and conscience to the church. As long as I can read the Bible for myself with reason and a modestly critical hermeneutic, I’ll never be able to affirm these dogmas.
If you can believe all the rest, you can find a way to wrap your mind around this and make it work.
Quite.
A lot of that goes on, not only on the RC side of the aisle. Not “Is it true?”, but “Is it possible for me to affirm this?”. (At the risk of going off-topic, this is a problem I have with some presentations of “evangelical universalism”, despite my own semi-universalist leanings. The argument becomes, “It is possible to believe in universalism and still be an evangelical”, rather than, “The Bible clearly teaches universalism”.)
Assuming that Jesus was both human and divine, could it be that Mary was the mother of the human but not the divine? Is it not true that flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit? How, then, could Mary, who was flesh, give birth to the divine? It is not wrong to respect and honour Mary, whom God selected to be the mother of Jesus. However, veneration (ie worship) belongs to God, not to Mary.(I grew up in the RCC during the 1950s when, according to the Catholic scholar Hans Kuhn, the doctrine of Mary was far more extreme.)
Richard
Interesting to hear your take on Scott Hahn. I didn’t know they thought of him as Luther in reverse. That is kind of funny. Back in college I ended up with one of his tapes and listened to the whole thing thinking, really? It was hard for me though as a Lutheran to fully understand who he was attacking. It wasn’t the Lutheran position. It became an ah ha moment for me. I began to realize how different the Lutheran position is from atleast most of the rest of protestantism, and from Catholocism. I also remember thinking if he had been Lutheran, he might still be Catholic, but his reasons for changing would have been very different. So I think it a bit ironic that they call him “Luther in reverse.”
Take away the veracity of scripture and what is there? How does one opinion supersede any other? I guess that makes me a “bible-thumper”, but I can live with that.
Btw– “the 135 who tried” lol, gotta love it.
Peace,
John
John,
Don’t think believeing in the veracity of Scripture ipso facto makes you a “Bible Thumper.” But you are right, take the scripture away and you have no reason not to be Catholic, if possibly no reason to be Christian at all.
From my experience on both banks of the Tiber:
When Protestants flake out, it’s usually some sort of End Time Prophecy or Culture War or Bible Code obsession.
When Catholics flake out, it’s usually some form of Mary obsession.
Same tendency to flake out, different expressions.
Mike-
Have you read NT Wright’s For All the Saints: Remembering the Christian Departed ? In this short (100 page) book, he outlines a pretty scriptural view of the saints and biblical arguments against traditional Catholic dogmas of purgatory.
What I found extremely interesting was his citation of Ratzinger’s view of purgatory, which seemed to completely turn the Roman dogma on its head. It almost seemed more like something C.S. Lewis would propose. Basically, Ratzinger says that purgatory is where all of the impurities of our souls are burned up in our encounter with God after death.
I’d be interested to read more about Ratzinger’s view as cited by Wright.
I just finished teaching Wright’s Surprised by Hope for 8 weeks. Ratzinger presents Purgatory as process, which I think is, at least at that point, so indistinguishable from what many of us would say about final sanctification as to be no barrier.
But there is still the indulgence problem and the theology that undergirds it. More of a barrier. But as to purgatory, I think many Christians can find common ground between Ratzinger, Wright and Lewis.
Assuming that Jesus was both human and divine, could it be that Mary was the mother of the human but not the divine? Is it not true that flesh gives birth to flesh and Spirit gives birth to spirit? How, then, could Mary, who was flesh, give birth to the divine? It is not wrong to respect and honour Mary, whom God selected to be the mother of Jesus. However, veneration (ie worship) belongs to God, not to Mary.(I grew up in the RCC during the 1950s when, according to the Catholic scholar Hans Kuhn, the doctrine of Mary was far more extreme.)
I think to view Mary in this manner (mother of the human but not the divine) is to make the same errors the Nestorians made…making divisions regarding the human and divine natures of Christ that made it as if Jesus were two people occupying the same head. This could lead to many logical errors not the least of which would be that there were really two Sons of God: the human Jesus and the divine Word who was sharing a room with Him in His head.
But, Jesus is not two persons occupying the same head. He is one person with two natures, human and divine, joined in a hypostatic union. So it’s entirely appropriate to call Mary the “Mother of God” because she was the mother of the God-Man, Jesus. When Jesus introduced Mary to someone he didn’t introduce her by saying, “This is the mother of my human nature.” He said, “This is my mother.”
Regardless of our other struggles with Marian dogmas, I really don’t see this one as a problem. In fact I see it as an important one to affirm as it directly impacts our understanding of Christ.
*note - much of that description, though expressed other places, was cribbed from Mark Shea. Yes, he’s Catholic, but I believe his argument is quite sound even from a Protestant perspective.
I’m with you on Mariology - it’s the stuff I just have the hardest time with in terms of engaging Catholicism. Especially in my area where Catholicism is mostly Latin American and Portugese Catholicism the devotional aspects of Marian theology really bother me…
That said I was recently blogging (http://metapundit.net/sections/blog/the_history_of_christianity) about a Christian history textbook I borrowed from a friend (Justo Gonzalez’ The Story of Christianity, very good read btw) and was struck by how recent some of the Marian dogmas are - the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary are both dogmas based on Papal pronouncements and are pretty recent (approx. 1850 and 1950). Historically speaking you could be a faithful Catholic without believing Mary was born free of original sin and bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her life… Even the Tiber shifts in its banks from time to time…
Michael, regarding the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, you may find of interest these reflections of mine. There is no question that a clarification, purification, and reformulation of the doctrine has occurred in the Catholic Church over the past fifty years. This clarification is grounded in a deeper apprehension of the infinite love and mercy of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Metapundit: Yes yes yes. This is a major problem.
Before 1850, I could have been a good Catholic and embrace those who believed things about Mary that I didn’t. Sorry, but I can’t see how those dogmas did anything but perpetuate division on grounds that are far from the Apostle’s Creed.
And just think about it. I could start RCIA today, and the day before I am received into full communion, another dogma could be defined as absolutely necessary.
That’s why I say that all of this seems to me to just be various versions of “Will you submit to the judgment of the church in all things?” And that’s fine, but I prefer the direct method to the idea that it’s all there in the Bible if I’d just read it with my brain on.
Please, forgive me if I am overstepping any bounds, but I thought I’d take a look at some of the things said about Mary, from the view of one who moved from Protestantism past Catholicism to Orthodoxy only a year ago (which means I’m pretty darn ignorant about a lot of things). Part of why I thought I’d post this is because the Orthodox have a number of similar objections to Catholic Mariology as Protestants do.
1) The Queen-Mother issue. I don’t recall hearing any Orthodox make a big deal out of this; it seems primarily the realm of Catholic scholars. This may just be a result of not hearing much in the way of Orthodox apologetics.
2) Recent Marian dogma. I assume by this, you’re referring to the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. On this points, my understanding is that the RCC not only lacks Biblical evidence, they lack a Traditional footing for these doctrines as well.
The Immaculate Conception is only even necessary when considered in light of Original Sin, a doctrine in which the Orthodox have never believed (as one speaker I heard put it, “The Immaculate Conception is an unconvincing solution to a nonexistent problem”).
However, it goes deeper than that. A modern-day Saint of the Church, St. John the Wonderworker, said in his book that the Immaculate Conception actually denies all of Mary’s virtues! What virtue is it to abstain from sin, if one is unable to sin? This does imply that we believe she never sinned: as I understand it, where we differ from Protestants here is that we believe that she never committed conscious sin; however, she may have sinned unintentionally.
Regarding the Assumption, I think it is enough to say that the Orthodox Church, to this day celebrates the Dormition (”Falling Asleep”) of the Theotokos. However, at the same time, we do believe that she was bodily assumed into Heaven after her burial, and it is noteworthy that, although both the RCC and EOC venerate her and highly value relics, there are no relics of the Theotokos.
3) Ever-Virgin. You mentioned that Hahn “avoided” Mark 3. While Hahn may have avoided that passage, that passage only disproves the Ever-Virginity of Mary when one assumes the Catholic tradition that says the “brothers” were cousins. A much older tradition, still taught in Orthodoxy, holds that Joseph was a widower when he took Mary, who had avowed herself as a virgin, into his household. There was never any intention to consummate the marriage in the first place, and Joseph already had children by his previous wife.
