The River is Deep; The River is Wide: How I Made My Peace With The Roman Catholic Church
April 5, 2005 by iMonk
NOTE: This piece is similar to an essay on Catholicism I wrote two years ago, but the differences are significant. Read them both. There has been some evolution in the meantime. My apologies to the Catholic bashers who will get upset at this piece. Maybe you shouldn’t read it.
I was born in 1956, so when I was in elementary school, I dimly remember the image of “good” Pope John XXIII appearing on the television, and the image of Paul VI is impressed in my mind from many pictures throughout my high school and college years. In those days, I couldn’t have told you what a Pope was or what Catholics believed, because I was still submerged in a world where the one thing my family and peers could always say to justify themselves as better than others was “We aren’t Catholic.”
My education regarding Catholicism ran something like this: Catholics aren’t saved, and if you marry a Catholic girl the priest will take your babies. Catholics worship Mary, not Jesus. They pray to dead people and worship statues. They baptize babies and speak in Latin. Anyone who used to be a Catholic and is now a Christian will tell you that Catholicism is a big racket to make money. They drink and play Bingo, then go to confession and expect everything to be alright. The Pope is dedicated to taking over the world and destroying all non-Catholics. They call church mass. Their schools make their kids dress up every day. They have to eat fish on Friday. Read this Chick comic book and it will explain everything, but stay away from Catholics yourself.
Further down the road, I picked up more substantial doctrinal differences than this caricature, but the preceding paragraph always furnished the bright, flashing background of what I knew of Catholicism, as it does for many of my friends and readers today.
Of course, in my town, a third of the residents were Catholics, so I was doomed to cross paths with them sooner or later. I knew a few Catholic kids at public school. We resented them because they took off days with the Catholic school kids. But I didn’t really know any Catholics well, until I became friends with the Ivey family down the street. Jim, their youngest son, was my age, loved basketball as I did, and soon became one of my constant companions.
Hanging around the Ivey household for several years, I can verify the following: Catholics do go to mass. They rarely go to confession. They do drink beer. They don’t understand a thing about the Baptist notion of “getting saved.” I never saw a Bible in the house. I heard no prayers to Mary. I did see pictures and small plastic statues of Jesus, Mary and some guys I assume were saints. There seemed to be a lot of fundraisers that involved barbecue. They were really serious about having their kids in Catholic schools and baptizing their grandchildren. They never tried to make me into a Catholic. They prayed before meals and seemed like very nice people. I took them all to a Billy Graham movie once and no one had the slightest idea what it meant.
I’ll admit that I went to mass with the Ivey’s on one occasion, the wedding of an older sibling. I was so freaked out by whatever was going on up front that I exited myself to the porch of the church as soon as possible. When people started going forward to receive communion, I assumed it was an invitation, and I wanted to be nowhere in the vicinity. If the rapture happened I was in the wrong place.
By the time I was a sophomore in high school, I was a new Christian, and some of the Christian kids in our “CSU” at school were Catholics. “Witnessing opportunity” was how I looked at it. So in the name of evangelism, I dated a Catholic girl, easily one of the more dangerous things I ever did. Carolyn was a great person, and we had a super time going out. So good, in fact, that I contemplated if I were willing to pay the price of coming out of the closet and revealing to my church and parents that I was dangerously close to offering up my babies on the altar of a possible relationship with a Catholic girl. Alas, we called the whole thing off. Too much pressure on both of us from the real world. She married a doctor, which I’m pretty sure was adequate compensation for losing me. (That’s sarcasm.)
Around the same time, the Charismatic movement entered our community, and through a strange series of events, I wound up going to a weekly charismatic prayer meeting at a Catholic church Parrish hall. While all denominations were present, the Catholics were the majority, and my long-ingrained prejudices were in trouble. These weren’t the Catholics I’d been told about. Nosirree Bob.
No mention of Mary and the saints. Bibles everywhere. Testimonies of experiences with God were common. Hands in the air. Choruses. Tongues. Frequent healing prayer and manifestations of “Pentecostal stuff” were common as well. The priest in charge was “on fire” for God, as we used to say. They sang songs to and about Jesus, not Mary. It was a Christ-centered, joy-filled time of prayer, worship and fellowship. These Catholics were acting like the evangelists at our church always tried to get us to act. Saved and happy about it. It seemed that combining Pentecostal theology with Roman Catholicism yielded real Christians.
My worldview was crumbling. First friends, then a girl, now my fellow Christians. All Catholics and all quite different from what I’d been told. The Pope was out to get me.
The next step was indeed sinister. Even as a young Christian, I was a reader of Christian books and a fan of contemporary Christian music, and I was particularly susceptible to the lure of the Christian bookstore. The local “Baptist Book Store” was my fix, but soon the plot thickened. A Catholic bookstore opened, and with the innocence of a Protestant wandering into a cathedral, I was lured in by the promise of John Michael Talbot albums.
I discovered two things. First, books. Excellent Catholic books, classical and contemporary. The names didn’t mean much at the time, but over the years I would become acquainted with many Catholic writers, as well as discovering that Catholics liked C.S. Lewis, J.I. Packer and many other Protestants authors. (I also noted a complete absence of polemical and poisonous anti-Protestant bile in print. Since I was used to seeing the anti-Catholic version of this at my church, I was impressed. The “chip on the shoulder” seemed to be a one-way street.)
Second, I discovered delightful Catholic people, who soon became my friends. The two ladies who owned the store were particularly friendly to me, and once they were aware that I was a Baptist prodigal wandering far from my own bookstore, they became as helpful as possible. They answered questions and recommended books, so that my ignorance was rapidly repaired. They became people I genuinely counted as sisters in the Lord.
Soon I discovered that almost everything I had been told was wrong, or at least perversely misstated; that the Catholic church was in a tremendous state of flux as it came to grips with the effects of Vatican II. Most shocking of all, I discovered that I was considered a Christian in good standing by my Catholic friends. Since I was still surrounded by a majority of family and friends who thought Catholics were rank unbelievers who only accepted those who kissed the papal ring as saved, this was quite a shock.
It was in this bookstore that I also discovered something that is intangible, but quite real to me, even to this day. The best way I know to describe it is with an illustration. The Catholic church was deep. Deep in history. Deep in spirituality. Deep in its appreciation of culture. Deep in its engagement with human life. The Catholic church seemed like a great river, the Mississippi perhaps. Deep and wide, with the accumulated brush and trash of many years, but with such a depth and volume of water that it was still majestic and powerful.
My own tradition seemed shallow. Like a creek or a stream. Yes, it might contain purer water (or not), but it was not deep and did not want to be deep. It bubbled and gurgled on the rocks of excitement. It seemed to want to be far away from the world, a small stream unconnected to the river. It was not, however, a river. The fact is, of course, the stream and the river are connected. They cannot deny the connection, even if they do not want to talk about it. If nothing else, both are headed for the sea.
My illustration breaks down in many ways, but I hope you understand the idea and feeling behind it. It’s quite subjective, but it is very real to me as I consider the Catholic church now. The greatness and vast scope of Catholicism dwarfed my own tradition. As a Landmark Baptist, I had been exposed to our own contrived version of Baptist history, invented for the purpose of countering the historical claims of Catholicism and Campbellism.
My Baptist tradition stressed evangelism to the point that everything else served the purpose and cause of evangelism. Prayer was evangelism or it was worthless. Worship was evangelism. Music was evangelistic. The spiritual life was the soul-winning life. The paradigm for all the Christian experience was winning others. This kind of “wretched urgency” was not present in the Catholic church, and I had been told that this was a great deficiency. In fact, it was a different focus and a healthy, dare I say, more Biblical focus on God. I had to admit that despite all I had been told, and all the flaws that I could observe myself, the Catholic church was seemingly far more God-centered than my own church.
Perhaps it was the fact that Catholics had not eliminated the arts. Perhaps it was the ancient spiritual tradition of monasticism I read about in Thomas Merton. Perhaps it was the obviously Spirit-filled people I was meeting as I tentatively explored the world outside of my Baptist ghetto. Perhaps it was the sense that the Catholic church somehow originally “owned” so much of the faith that we as Protestants were using, and we Baptists just couldn’t admit it. I can’t put my finger on it. All I know is that my encounter with the God-centeredness and depth of Catholicism stood in stark contrast to the shallow pragmatism and manipulative evangelism of my own tradition.
The great attraction of Catholicism for me wasn’t its doctrinal correctness. Like an elderly grandparent, the church believed a lot I could never believe. But I was attracted to its maturity and beauty. It’s confidence in God rather than in human urgency and zealotry. Even among those who were living lives of amazing sacrifice, there was a quiet, settled center that I found wonderful. Merton experienced it in his conversion, and I could sense it whenever I came near to Catholic spirituality and tradition.