All that said, you’ll notice that I never attempted a “Biblical explanation” of any of this. I think that’s the biggest weakness of arguments such as what you’ve presented of Hahn. Sometimes, the right answer to a question is to point out that the presuppositions behind that question are wrong. Once the wrong presuppositions are corrected, the question often becomes irrelevant.
Before 1850, I could have been a good Catholic and embrace those who believed things about Mary that I didn’t.
Nothing profound to add here, it’s just that I have often had similar thoughts and, until now, never heard anyone else say this. Nice to finally hear it elsewhere. And it wasn’t any help (from my Protestant perspective) that when the Pope made that ex cathedra proclamation (Yes, my RC brothers and friends, the only one in history. Yes, I know!) he punctuated it by saying that if anyone rejects one part of the Catholic faith, he rejects the entirety. Pretty much a deal breaker for alot of folks.
Hahn routinely claims that he can defend any Catholic teaching using only the Bible. That doesn’t necessarily make Catholicism credible; it just means that he probably belongs on TBN rather than EWTN. Rationalism to the rescue yet again. But if it is wrong for Hahn to do it, protestants should probably knock it off, too.
As a protestant, Mary is very important to me, particularly as an example of faith and God’s grace. I think because protestants tend to overlook Mary they never truly grasp the significance of the incarnation. I believe Mary should be honored among protestants, because the Mighty God has done great things through her by His grace. This is in keeping with what Luther called the proper way to recite the Ave Maria. Our prayers should imitate Mary’s fiat, just as Jesus taught us to pray, “Thy will be done”.
I can’t as a protestant accept the view of Mary as comediatrix. There is one mediator between God and man (I Timothy 2:5) and Jesus Himself who intercedes for us (Hebrews 7:25). Jesus tells us to pray to the Father ourselves in His name (John 16:23-24)! We are called to boldly approach the throne of grace (Hebrews 4:16). No where are we told to go through proper channels or some social/spiritual network. But I, too, believe the saints in heaven do pray for us, just as we are called to pray for each other here on earth.
I really believe there is a connection between this issue and what enables the creation of personalities like Todd Bentley. We are in real trouble when we believe someone else will get a different answer to our prayer request than the one we would receive by praying ourselves. That is not intercessory prayer. It is grace-by-merit via the backdoor. No one has more access to the Father through Jesus than anyone else! The Father loves us equally, because of Jesus. We need no other mediator. It doesn’t take courage to approach a loving God; it takes courage to believe that it is all true: that He truly loves us individually and welcomes us into His presence. Grace is scary stuff. It throws all our cowardly excuses out the window.
Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.
That said I was recently blogging about a Christian history textbook I borrowed from a friend (Justo Gonzalez’ The Story of Christianity, very good read btw) and was struck by how recent some of the Marian dogmas are - the assumption and immaculate conception of Mary are both dogmas based on Papal pronouncements and are pretty recent (approx. 1850 and 1950). Historically speaking you could be a faithful Catholic without believing Mary was born free of original sin and bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her life… Even the Tiber shifts in its banks from time to time…
This objection fails to take into consideration that the simple fact that all dogmatic definition occurs *in history*. Before the Council of Nicaea Arian-like ambiguity about the identity of Jesus and his relation to the Creator was open to all Christians. It was only after the Nicene dogmatic definition and its incorporation into the mind of the Church that it became clear that “orthodox” belief required the assertion of an identity of substance between the incarnate Jesus and God the Father. And similar observations can be made about all the dogmas of the Church.
The Marian dogmas may well “look” late to us, but in fact, as far as we know, we are still in the “early” days of the Church. In the fourth century, many considered the homoousion of Athanasius to be an innovation and novelty and rejected it on that basis. See R. P. C. Hanson’s *The Search for the Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381*–and in one sense they were quite right.
Put aside, for the moment, the alleged novelty of the Catholic dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Consider, rather, the novelty of Protestant rejection of Marian veneration. Consider the novelty of Protestant rejection of the “practical” sinlessness of Mary and of her perpetual virginity. Consider the novelty of a form of Christianity in which the person of the Theotokos is absent in Protestant preaching, worship, and devotion. And all of this is justified in the name of the plain reading of Scripture, yet who before the 16th and 17th centuries ever read the Scriptures so as to reduce Mary to one sinner among many? How many Protestants are happy to say with St Augustine: “Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God.” When the “direct” reading of the Bible leads to such drastic reduction of the faith catholic, then I suggest that it is time to stop reading the Bible with one’s “brain on” and start reading it in faith *with* the Church.
The Bible simply cannot be properly read apart from the mediation of the Church.
Or as Stanley Hauerwas provocatively puts it: “No task is more important than for the Church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America.”
I got my first Scott Hahn tape when I was in the Legion of Mary as a teenager. It was given to me by a very holy blind woman who was very devoted to the Virgin.
I would like to know, then, what Protestants think when they read John 19: 26-27:
“When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.” [KJV]
First of all, what type of son would Christ be to deprive His brothers and His sisters of the presence of their mother? That’s why Catholics say that He was an only child.
Secondly, do Protestants give any meaning to these verses? Or is it just some quaint text that we have to skip over and that the Papists make too much of a big deal about?
I think no devout Catholic can read these verses without getting a lump in his throat and even a bit teary eyed. Especially in more traditional Catholic cultures, we learn to love Mary from the cradle. Often, we are surrounded by pictures of her, and the Ave Maria is probably one of the first prayers we learn how to recite, even before we could really talk. I guess for us Catholics, it’s nice to have another mom. Even many apostate atheist Catholics who hate Christ and are the most vehement anti-clericalist still have a secret love for His mother. I can’t explain that. It’s just the way it is, and in truth that type of love has led even the worst unbeliever back to the Church.
Maybe Jack Chick is right. Maybe it is some form of goddess worship that has contaminated the “pure Gospel”. However, maybe that is something that God had planned all along: maybe He knew that the feminine is such a powerful archetype in the religious consciousness of human beings that He knew that people would venerate His mother and have recourse to her. I still don’t see why that is such a horrible thing, and maybe God doesn’t either.
Fr. Al,
Excellent points, so with all due respect- and I mean that sincerely- I have a question.
Why is does any Catholic have anything to say to any Protestant other that sentence: The Bible cannot be understood outside of the teachings of the RCC?
We asked a RC to join the BHT last year. After a few months, I deleted him, because he wouldn’t talk to us. He answered all our questions with “The Church teaches X, and until you submit to the church, all your Bible study is just going to get you more confused.”
I was annoyed at the time, but now I have to say that seems precisely on target.
It makes Protestant-Catholic discussions really a moot point beyond a discussion of the authority of the church to define all answers to all questions.
peace
MS
P.S. Hauerwas is a Methodist isn’t he?
“That’s why I say that all of this seems to me to just be various versions of “Will you submit to the judgment of the church in all things?” And that’s fine, but I prefer the direct method to the idea that it’s all there in the Bible if I’d just read it with my brain on.”
I think you hit the nail on the head with this one, although I disagree that “it’s all there in the bible”.
Amen imonk,
I’ve learned some great things from reading a few of Hahn’s books, but that guy talks way too fast for me to follow. I don’t really understand all of the Marian doctrines, and I don’t enjoy the old church ladies making me feel guilty for not praying my rosary (it’s just not my cup of tea).
I’m really glad that understanding the bible and church doctrine is not one of the commandments.
Michael,
It’s been a while since I have replied, but I have been following along faithfully. I continue to keep you in my prayers and now pray for your wife as well.
We RCs and other Christians have plenty to discuss together. We have much in common and much to share. As an RC I have learned a lot from my encounter with people of other backgrounds. I continue to learn a lot from reading your blogs.
When it comes to resolving some of the beliefs that divide us, I have found that it really does come down to authority and that is not only when it is RCC vs. any other although it is more starkly pronounced.
The truth is that none of us picked up a Bible, read it, developed our own logically consistent theology, morality, eschatology and christology and walked off in faith alone.
We all are part of some community and we all come at our faith with the guidance of others. Our very relationship with scripture and faith is formed in the mold of those who instruct us. We all accept many authorities as we walk in faith.
Many of our theological disagreements ultimately boil down to two things: our ‘mold’ or approach to the faith and the authority we accept - both informally (W.T. Wright or Piper) or formally (scripture alone, scripture and reason, scripture reason and tradition, or all of that plus the magisterium).