“Tradition” is an important item in my enlightenment and acceptance of Catholicism. I knew that Catholic bashers never tired of pointing out that we believed only what the Bible taught, and paid no attention to tradition. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” Right. “Tradition” was one of those words preachers spit out with disgust, right alongside “religion.” But I was far enough down the road now to realize that my Baptist experience had all kinds of traditions that we reverenced as untouchable, yet we did not want to admit the truth. We waved our Bibles around and then stayed safely within the traditions we’d received from our culture, our denomination and our churches. (Listing those traditions is another essay, or a comment thread, but if you haven’t figured out that Protestants of every kind are steeped in their own traditions, you need to wake up.)
I particularly benefited from coming to see that Catholics believed in openly acknowledging the interaction between scripture and tradition. Though they gave authority to church traditions and papal encyclicals that I could never agree with, I appreciated the fact that you could talk about tradition with Catholics. They understood that the Bible didn’t canonize itself, and that the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t explicitly found in the second chapter of Philemon. Holding scripture and tradition in a kind of tension, with both influencing the other, makes tremendous sense, and always has, even though in the end, I cannot agree with the position of the Catholic church on how the authority of tradition stands in relation to the authority of scripture. (It seems to me that the church has created for itself a conundrum where scripture can never correct tradition, and therefore the church is doomed to an accumulation of errors that can never be totally reversed.)
Bu the time I was out of college, I had begun going to two monasteries regularly for personal retreats. I was reading as much Thomas Merton as I could get my hands on. I took church history in seminary from Dr. Timothy George and saw the Catholic church from an intelligent, truly “catholic,” but reformed standpoint. I was attending mass several times a year in order to understand the liturgy and worship of the church. I came a long way under George’s astute guidance and through reading Catholic books and talking with Catholic friends. I especially found help in Catholic Biblical scholars like Raymond Brown, who were unsurpassed in their scholarly approach to the Biblical text.
I came to better understood the place of Mary in Catholic theology (bad) and devotion (not as bad), and the ambivalence of many American Catholics to Marian excesses in other countries. I finally understood the difference between veneration and worship. Sacramentalism began to become clearer to me. I came to see the saints as the teachers of the church down through the ages. I saw the hierarchy of the church not just as a chain of authority by-passing the Bible, but as pastoral leaders, teaching and shepherding the flock. I was confirmed in my disagreements with Catholic beliefs in many places, but I came to see that Catholics who believed their faith did, along with their errors, believe that Jesus Christ was the only savior, mediator and Lord, and that faith in that Christ was the essence of Christianity. I could say the Apostle’s Creed with my Catholic friends with confidence that we were part of one and the same church. While we would never agree on the precise understanding of justification, we believed that God was just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
I realize this puts me opposite many of my Protestant, Baptist and Calvinistic friends. I want to assure them that I have not overlooked the many errors and injustices perpetuated by the Roman Church. I understand them well. I agree that the church of Rome maintains the errors that prevent true unity among Christians, especially in maintaining the infallibility of the Pope. But Protestants have grievous errors of our own, and our insistence on sola scriptura does not erase the fact that it is the Catholic Church that gave us the first 400 years of Christianity, and all that comes to us in those early years. We may be a divided family, but we are a family. I cannot speak for the salvation of every Catholic, or every Christian, but I will continue to receive my Catholic friends as they have received me: as a brother in Jesus Christ.
Of course, I lived through the deaths of Paul VI and John Paul I. With more understanding of Catholicism, I identified greatly with what the church was going through in those tumultuous days. The selection of John Paul II was earthshaking at the time, and as I close this essay, I want to say a few words about what this Pope meant to my faith as an evangelical Christian.
The Pope is the most visible Christian leader in the world. It is in the interest of Christians everywhere that he be a man devoted to Jesus Christ and aware of the witness of the Gospel in this broken world. The Pope can be a bureaucrat heading up an organization, or he can be a witness and a shepherd of the flock. John Paul II was that witness and that shepherd. He was a deeply devoted Christian, unafraid to witness and ready to suffer. He was a hero to many of us, and I am not ashamed to say I aspire to live and die as well as he did.