So I agree, at the bottom of the struggle with the the RCC over the Marian dogma’s is the impasse of authority. It doesn’t mean we don’t have anything to talk about, but it does mean that neither I or anyone else is going to argue you into the RCC and neither you or anyone else is going to argue me out of it. Although I am a cradle catholic, I have had my struggle with RCC dogma, I fought the battle and made the arguments and in the end… by the grace of God I found faith. Not unlike Scott Hahn and many other converts I eventually conceded that the Magisterium was correct in many of the issues I had argued, I made the decision to be open to faith, and over time, through prayer and study I came to trust the teaching authority of the Holy Catholic Church.
Once I viewed the Christian faith WITH the Church and let myself and my thinking be conformed that mold, all my arguments were easily overcome.
There is no argument I can make from the Bible or any other source that will overwhelm all objections. Many others do a great job of explaining why the RCC makes sense, why it does not contradict scripture, how the papacy is biblical etc. I have lots of personal reasons I believe, but for me it all comes down to the gift of faith. Although I was born and raised in the RCC (and poorly catechized like 99% of my generation) it was not until I became willing to lay aside my obstinacies and arguments and learn that faith found me.
I will say this, paraphrasing someone: If it wasn’t for the authority of the Magisterium I would not believe in the Bible.
God Bless
Paul
” But as to purgatory, I think many Christians can find common ground between Ratzinger, Wright and Lewis.”
Wow, this sounds like Vatican 2 for at least some of Protestantism.
For John: “Take away the veracity of scripture and what is there? How does one opinion supersede any other? I guess that makes me a “bible-thumper”, but I can live with that.”
No one is doubting the veracity of Scripture. But as they said on the Simpson’s, “The Bible says a lot of things,” and thus are produced so many opinions - many of which are good and contain some truth. But in the end I think we need to approach Scripture like the noble Bereans who with the Spirit somehow were able to reconcile what the OT says and what Paul taught about Christ: That God actually was and is three persons, that all the passages on the perpetual covenant of the Sabbath of the OT no longer applies, that the perpetual covenant of circumcision means nothing, that all the food laws mean nothing, that Jews and Gentiles are now equally valued in the eyes of God. To find all this in the OT scriptures that the noble Bereans used would require a method Biblical interpretation not in common use today.
CoderForChrist: 3) Ever-Virgin. You mentioned that Hahn “avoided” Mark 3. While Hahn may have avoided that passage, that passage only disproves the Ever-Virginity of Mary when one assumes the Catholic tradition that says the “brothers” were cousins. A much older tradition, still taught in Orthodoxy, holds that Joseph was a widower when he took Mary, who had avowed herself as a virgin, into his household. There was never any intention to consummate the marriage in the first place, and Joseph already had children by his previous wife.
Are you referring to the Protevangelium of James?
Arturo,
>I still don’t see why that is such a horrible thing, and maybe God doesn’t either.
I don’t know what blog you were reading that said the proper appreciation of Mary is “horrible thing,” or that I consider my brother Fr. Al to be promoting a “horrible thing,” but it wasn’t this blog and it wasn’t me.
I recommend you reread the “common ground on Mary” that I affirmed, and if there are some Jack Chick Protestants on this blog discussion, you might point them out. I’m missing them.
peace
MS
Michael
Rereading your post, I feel the need to clarify a little. You wrote:
It makes Protestant-Catholic discussions really a moot point beyond a discussion of the authority of the church to define all answers to all questions.
Although I agree that authority is at the heart of many of the most fundamental issues that divide the Church, and RCC dogma ultimately comes down to the authority of the magisterium, that does not mean that all questions are answered by authority.
There is much in the faith that is not defined by dogma. In my previous few posts a few months ago, I alluded to the reality that the Catholic Church is not a monolith. In every respect there is much variety within the church. We catholics within the church find plenty to debate and discuss and argue about from within, and have done so for centuries.
Again, God Bless
Paul
Word to all readers: Augustine was screwed up on the subject of sex and so were lots of other revered early church writers. MAJORLY SCREWED UP.
I suspect that was because they came out of the sexual free-for-all of the Late Roman Empire. I’m in California, Ground Zero of the Sexual Revolution, and the constant in-your-face of SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! SEX! in any and every form except heterosexual monogamy has gotten me completely disgusted with even the idea of sex.
There’s even an “asexuality” movement gaining ground among college students; when you’re 18, been there/done that/got the VD, and as burned out on sex as a worn-out street whore, you get to the point you want nothing more to do with it. EVER.
You’re 136 Joe.
Michael,
Before I became a “revert” to the Catholic Church (having spend some 15 years as an Episcopalian), I too struggled with the Catholic Church’s devotion and emphasis on Mary. I could go along with it up to a point, but the more recent Catholic dogmas seemed to just be too much.
Having read through the Catechism of the Catholic Church twice during my spiritual journey, I felt I was being called “home to Rome.” But I couldn’t rationalize the Immaculate Conception. (The Assumption didn’t bother me as much, as there was biblical precedent, and Mary does “disappear” from historical record). How could Mary be sinless? And why all of this devotion and emphasis on her?
My difficulty was only resolved gradually and after much prayer. I asked the Lord to teach me to love His mother only as much as He does - neither more nor less. Over time, as I continued to ask this of the Lord, my difficulties subsided -and though I couldn’t “prove” these dogmas from Scripture or from the unanimous testimony of Tradition, I accepted them on the basis of the Church’s authority. (Was it Augustine who said something like “I would not believe in the Gospel were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church”?)
Since that time, I have had a deepening appreciation for Mary, and for her role in our salvation history. Might I recommend a couple of books? You may be familiar with Pelikan’s “Mary Through the Centuries” - a very good overview. But I also highly recommend “Our Lady and the Church” by Hugo Rahner, SJ (Zaccheus Press).
God bless you! I enjoy reading your blog!
When I read Protestant conversion stories, there is almost always one common characteristic: a desire to get SOMETHING right out of all the options available.
This might be “who has the true Eucharist?” or “What is the church founded by Jesus?” or “Are the clergy in my church actually true ministers?” or “How can I know what is the true doctrine?” and so on.
I grew up with this in Landmark Baptist fundamentalism.
It never took with me. I have no anxieties about what is the “true” anything in Christianity.
I believe a fallible church was adequate for the Spirit to produce an authoritative canon.
I accept the fallibility of the church and trust in the sovereignty of God.
I believe that what it is important to know is revealed in the New Testament and can be known by an obvious reading. (If it’s important, it’s there. If it’s not important, it’s probably not there.)
I have no anxieties at all about belonging to Christ, going to heaven, are my sins forgiven, do I believe enough of the right stuff from tradition, etc.
When I read about the anxieties of converts, I simply can’t identify.
When I look at the RCC, I find much to admire, but nothing that persuades me that God dwells there in a way differently than he does throughout his church and among his people.
So I appreciate all resources, but my “wrestling” isn’t on a personal level. If you don’t know the story, you are obviously a new reader.
peace
MS
Michael - I believe Hauerwas has moved from the Methodist Church of his upbringing to the Anglican Communion.
Regarding Hahn, why does it almost always seem to be largely educated WASPs who are so impressed by romanticized conceptions of the Roman Catholic Church, while 100,000s of Latinos, born and baptized Roman Catholics, are leaving Rome for evangelical forms of Christianity. There may be a sociological component to explain some of this exodus, but the majority of those who are leaving cannot be so easily dismissed.
You stated that Hahn is “a prominent Catholic scholar, apologist and Bible teacher, doing much to encourage Roman Catholic adults to understand their faith and especially its sources in scripture.”
Hahn presents an idealized, monolithic Catholicism that tends to appeal to people who don’t live in areas dominated by cultural Catholicism.
Our family rather parallels yours in a way. My husband grew up conservative Baptist — Tim LaHaye was the pastor at the church, high school, and college he attended in the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. We’ve been attending an EV Free Church for 15 years this month.
About nine years ago, I became part of a small Internet community of women, made up mostly of homeschooling moms who needed a creative outlet and grown-up conversation on literature, theology, the arts, films, etc. Early on, one of the women converted from the Vineyard tradition (was a part of John Wimber’s original church) to Catholicism after praying for five years that her husband would be led by the Spirit to convert to the RCC as well. They accomplished their conversions with no strain on their marriage because the woman was willing to wait on God to keep His promise to her that He would bring them into the RCC together.
I am in a similar boat. The Holy Spirit revealed to me that my husband and I are to convert to Roman Catholicism too, but right now my husband is very anti-Catholic. He allows me to attend weekday healing services at a conservative Anglican Church, so I “get my liturgy fix” there at least plus I don’t have to grapple over the places I’m still uncomfortable with yet in Catholicism. I have read Scott Hahn’s conversion story and the conversion stories of other evangelicals to the RCC, and they’ve encouraged me greatly. I’ve recently read Hahn’s book on Mary as well, but I still didn’t understand all he was trying to express. I’ll reread it again in a few months.
I plan to wait until my husband converts, if he does convert, before I start going to Catholic Mass. I’ve already been waiting and praying for five years so far, and I’m sure I have *many* more to go on. I may have several months to wait, or, much more probably, several years to wait, or perhaps I’ll never convert in this temporal life. I don’t know. But our marriage is still strong because I don’t want to usurp familial leadership. Does that make sense???
I’ll continue praying for your family to have unity and peace.
- Susanne, who should not be posting blog replies at nearly 2:30 AM…..
Susanne, though you and I have quite different beliefs in God and what he does, I appreciate your story.
Word to the gallery: please keep the discussion on Scott Hahn/Mary, not on conversion. Thanks.
Peace
MS
Two excellent recent books exhaust the topic:
Mary: A Catholic-Evangelical Debate by Dwight Longenecker, David Gustafson (Brazos), Endoresed by a Whos Who on both sides.
You really have to already be convinced of Catholicism’s truth claims for Gustafon’s arguments not to hit home here.
Mary for Evangelicals by Tm Perry (IVP), sympathetic but realistic.
136? I truthfully don’t want you to change.
Joe
Lordy lordy, Michael Spencer, that’s some hard-core car time man. Scott Hahn, wow. I’m impressed with this though - that you did that, just engaged his thoughts and ideas. I think, however idealized his notions of the Catholic Church may or may not be, that he seems to be one of the more irenic “apologists” around in the convert camp. He does seem more of a scholar/teacher than a technical apologist for certain. I only have one book of his, Letter and Spirit, and I haven’t read all of it - seems decent. Anyway, I’ve seen him on TV and read here and there, this and that and like I said, I like his spirit, his tone as a person. He seems kind.
I’ll say this on some of the other you were talking about: I agree with you that the contemporary tendency among convert apologists to sometimes try to “prove” all things Catholic by the Bible alone ends up being very “gymnastic” at times. I’ve thought this myself - “uuuh, it’s not necessary to prove everything we believe by pointing to it, either explicitly or even implicitly, in Scripture.” It’s just not. As Catholics, of course, we would be committed to things in the Marian arena, for instance, not directly contradicting Scripture. Some may believe some of it does, but of course there are those pesky alternative interpretations. So, I’d say from my perspective, none of it does.
So, while there may be something to the Queen-Mother thing in the story of Israel and the Church, there needn’t be. I think Fr. Al mentioned that these Traditions didn’t come out of nowhere in the history of the Church. They’ve been there to one degree or another and have never been universally called out as something which blocks our faith in Christ. I’m not trying to prove anything to you - just laying out how I look at these things. I see the Marian dogmas and I don’t see a snag that gets in the way of my faith in Jesus. I feel enriched in it.
Now, I do agree there are many popular Catholic “abuses” in the area of Marian devotion. There are plenty of Catholics who try to deflect that and explain how they’re not really going too far, but seriously people, let’s get honest here. There are Catholics, especially in certain cultures, who have too central a focus on the Blessed Mother. She can tend to overshadow Jesus, not point to Him (as she should). That’s not good. I’m not saying that makes them non-Christian pagans, but it’s just not good, much as, perhaps, too great a focus on politics or sports overshadows Jesus in the lives of many Americans. Those things are of a different order, but hopefully the point is made. We certainly should all be careful to keep central and core things central and core and move out from there.
Just an interesting last thought too: Most, if not all, Marian devotions are NOT mandatory for Catholics. No Catholic HAS to say a Hail Mary or pray a Rosary. No Catholic is required to attend a May “crowning” deal. And you can add to that list tons of other popular devotions, which may well help a lot of people to grow in faith (in a very good way) but which are not central to the level of requiring these practices in connection to them. So, all Catholics theoretically believe the same things about Mary, but they certainly all don’t have the same focus on or devotion to her.
OK, as usual, I’ve not blogged at my place for a bit so I’m over here going off at the mind. Peace to you.
Thanks Alan. Very helpful.
One never hears a convert talking about “Here’s where I stake out my own practice in regard to Mary.” It’s always, “Here’s how I discovered the Bible really does teach all of it- and I just never noticed it before!”
Arthuro,
As a former RC who was heavily involved in Catholic Youth Ministry, I eventually drifted into the Non-Denom world for 20+ years. What I appreciated from the Jesus movement was that they actually opened their bibles and read them. Of course, all the rapture teachings and Victorious Christian Life stuff eventually burned me out.
I came across New Covenant/Old Covenant teaching through Ray Stedman, which years later, I can see was an evangelical version of the Reformation Law/Gospel formulation. White Horse Inn carried me over the transom–and I have an appreciation for segments of my Calvary Chapel days–especially in the respect for Scripture.
Ultimately, as a Protestant, I have come to terms with the 5 Solas. As I follow Sola Scriptura, I have come to believe that Scripture as the Word of God–creates the Church, not vice versa.
When I used to see people prostrating themselves before statues of Mary or other Saints, or even Jesus, my skin would crawl.
As I’ve come to terms with the Finished Work of Christ on the Cross, looking to any other action on my part or other Mediator is repugnant.
As you mention non-believing lapsed catholics or atheists having some hidden love for Mary, despite despising Christ–I can’t see the benefit for anyone there. That Mary would lead them back to a false Co-Redemptor? As far as the feminine aspect–that is RCC compromise with paganism–much like the Emergents now. There is a reason that Jesus called God “our Father in Heaven” and emphasized His Sonship. The Church is the Bride of Christ and is to submit to the Son, not Mary. To put Mary between believers and Jesus borders on blaspheme, I would wager.
I know RCC makes a big deal out of Jesus giving Mary into the Apostle John’s care. Could this not just be a way to provide for Mary in her old age and nothing more? And in this case, such an action places Mary under the authority of John, in his household, not the reverse. This in effect quite disproves Mary’s authority in the church.
Jesus was born of Mary to prove that he was of Human Flesh. He did not need Mary to prove His Divinity–He could have appeared instantaneously and performed miracles and even suffered death on the Cross–but without the humanity given when he was born of Mary–people could say, sure Jesus died on a Cross, but so what! He was God!
God chose a lowly human girl named Mary, so that He might share in our human condition, yet by His power, he did not sin. How, is beyond me. By Faith, I believe in the only begotten Son of God.
Michael,
I can totally relate to your post. I too have never been able to accept the Marian dogmas of the RCC. It really comes down to the authority issue that has been mentioned. My studies of church history in college made it painfully clear that there wasn’t a time when everyone in the early church saw Rome as the only authority. They argued with Rome and one of the bishops(in the 2nd century) even wrote to the Roman bishop and told him that his church would obey God rather than men(referring to the Roman bishop and his instructions to the church). This doesn’t sound like they felt the Roman bishop was infallible to me.
I like what you said, “I accept the fallibility of the church and trust in the sovereignty of God.”
Amen brother,
Jeff M
“One never hears a convert talking about “Here’s where I stake out my own practice in regard to Mary.” It’s always, “Here’s how I discovered the Bible really does teach all of it- and I just never noticed it before!””
Might it be worth exploring why that is?
Perhaps it is because…they’ve not left the Sola Scriptura paradigm behind?
And because in contemporary American Catholicism, any substantive way of making sense of faith, Scripture and Tradition has been abandoned on the popular level in the wake of Vatican II? And American Catholicism has, instead of staking out its own presuppositions on those matters, in this vacuum, subtlely accepted the presumptions of the Protestant worldview?
Just some thoughts. These folks came into the Church in which apologetics was a big no-no among the Catholic establishment In the absence of traditional Catholic apologetics, which has a long and substantive history and is not rooted in adopting a sola scriptura angle..they really had to create their own sense of what they were doing and why it made sense to them.
Does anyone else see the historical irony in the fact that RCs are quoting the scripture in English?
I know Wiki has some issues, but it states that the assumption has been around since at least the 3rd-4th century. It was dogmatically “confirmed” recently, but has been a part of little “t” tradition for some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary
I agree that it’s a stretch to prove the assumption, immaculate conception, etc., based on the bible alone. Catholics are better off saying these things are part of tradition, and not “disproved” by the Bible.