Even with his traditional Catholicism and intense, mystical devotion to Mary, it was not hard to see that Christ and the cross were centerpieces in the Pope’s Christian vision. He was firmly committed to issues of life, justice and peace, and these commitments grew out of a definitively Christian worldview. He frustrated many of the liberal theologians and activists in America and Europe, because he not only refused to discuss the more liberal, radical currents of post-Vatican II Catholicism, he banned the discussion of many of those topics. After 26 years and thousands of appointments in the church, John Paul left the church far more orthodox and classically Catholic than ever before. The church is still wounded and embattled, but where would it be without him? In a secular, relativistic age, he was a prophet, standing against a cold wind of nihilism and materialism, lifting high the cross.
As a young man, I had been taught that Catholics prayed to saints and cowered before popes. I still understand that certain kinds of lay Catholicism can go to bizarre excesses in their adoration of human beings. What I didn’t understand then, and do understand now, is that Catholicism really believes in the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church, just as Protestants do. But the Catholic Church will point to those whose lives have given evidence of the presence of the Spirit, and direct the church to note those lives as windows and teachers of Christ. I am sure there are Catholics who don’t understand this and go to excess, like there are Baptists that don’t understand that walking the aisle isn’t salvation. Still, the whole of Catholic teaching says that the Christian can look at the lives of all those diverse saints and shepherds, and see the Holy Spirit at work in our world. The saints are “little Christs,” and I know few Protestants who do not, in some way, recognize this reality in some way.
In other words, the church isn’t designating people to be worshiped. It is telling the world that these lives proclaim the truth of the Gospel and show the love of God. Imitate them. Learn from them. Be inspired by them. Protestants don’t do this, of course. And as a result, we have our own “saints”: Christian celebrities, CCM artists, megachurch pastors, TV preachers and best-selling authors. Who would you rather be the examples for your church? The current CCM Top 40, or the saints whose days populate the Christian calendar?
The search for a Pope is a way of seeking God’s spiritual guidance and presence in his church now. It may seem to Protestants to be an insult to scripture, but I can recall pastor search committees whose rhetoric often sounded as serious as Cardinals seeking a pontiff. The Cardinals and all Catholics know that the Pope may not be a saint now or ever, but they are willing to gamble on God’s commitment to His church on earth. I think with John Paul II they did extremely well. God was with him. Errors and all- and yes, his Marian devotion was offensive- John Paul carried high the cross of Christ to more than 120 countries and before millions of people. I know that many evangelicals feel he was our Pope, too, because he stood for so many of the truths of the whole church and the true Gospel.
Catholic bashing is a sport that will always be popular among Protestants. It is the type of teenage behavior one expects from kids who leave home after a big fight. It’s not necessary, and even when we take stock of the many serious issues that separate us, we still say the same Apostle’s Creed, worship the same Trinity, share the same first four centuries of the church and believe in the same Christ of John 3:16. I prefer to acknowledge this unity. I don’t care if you don’t. I’m rewarded without applause on this one, I assure you.
Today, Catholic apologists like Scott Hahn are bringing more converts to Rome than ever before. I won’t be one of them, though when I walk in a Lifeway store and see more Prayer of Jabez books I have to laugh. Pope Rick Warren the Great rules in the Vatican City of evangelical publishing. The small streams of evangelicalism are sometimes so polluted that the river- with all its accumulated pollutants- still seems far more appealing. I have decided to wish the Roman Catholic Church well. I have decided to accept the kindnesses shown to me and to enjoy the status given me in the new Catholic Catechism- separated brother. As much as I can, I won’t be separated. I am part of the church Catholic, and I pray that the new Pope will be a shepherd and teacher of all Christians.
I believe one can be wrong about much doctrine, yet still trust Christ, know Christ, show Christ and belong to Christ. Chesterton. St. Francis. Augustine. Merton. John Paul II. Many of my Catholic friends. I expect to see them all in the Kingdom, and in the meantime, I count them as my friends here on the pilgrim way.
(If you haven’t read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I suggest you purchase a copy, or read an online version, and discover for yourself what Roman Catholics believe.)
Perhaps I was wrong. Maybe Mr. Geezer is a “troll” in the internet’s sense of the word after all.
I hate to be repetitive, but if the critics here can be, why not me?
Is the Catholic church’s *official* dogma on justification, Mary, the primacy of the pope, etc, wrong? IMonk has already said yes. I’ve said yes. That’s settled.