Like you, I can see the reasoning behind most Catholic theology. My problem is the Catholic Church’s need to define certain seemingly benign activities as “mortal sin” (i.e. sin that, if not confessed to a priest, will cause you to go to hell). These things include deciding to sleep in instead of going to church one Sunday, a married couple using contraception once regardless of the reason, a Catholic marrying a non-catholic without church approval (because their marital relations would be adultery).
I want to belong to the historical church, but these ridged doctrines don’t seem to reflect the Jesus I see in the Gospels.
I meant “(because their marital relations would be considered non-marital relations).”
Michael,
If you don’t mind, I’m one convert who entered the Catholic Church with doubts about the Marian doctrines especially her Immaculate Conception. When I was teaching children in the Catholic Church, I made sure that my co-teacher taught both the rosary and the Marian doctrines. (The rosary still reminds me of “vain repetitions” even though I know the history of it)
For me, Scott Hahn was helpful in giving me words to help explain what I knew instinctively in my spiritual journey.
I think because Mary did her work behind the scenes that it is hard to understand why the early Patristic Church loved her so much.
Maybe this video will help:
http://www.burkeingraffia.com/blog/may-31-mary-melanie-and-me/
Scott Hahn was one of my professors in college. He impressed upon me a poetic version of covenant theology that cannot be swallowed in a sound byte or put on a bumper sticker. He is just a man like the rest of us, but he is sincerely seeking the truth using every resource at his disposal. He is not the sort of person who is only out to sell books.
Why is does any Catholic have anything to say to any Protestant other that sentence: The Bible cannot be understood outside of the teachings of the RCC?
Because that is the precise and correct response to the Protestant claim of the perspicacity of Holy Scripture, just as the claim of perspicacity is the precise and correct response to the Catholic claim of ecclesial infallibility. And at this point we confront a fundamental difference which I do not know how to negotiate. Two conflicting paradigms are colliding.
I have to honestly say, with all love and respect, that I find the Protestant confession of sola scriptura, with the attendant confession of biblical perspicacity, incoherent, implausible, and impossible to believe. Michael, when you express your confidence that any believer can discern the fullness of Christian doctrine simply by reading the Bible with his “brain on,” I can only shake my head in disbelief, just as I know you shake your head when confronted with Catholic claims about the Eucharist or the Mother of God. Even as an Anglican I found biblical perspicacity far-fetched and absurd, which is why I relied so heavily on the Church Fathers and the Vincentian canon as my theological guides. It was only when I finally admitted the impossibility of *all* forms of Protestantism to stand intellectually against the skepticism and relativism of modernity that I then turned to the Catholic Church. I will not rehearse here the considerations I have found persuasive. I refer anyone who might find them of interest to my past blog articles on sola scriptura.
I will say that the theologians who ultimately prepared me for conversion to the Catholic Church were Protestant theologians, men like Robert Jenson, Richard Swinburne, George Lindbeck, Stanley Hauerwas, Thomas Oden, and Lesslie Newbigin. In each of them, each in their own way, one sees the assertion of the necessity of authoritative tradition for the proper reading of the Bible. In the absence of such a tradition, the Bible cannot function as a dogmatic authority for faith and practice, as the history and diversity of Protestantism amply documents. The intellectual bankruptcy of Protestantism is so obvious to me, so crystal-clear and patent, that I honestly have a hard time understanding why intelligent Protestants do not see things as clearly as I see them. This is not to say that I believe that the truth of Catholicism is obvious. Quite the contrary. On Tuesdays and Saturdays I can easily see myself as Eastern Orthodox, while on Wednesdays I am ready to simply give up on the whole Christian game and return to the agnosticism of my youth. But I have decided to cast my fate on the see of Peter. If I’m wrong, then I’m in good company.
I well understand the difficulties the Marian dogmas pose. I’ve been there. Indeed, I have to admit that many forms of Marian devotion remain alien to me, and some forms I find deeply objectionable. But these difficulties pale to insignificance when compared to the difficulties posed by the drastic reduction of catholic belief and practice that is typical of most forms of Protestantism. I could continue, but I think I’ve said enough at this point. I’d be happy to amplify and expand if anyone so wishes. I hope that my rhetoric has not offended. It is not my intent to attack or offend. God bless.
>I honestly have a hard time understanding why intelligent Protestants do not see things as clearly as I see them.
Glad we got that out on the table. -) And you already provided my excuse
Do you believe my high school students need to have the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church to understand John 3:16?
And let’s assume that many Protestants agree with much of Catholicism- as I do- but not all. Is it necessary for me to believe the magisterium is infallible in order to teach Mere Christianity?
Should everyone who has providentially found themselves outside of the RCC make every effort to be in full communion? Why? What benefits in regard to Christ are not available to me as a Protestant?
Given what Vatican II and other recent ecumenical documents have to say, why can’t I say, “I choose not to enter the RCC, but to be a part of the church catholic.”
Fr. Al:
One other comment/question and I’ll shut up.
The doctrine of sola scriptura is not uniformly and identically believed by Protestants.
For example, while I use the term, my actual view is the prima scriptura view as articulated by SOuthern Baptist theologian James Leo Garrett. Garrett wants to make it clear that he does not believe in scripture alone as authoritative or that he rejects tradition. Protestants like D.H. Williams are articulating a strong view of tradition and canon.
“Intelligent” Protestants have a variety of ways of articulating the relation of scripture and tradition.
Is it necessary for me to believe the magisterium is infallible in order to teach Mere Christianity?
But what is “mere Christianity,” Michael? What if what you believe to be mere Christianity is but a gutted version of full Christianity? How can you, given your sola scriptura commitments, ever discern the difference?
Let’s bracket, for the moment, the question of the Pope. The answer to your question is still an emphatic yes. This is why I formulated “Pontificator’s First Law“: “When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses.” It’s important not to leave Eastern Orthodoxy out of the equation. Catholicism and Protestantism are not the only authentic Christian options. Eastern Orthodoxy represents a form of Christianity that justly claims to be ancient and apostolic. And one thing is clear: on most doctrinal and sacramental matters, Orthodoxy is far closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism. So when Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree (e.g., on sacraments, bishops, veneration of the Theotokos, invocation of the saints, etc.), should not this consensus weigh against contrary Protestant beliefs?
You ask what benefits of Christ are not available to you as a Protestant. Is this really the question you want to ask? Is it a question we should be asking? The question itself is profoundly American and reveals our deep pietistic and gnostic roots. Who needs the Church when one can get an unmediated Jesus? Harold Bloom’s *The American Religion* is necessary reading, as is Philip Lee’s *Against the Protestant Gnostics*. Stanley Hauerwas’s sermon for Reformation Sunday is also very much to the point.
What do we gain by becoming Catholic or Orthodox? Immediately comes to mind: the Eucharist–the Eucharist and all the sacramental mysteries of the Church! The saints and martyrs and all the company of heaven! The Blessed Virgin Mary! The irreformable dogmatic decisions of the ecumenical councils! The fullness of catholic faith and practice! The ascetical tradition and discipline! Unity with the apostolic Church founded by Christ! Deliverance from private judgment and the need to invent for oneself a personal theology!
There are all sorts of negatives, too, of course. Catholic and Orthodox parochial life is a mixed bag, and bishops can be both blessing and bane. For someone like myself who loves, and needs, the liturgy, American Catholic liturgical life can be exceptionally painful. Ultimately, though, I cannot and will not sell either Catholicism or Orthodoxy on the basis its superior fulfillment of our spiritual needs and desires. It’s probably and ultimately true, but it would be dishonest for me to assert that it is always the case. If it were, there would be far fewer converts from Catholicism and Orthodoxy to evangelical religion. Jesus is not limited to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (thank God!). But the fact that he is not limited to the visible catholic and sacramental structures of the Church does not mean that we should not seek to be found within those structures. What God wills for us is good for us.
So the only question that matters is, What does God will for us? Of course, whether I desire to embrace, whether I do in fact embrace, the good God wills for me is quite a different matter. My confessors know that I do not! May God have mercy upon me, a sinner.
Well, this is Catholic Presuppositionalism. Impressive, Fr. Van Til.
Not only are my answers lame, I can’t even ask the questions right. As an American Protestant, I don’t even know what Christianity is. I’m only asking gnostic, Americanized questions that assume Jesus is available outside of the authorized franchise. In fact, the Christianity I am discussing isn’t even Christianity at all, but the Protestant reduced price version.
With all due respect, your rhetoric isn’t the rhetoric of your church’s documents on ecumenism. You’re preaching quite a different sermon.
I stated in another post that my “sola scriptura” assumptions are probably being misstated by you, as I believe in prima scriptura. No difference from your standpoint, but important to me. You’ve mentioned many Protestants who share your views, none of whom are Roman Catholics. That tells me something.
I simply don’t believe that God allowed me to live my life till I am 51 in the Baptist church, and now, thanks to internet apologists for the RC, I need to resign, become jobless and go get something in the Eucharist that, in my experience, isn’t producing anything distinctively more Jesus-like than my own tradition.
If the Christian God is only REALLY available at a few places in town, then I want nothing to do with him. And I’m quite serious. If the invitations of Jesus to come to him don’t apply to me wherever I and my simple faith in Jesus happen to be, then it’s Buddhism for me.
I don’t have these anxieties about what is the true church. Jesus is the mediator and Jesus is enough. No church dispenses him.
Thanks for the invigorating exchange.
Hmmm. For years I actually assumed that Orthodoxy was simply an Eastern variation of Roman Catholicism. Over the course of the last couple of years, though, I’ve discovered how mistaken that assumption was. Most of the Orthodox I’ve read or heard would tend to say that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are more similar to each other than either is to Orthodoxy. I have a pretty decent grasp (without the caricatures and straw men often employed) of both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. And I’ve always said, contrary to much of what I hear, that they aren’t actually all that dissimilar.
As an adult convert to Christianity (more or less — the reality is actually more complicated and a longer story) from a varied spiritual background, but certainly with a lot of far Eastern influence, I read Scripture and always seemed to read it differently than my fellow Protestant wayfarers. Since I’ve also always had an interest in ancient history, I naturally studied the history of the Church and read much that I could find from the first millenium especially. (Most of those ancient preachers and writers are Eastern, not Western. Just an aside.)
However, it was only when I actually began reading and listening to Orthodox writers and speakers from more or less present times that I realized that many of the things I understood from Scripture that seemed so different from the things my fellow Western Christians understood were actually extremely similar to Orthodox understandings. Protestants largely took the Western philosophical and scholastic approach of medieval Roman Catholicism and cranked it up to the nth degree. But on most of the fundamental matters of the faith, including how you understand and know God (largely through the exercise of your mind) they are both very similar to each other.
Michael, if you ever have some spare moments, you might want to visit the ancientfaith.com website and listen to some of the “Glory to God” or “Pilgrims from Paradise” podcasts. Having listened to all episodes of Internet Monk Radio ever released on the internet, I think you would enjoy both of those podcasts even where you disagreed with them. I also love the “Close to Home” podcasts, but they may not be to your taste. Still, you might enjoy the way Molly Sabourin would tell her conversion testimony today. (Apparently it was a requirement in a class at the evangelical college she attended.) I think that was sometime last February. And you might also like the one on Forgiveness Vespers from this year’s Lent. (And Orthodoxy still follows the older calendar which always places Pascha on or after Passover, so it was much later than Easter on the Roman Catholic calendar this year.)
Anyway, the Orthodox would agree that there is no room to establish the new Roman Catholic dogmas. They look askance at the Immaculate Conception because they do not believe our inheritance from Adam is guilt for Adam’s sin. Rather, our inheritance from the ancestral sin of Adam is death. Jesus received our full nature, including death, through Mary, but through his divine nature was able to remain sinless. So the whole Roman Catholic and Protestant issue over Jesus having to somehow have something different about his birth so that he could be born free from sin is a complete non-issue in the Orthodox tradition.
And while the Orthodox do largely believe that Mary has also experienced in advance the Resurrection of her Son which we will all one day experience, that belief has very ancient roots. More importantly, though, it is not and will not ever be a dogma. The Orthodox do not have a means to add new dogmas. They do not have the means of innovation in the Apostolic Tradition which both Roman Catholics and Protestants have.
Theotokos or God-Bearer is a title given to Mary in defense of the Incarnation of Jesus. There was a heresy which held that Mary gave birth to only a human child and the divine nature was added later. And that is refuted by affirming that Mary gave birth to a fully human and fully divine Jesus.
Take care, Michael.
Thanks Scott. I’ve listened to Frederica Mattewes-Greene and Simply Orthodox for a while.
I’m always interested to learn more about Orthodoxy. Many of my students are Ethiopian Orthodox, and without being disresepctful, I rarely meet one with even a basic understanding of Christianity.
Learning about Orthodoxy where I live is a bit like learning about the Inuit. They’re not around here. A few in Lex two hours away.
With all due respect, it continues to fascinate me that the discussion on this web site seems to have this tension between any one of us being part of the true church and belonging to the real Christ NOW, vs the importance some people feel of moving TO the EO or the RCC as the end of their journey.
I’m on the first journey. I’m not on the second. Conversions stories are interesting to read, but my belief that God has me where he wants me and that God has no interest in me changing denominations is solid.
Frankly, the conversions stories I am reading are people who’ve abandoned the denominational landscape altogether. (See the God Journey Podcast for example.)
Peace
MS
I’m not sure how I would even characterize my journey, much less guess what the destination will be. I’m coming to believe that, if things were different than they are in the US today and in my family, I could perhaps be Orthodox with a less ironic faith than I would have either in Roman Catholicism or any variant of Protestantism I’ve examined. But things are ever what they are, and it seems unlikely I will ever test that idea. That doesn’t bother me like I think it would some because my entire Christian journey has been a path of radical change for me over the past fifteen years or so. I don’t think I expect that change to stop now.
I think you misunderstand the nature of the podcast I mentioned. It wasn’t really about conversion to Orthodoxy from Protestantism, but rather how she would frame her “testimony” differently now. It included thoughts like: I was saved 2,000 years ago (through the work of Jesus). I am being saved now. I will be saved at the final judgment of the living and the dead. That’s why I said I thought you might like it.
If I remember correctly, the last King of Ethiopia was a devout Christian. And his nation was much more Christian under him. I believe Ethiopia was part of the 6th century schism over Chalcedon (but I have to admit I’m not sure). Still, it is certain that Africa has suffered much especially from colonialism and post-colonialism. Ethiopia is not now what it once was. And the more central areas of Orthodoxy have faced persecution particularly under the Ottoman Empire. And the more north Orthodox have suffered this past century under communism. Still, I could pick any number of students just in my own community who go to church but have no real idea what it means to be a Christian. I don’t think that can be pegged to a tradition.
I thought of Glory to God in particular because of some things you’ve written recently. Father Stephen have some thoughts which seem very similar in his essays on a one-story versus a two-story universe. It occurs to me that there is a shorter summary of those thoughts in a lecture available in the last two episode of the OCF podcast. I think the lecture is about an hour long and divided into two podcasts. If you didn’t want to spend much time, you might want to just listen to that lecture. I also think you might like Father Stephen because he lives and ministers in the mountains not too distant from where you do. Many of his podcasts relate to that culture.
Take care and enjoy your sabbatical.
I’m very disappointed how this dialog has concluded. On reflection it seems pretty typical of the last 4 or 5 here. I am finding it difficult to write a measured and charitable response at this time.
I am discouraged Michael has reacted so strongly to Fr. Al (unnecessarily but understandably I suppose).
I am a bit angry that Scott feels so well informed about both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches that he can pigeon hole both of them and pit them against each other. One thing I’d really like to SHOUT right now is that Catholicism (both Roman and Eastern) is a lot, LOT bigger on the inside than it looks like from the outside, especially if you’re looking at a protestant bookstore at reading protestant authors. Two sentence summaries of Catholicism just don’t cut it (they sound really stupid to anyone who has ever really studied Catholicism from Catholic sources - the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a great start but only scratches the surface).
I hope to be able to post something more useful on this thread after some prayer and a good nights sleep, Mass, Holy Communion, a donut and a cup of coffee.
Paul:
I have to wonder if you are disappointed in how the convert apologists present the RCC?
I’m not RC and I am.
I have practically memorized the Vatican II documents on ecumenism and the convert apologists sound like a completely different religion.
Why do I react strongly to being told I’m a gnostic who can’t even ask the questions, understand mere Christianity, etc?
Because of this document, which doesn’t sound at all like the convert apologists.
Paul, I’m curious why you think I’m pitting EO against the RCC? I didn’t say anything about the differences that I haven’t heard and read from a very wide array of EO voices. As far as I can tell, the general consensus within Orthodoxy are that RCC and Protestantism are flip sides of the same coin. And I tend to agree.