However, there are those who seem to draw the conclusion that therefore, we must interact with Catholics *only* on those points where they are wrong, without even bothering to find out whether *that* particular Catholic even believes them. This is, as I called it in my first post here, reducing a person to a walking representative of their belief statement (or that of the church they belong to). To all you armchair prosthelytizers out there who follow this theory (in only in practice), I have a simple message. *People are more than their theology*. Everyone – *everyone* – by virtue of their being made in God’s image, have a dignity and a worth that goes beyond what their beliefs are, even if they *are* wrong. Jesus sometimes healed people in conjunction with a sermon – and sometimes He did not. It’s called common grace, and I am amazed that we often show so little of it.
Turn the tables – if some Catholic walks up to you and immediately starts harranging you about the Council of Trent, the Peasants’ War, and the collected works of Scott Hahn, how inclined would *you* be to put up with it? Or, perhaps, would you rejoice in the opportunity to show off *your own* theological acumen in debate with him or her? If that’s what you want, knock yourself out. But don’t go lecturing us about how that’s the best and only way to *do theology*, or to be faithful to the Reformation heritage. Even Luther was more tolerant in that regard, out of respect for the people and hope they could be saved. Go read the sermons he preached when he returned to Wittenberg after his exile at Wartburg. He had a sharp tongue there for those who valued doctrinal and practical “purity” over Christian charity.
But if you won’t, then by all means, go on pulling out the tares in your quest for “doctrinal purity and clarity”. But don’t be surprised if you find out at the last you just may have pulled up some promising wheat in the process.
I am a BHT lurker and was directed to this post from there.
I think Johan has a valid point in “Christ Alone”. If we add anything or subtract anything from Christ, as revealed in Scripture, do we actually “believe in Christ.” James makes it clear that belief in God is not enough to save, for the demons believe in God.(James 2:19) I would dare to venture that aknowledgement of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection also is not enough to save.
However, I would confidently say that abandonment to the fact that Christ and He alone is the means of salvation will save. Jesus said the same thing. “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6) The exclusivity of Christ as the means of salvation (justification) does not appear debateable.
To add to Christ’s work of salvation is to not believe in Christ Himself. To add baptism, works, correct doctrine, communion, etc is to not believe that Christ is our reconciliation. I would argue this becomes a false gospel, and not resulting in salvation.
Sorry guys but salvation is a lot simpler than that.
Confess that Jesus is Lord.
Believe that God raised Him from the dead.
That’s Paul, speaking as the Holy Spirit directed him. If a Catholic has confessed that, and believes that, he/she is saved JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. If you think God should be more exclusive, then your problem is with God. Additional doctrines, whether correct or incorrect, aren’t salvific.
What a great way to look at our Catholic brethern iMonk, and Bill, I agree completely.
I am protestant and attended a mass on 6 April for John Paul II. There was a modest crowd, of black, white, hispanic and all age groups; the priest was from Nigeria. This is quite an unusual picture of a church group in this small south Arkansas town. I heard Jesus the Christ prayed to and preached and a Gospel account of his ressurection was read.
I think that I’ll continue to seek unity among my fellow Christ-followers, all the arguing and putting each other down just hurts my soul.
Bill, I see now. If I disagree with what is posted I’m a troll. Well it matters not to me.
And salvation is not as simply as you put it. Even the demons believe that and tremble.
Be fair. Quote all of Romans 10:8-10. Consider that passage in light of 1 Cor. 12:3 and 15:1-5, in fact all of Scripture.
What was the purpose of the Epistle to the Galatians? They had already done what you say is all that is required. Apparently Paul uselessly got upset over the matter of works added to faith.
If one accepts your “a lot simpler” then all we need in evangelism is get people to repeat a few words after us and mentally assent to the resurrection.
What a wasted 2000 years being concerned over the minor details such as the deity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, original sin, the Judgement…
If Gutenberg had only arrived sooner we could have printed 2 line memory cards for everyone.
Siiiiiiiiiiigh
Geezer- Could you please quote me, from either essay, where I accept the RC doctrine of Justification as correct?
This essay was about my personal acceptance of Roman Catholics as my fellow Christians. What the ___________ do any of you care whether I accept them or not? I mean, seriously. So what?
NewGuy: Please report me to the PCA as soon as possible.
My turn to sigh. Disagreement is not being a Troll. You don’t understand the distinction. Not knowing what a troll is doesn’t affect your salvation.