I’m very much still learning about Orthodoxy. But I do know quite a bit about the Roman Catholic Church. For reasons related to the neighborhood in which we lived and not religion, I did attend a Roman Catholic school from 6th to 8th grade. And since I was exploring many different spiritualities with my family (and my mother in particular) and had been raised in a way that left me interested in such things, I actually paid attention and asked questions in religion class and at Mass. Further, after traveling many different paths, my mother did convert to the RCC sometime in the late eighties, before I was anything identifiably Christian. She’s now the principal at a mission Catholic school serving mostly non-Catholic poor families. And I’m looking right now at the large second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on my desk. I’m hardly an expert on Catholicism, but I’m at least as well informed as most lay Catholics. (Oh, and my wife was raised Roman Catholic. And other parts of my family are as well.)
And on pretty fundamental questions such as the nature of our inheritance from Adam and the nature and purpose of the Incarnation and atonement, Roman Catholicism took a medieval turn in a different direction than Orthodoxy. And on questions such as that, they are largely more similar to Protestants these days than Orthodox. That’s not particularly surprising since Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are both branches from the same Western tree.
Oh, and though I’m aware that the Roman Catholic Church invites Orthodox to communion, I also do have a couple of Orthodox friends. And after the funeral of an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic friend of ours, one Orthodox friend explained to me some of the reasons they are not allowed to take Roman Catholic communion. I’m not sure we achieve anything when we simply gloss over very real differences even as we pray for all schisms to be healed.
One of the books that I found to be real helpful during the Da Vinci Code discussions a couple of years ago was “De-Coding Da Vinci” by RC writer Amy Welborn. On the last page she writes this:
“Curious about Jesus?
The truth is as close as a book on your shelf.
And no, it’s not The Da Vinci Code.
Don’t let a novelist with an agenda instruct you in the ways of faith. Go back to the beginning, and go to the source: Pick up that Bible.
You might be surprised at what you find.”
Interesting that she tells her readers to pick up the Bible to find out about Jesus. Can they really understand what it says about Jesus without the magisterium of the Church to explain it to them? Did she make a mistake in leaving that out?
The point of my little book was that since DVC was directed at devaluing the Bible as an authoritative source for the truth about Jesus…to make the case (!) for the Bible’s authority in that respect. As you recall, the DVC was all about saying the Gospels were untrustworthy because they were the result of patriarchal politcal machinations and all while the Gospel of Thomas, etc., held the Real True Truth.
That’s all.
If the Christian God is only REALLY available at a few places in town, then I want nothing to do with him.
Michael, I have never said this; I have explicitly stated the opposite, both on this blog and on my own blog. This is not the issue.
I am arguing against your claim that you can discern “mere Christianity” merely by reading the Bible with your “mind on.” You note that there are many forms of sola scriptura out there, but you have not yet articulated precisely what that means (no doubt you have done so in other blog articles). But it really doesn’t matter, because all forms of sola scriptura, no matter how much honor is given to secondary authorities, elevate the individual’s private reading of Scripture (and tradition) over all secondary authorities. This is as true for Lutherans and Reformed, as it is for Baptists.
All of us want to believe that the body of beliefs that we happen to hold at any precise moment in fact represents essential Christianity. We have to believe this, because to believe otherwise is to call into question our deepest faith commitments. But I presume that the purpose of this conversation is to examine these deepest commitments.
Am I advancing a form of presuppositionalism? Perhaps I am, though I have never read Van Til. I am not a philosopher, but I suppose I would want to provisionally claim that we are all presuppositionalists in one way or another. Is not your commitment to sola scriptura, in whatever form you hold it, in fact a presupposition? Does it not function as an unshakable paradigmatic structure through, by, and in which you read the Bible and reflect on Christian doctrine? You didn’t logically deduce sola scriptura from your faith in Christ (one can be a Christian without believing in it–most have), nor did you learn it by reading the Bible (the Bible “teaches” no such doctrine). Yet you remain convinced that you can determine the fullness of Christian doctrine simply by reading it with intelligence and good sense. This sounds like a presupposition to me.
It is precisely this presupposition that I wish to challenge. You, of course, are free to challenge my presuppositions.
With all due respect, it continues to fascinate me that the discussion on this web site seems to have this tension between any one of us being part of the true church and belonging to the real Christ NOW, vs the importance some people feel of moving TO the EO or the RCC as the end of their journey.
This tension is present because it is a tension expressed in your own writings. We all seek to “defend” our religious commitments. This is as true for those who opt out of the denomination landscape as for those who remain within this landscape. Michael, a Catholic or Orthodox Christian cannot help but advance his conviction that the fullness of the Christian faith is located within his ecclesial tradition and community. Catholics and Orthodox are not ecclesial relativists. They cannot accept the position that all Churches are equal. They truly believe that Christ has founded a visible, sacramental, doctrinal Church rightly ordered in time and space. Those who disagree with the the Catholic-Orthodox claim will of course find the claim offensive, just as non-Christians find the evangelical claim that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life offensive. So the tension to which you allude is inevitable. The only way for us to avoid it is to become thoroughgoing relativists; but I don’t suppose you are willing to take that step. I know I am not. But we can still have a civil conversation and can learn from each other.
You appear to have taken offense to my allusion to the pietistic and gnostic roots of American religion. I did not intend to offend, and I apologize. I simply believe it to be the case that pietism-gnosticism is the worldview into which you and I have been born and raised. It is the air we breathe. It shapes our thinking and acting in deep and pervasive ways. Whether this influence is good or bad is an interesting question. I happen to believe that in important ways classical catholic Christianity stands firmly against it, but even as I say this, I have to acknowledge the conflict within my own heart and history. My family has deep revivalist-Pentecostal roots. I gave my heart to Jesus numerous times at summer camp in Black Mountain, North Carolina. I have been baptized in the Spirit. I have received the gift of tongues. I have sung in the Spirit at prayer and praise meetings. I am fluent in Jesus-language. Nobody but us pietists here. I can no more renounce this history than I can renounce my self. But pietism also has a dark side, as you know. My spiritual challenge of the past thirty-some years has been the healing, correction, and integration of this history into the sacramental-catholic faith to which I was converted thirty-three years ago. I have only been partially successful. On many days I stand at the abyss and gaze into the darkness.
I return to the question: What is “mere” Christianity and how is it possible to recognize and identify it? One thing is clear to me: one does not identify it simply by reading the Bible. Whatever else the Bible is, it is a varied collection of different kinds of texts written over a period of a thousand years. It is not a comprehensive compendium of Christian beliefs and practices. It is not a catechism. It is not a systematic theology. It is not a book of liturgical instruction. It is not a book of canon law. I grant that some Christians read the Bible in these ways, but it is not obvious that they should do so. As Richard Swinburne notes, “The Bible does not belong to an obvious genre which provides rules for how overall meaning is a function of meaning of individual books.”
If a Martian were to visit earth and pick up a copy of the Bible, with no knowledge of Christians and Churches, would he be able to comprehensively reconstruct Christian belief and practice? I do not think so. We need more than a “mind on.” We need a community of faith. We need authoritative and faithful tradition. We need the Church.
There is a lot of talk about the presupposition from RCs re: Tradition, but there is also presuppostions from Protestants about the Bible as the only source of teachings.
The Bible itself says that it is not the sole authority. “The church is thbulwark and foundation of truth” 1TIM 3:15
Paul:
I have to wonder if you are disappointed in how the convert apologists present the RCC?
I am not disappointed in how apologists or convert apologists present the RCC.
I am disappointed by how difficult it is to get past our cultural biases and communicate with one another on anything substantial.
I personally do not consider myself an apologist, and the reason I am participating in this forum is not to do apologetics. I am more interested in ecumenism and understanding each other.
I think the convert apologists in general have done a pretty good job of formulating good Catholic responses to protestant and particularly evangelical questions and accusations. It has been very helpful for many pew sitters like me a) understand where these questions come from and b) know that there is a reasonable answer and c) take the the time to learn more about my faith.
It is like each flavor of American protestantism is a different programming language. The apologists help me translate the questions into something that actually makes sense to me as a Catholic, and helps me understand the answer and some idea how to try to explain it to a protestant.
Apologetics is not the main way I relate to protestants. It is a tool available to use at times, but not primary. American convert apologetics is unique. it is not the way Catholics really think. It is a pretty good attempt to help Catholics translate, but it has limits.
I read this blog, and pay particular attention to the Catholic topics because I am trying to understand how ‘you all’ think. I grew tired of straight apologetics and debates years ago. I like the way you and many of your readers are usually interested in trying to actually understand each other, rather than win debate points. When I can, I try to contribute a little on the Catholic side.
I have practically memorized the Vatican II documents on ecumenism and the convert apologists sound like a completely different religion.
Ecumenism is one thing, apologetics is another? Ecumenism has to be balanced with everything else.
There are limits to ecumenism. Pope Benedict and JPII raised some hackles with statements about ecumenism relatively recently.
These are some of the cultural aspects of Catholicism that are seemingly difficult for protestants to see: it is messy, it takes time, there is more than one dimension to every issue. There are debates over ecumenism going on between different parts of the Catholic Church all the time. Thats why Benedict and JPII thought it necessary to clarify.
Certainly, to Catholics ecumenism does not mean that we surrender the truth.
Why do I react strongly to being told I’m a gnostic who can’t even ask the questions, understand mere Christianity, etc?
Fr. Kimel did not actually accuse you of being a gnostic or not understanding mere Christianity although I agree he cam across pretty strongly. He was expressing, pretty well, the feelings we have over here on the Catholic side.
To a Catholic, it is like some of your questions are written in the wrong programming language. I am pretty sure you don’t have any idea how loaded and aggressive they sound to us. I might take a shot at answering them later if anyone is interested, but I don’t have time today.
That is a big part of the problem in understanding each other. American protestantism in particular asks questions and wants answers in ways that are not totally compatible with the Catholic way of thinking.
Enjoy your sabbatical week, my prayers are with you and Denise.
Paul
Scott M
Thanks for your reply. I wish I would have been less confrontational last night when I typed. Thanks for not taking offense. I think we would go too far off topic to get into a full discussion of the relationship between the eastern and western churches and protestantism. I also, am not any where near an expert on Orthodoxy or Eastern Christianity.
In my posts today I have refrained from referring to the Roman Catholic Church and am simply saying the Catholic Church - because that is how Catholics think. I only use RCC here to try to get along. When I refer to the Catholic Church I mean the Roman Church and all the other Churches - the Eastern Churches. Pope Benedict gave a talk a couple of weeks ago about relations with the Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Churches where he Eastern Christianity as one one the lungs of the Church and stated that the Church needs to breathe with both lungs again. We don’t distinguish between western and eastern fathers of the Church, or between western and eastern church history.
You probably know that here are many Eastern Churches that are in full communion with Rome and and fully part of the Catholic Church: several Byzantine groups (Melkites etc.), Chaldean, Alexandrian, Abyssinians, Syrians, Uniat Church of Malabar, Armenians, Maronites. (as an aside, on Orthodox Patriarch and his flock of ? 8,000 ? I believe just last month re-established full communion with the Roman Church) I believe there are 16 different separated Orthodox Churches.
I will agree with you that Catholic thought has been dominated by western and Latin modes since Augustine and even more so since Thomas Aquinas. The Reformation originated in the west and is entirely western in thought. The style of philosophy and theology in the Western Church both Catholic and Protestant is distinct from Eastern. In that respect the two sides of the coin analogy is reasonable. However Protestantism, as it has evolved has rejected many parts of the Church that the western and eastern Churches continue to hold fast. According to Catholic (Eastern and Western) definitions, the protestant denominations are not even fully recognizable as Churches.
However- as I understand it - on the vast, vast majority of articles of faith and morals the Eastern and Western Churches are compatible. The formulations may differ, but they are compatible. (I am not an expert, and I would be willing discuss and learn, but we should probably find another forum)
Paul, I’m curious why you think I’m pitting EO against the RCC?
I took your post a little too strongly last night. Upon rereading today I wouldn’t make that particular accusation.
I do think you are setting up an unhelpful dichotomy, but I think the same of most of the modern EOs in America that I know and have read. My impression is that the EO church in America puts a lot of emphasis on the differences with the Roman Church - maybe even to the point of exaggeration.
as far as I can tell, the general consensus within Orthodoxy
I don’t know if it is even possible to speak about the general consensus within Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church in America maybe - but world wide? 16 different Patriarchs? I do think you are going a bit far in speaking for the Orthodox as a whole.
Regarding your comments on the inheritance from Adam and Marian doctrines: I am not well enough informed to debate, but I don’t ‘prima facia’ accept that you understand either Orthodox or Catholic teaching well enough to ‘contrast’ them.
I don’t want to fisk the rest of your response, so I will speak from my own experience. I was raised catholic and attended public and catholic schools, catechism class, ‘devout family’ began attending daily mass in high school, alter boy, lector, youth group, retreats, camps. catholic college for a time. I knew next to nothing about Catholicism until I started studying (after I got tired of Evangelicals asking if “I was saved”) in my late twenties and I still have a lot to learn. I find that it is very easy to be a ‘good’ catholic and a)either misunderstand or be unaware of any number of doctrines, b) be unprepared to explain my faith, c) be unaware that I don’t know what I don’t know.
The most amazing time in my life was when I discovered that there are so many incredible and interesting aspects of Catholicism that I NEVER encountered while doing all the right things as a middle class American Catholic. Thomas Merton, Dorothy Day (the Catholic Worker, Jacque Maritain), Fatima, St. John of the Cross, the Cloud of Unknowing….
Please don’t be offended that although I will concede you are well informed, I will question every statement you make about Catholocism and most often I will have some beef with it - whether I choose to say so or not. Truth is that it is the same for people I meet at Mass, members of my family, and even the Priest at the parish I visited last week. On some things (not faith and morals) I will even quibble with Pope Benedict XVI himself.
Learning to think with and understand the Church while growing in spirit and prayer and raising children to love God the greatest gift God could ever give me. The Catholic faith is not a bumper sticker faith - there are dozens of facets to everything.
Have a Blessed Sunday
Paul
When I was teaching children in the Catholic Church, I made sure that my co-teacher taught both the rosary and the Marian doctrines. (The rosary still reminds me of “vain repetitions” even though I know the history of it)
Thank you, Anna! Thank you! That’s one of the things that’s hard to say when you’re a Catholic convert. I tend to let a lot of the Marian stuff slide, because I do feel really weird with it. I doubt she’s terribly offended by that.
I have to wonder if you are disappointed in how the convert apologists present the RCC?
I certainly am, Michael. While Protestant apologists (the ones specializing in Catholicism, anyway) tend to come across angry, the Catholic ones come across smarmy and superior, as though they’re just waiting for you to get a clue and see how right they are. The best exception I’ve seen to that is Thomas Howard, who is respectful without having to feign it. But yes, I can enjoy the convert apologists because I agree with them, but if I were a Protestant, they’d get on my nerves something fierce. Scott Hahn included. (Although he intimidates me intellectually.)
The church with “authority” (the Roman Catholic Church) has a false sense of unity and reality. Just because the RCC teaches one doctrine does not mean it’s unified. Unity in belief is far more important than unity of doctrine. The RCC does not have unity of belief…far..far from it. So, it is strange to me that Fr. Kimel concludes with the statement that “we need the church” for its authority and to have a faithful tradition. If the goal is to bind up the truth in books that so few can understand, then the RCC has done a pretty good job. For the majority of Catholics in Church on any given Sunday do not believe or understand the teachings of the RCC, nor do they want to or care.
I grew up in the RCC and left 2 years ago. I was taught to pray the rosary and that if I did not go to church on Sunday I would go to hell. A relationship with the Triune God was not encouraged. I cannot think of one person from my youth who is a practicing RC. Now my parents read apologists like Scott Hahn and are serious about their faith. They are shocked that none of their children embrace the fullness of the faith as they do. They use the tone that Fr Kimel used in his comments when trying to show us the way. It doesn’t work.
Michael,
In reading through this whole conversation, I was most intrigued by your following three paragraphs:
I simply don’t believe that God allowed me to live my life till I am 51 in the Baptist church, and now, thanks to internet apologists for the RC, I need to resign, become jobless and go get something in the Eucharist that, in my experience, isn’t producing anything distinctively more Jesus-like than my own tradition.
If the Christian God is only REALLY available at a few places in town, then I want nothing to do with him. And I’m quite serious. If the invitations of Jesus to come to him don’t apply to me wherever I and my simple faith in Jesus happen to be, then it’s Buddhism for me.
I don’t have these anxieties about what is the true church. Jesus is the mediator and Jesus is enough. No church dispenses him.
At first glance that first paragraph seems to be an implicit argument. The conclusion of the argument is that the Catholic Church’s claims [viz-a-viz the sacraments of Holy Orders and the Eucharist] cannot be right. The premise of the argument is that God would not let you be so wrong for so long. But God lets many people (billions) be wrong their whole lives. What makes you so special? (In other words, the ar