You win. Catholics aren’t Christians. The Pope wasn’t a Christian. Augustine wasn’t. Martin Luther wasn’t until later. Evidently there weren’t any Christians until the Reformation. Salvation by correct doctrine. Jack Chick would be pleased.
iMonk, I sincerely apologize for what ever I wrote, which explicitly says, or implicitly implies, or allows for inferring, that you hold to the RC doctrine of justification, for I have read your writings for some time now and would not believe that to be true of you.
As to why I would care about your acceptance of Roman Catholics as fellow Christians, one one sense I don’t care. But in another sense I do care. You’re a well known and respected member of the evangelical community. As such your essays have a lot of weight. As such there can be unbelievers and less mature believers that will misundstand what you have written an come under the influence of RC theology. All in all I don’t recall ever writing specifically to oppose your acceptance of RCs as believers. I think you would agree that this thread has gone afield of your essay.
Bill, your concession is declined. You can’t be that frustrated with me nor for a minute do I believe that you believe what you said. Who’s Jack Chick?
To all interested, a thought and question from the shower: When I write of saving faith I mean that faith which is a gift from God as a result of His sovereign regeneration of the heart. Are there those who understand saving faith differently?
Bill, I forgot. What’s the distinction between disagreement and being a troll?
Thanks
OG wrote…
“…there can be unbelievers and less mature believers that will misundstand what you have written and come under the influence of RC theology.”
So, the only way to counter the possibility of someone believing RC theology is to only talk about what’s *wrong* with it? If we say anything *good* about it, someone may be misled? Isn’t that being reductionistic – and not trusting in God’s sovereignty and truth? There is *nobody* who is totally right – or totally wrong. Even conceding the differences on justification, how do we best handle them? By screaming anathemas at each other? Or “speaking the truth in love”?
And yes, skating around the issues isn’t loving, but neither is using the truth as a sledgehammer…
Okay, Michael, I’m starting to hate theology, too, now. Urg. I guess that being on the outside insulates me from some of this sort of thing…
Folks, the average Catholic is not too very much different from the average Protestant when we come down to belief and practice. The main differences I have noticed are that an average Catholic is not quite so smugly self-assured about his guarantee of salvation and the average Catholic spends Mass more focused on God than on the folks around him in the pews.
Now, to temper this a little, my own Protestant experience is mostly with Southern Baptist and Nazarene churches, so decidedly low-church. This is not bad. These churches were full of wonderful and loving people with excellent devotion to the Lord. High church Protestants may not be so much like the churches I know from my own experience (in other words, I am not judging your church, nor attempting to claim that what I have seen in 3 denominations of Protestants is universal among all of them). My journey to the Roman Catholic faith would take far too long to tell, but it came about because of reading and believing the Bible and looking for where it was taught without certain parts being ignored or swept under the metaphorical rug.
We Catholics fully appreciate that our salvation is through Christ alone. (Take a look at the Catechism on this issue, check with any priest, talk to any confirmed Catholic who has actually learned his faith – and there are plenty of Protestants who don’t really know their own church’s faith, so don’t try to trip me up by arguing about that issue.) We Catholics celebrate our salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ every single time we attend Mass. When we recieve Communion, it is with the knowledge that Christ actually knew what He was saying as He presented the bread and the cup to His disciples and called them His Body and Blood. (Wowza, did I see the red flags suddenly go up? Read your Bibles, folks. How can so many people be so literal about the 6 days of creation and then think that Jesus was being figurative in His use of the word “is”?)
There are plenty of practices that are profitable, even if they are not what brings us salvation. Do you have to attend church every Sunday? Do you have to sing praises to the Lord? Do you even have to pray? (I was told by one Calvinist Southern Baptist preacher that prayer is not necessary, since one decision has locked our futures in for Heaven, no matter what I decide to do after that decision is made. This is something to discuss at length another time, I think. E-mail me if you wish, but keep it resonable and respectful, alright?) Is it necessary for you to take Communion? Is it necessary for you to do good works at all?
Now, what do you think it means to be a part of the Body of Christ? To me, it means being part of continuing His work on Earth. For a lot of people, all they are really called to do is set an example and support the church with prayer and funds. Some are called to be teachers, pastors, evangelists, and so on.
If we are not trying to do the will of Christ, we are missing out on something vital. Jesus specifically told us to comfort the sick and dying, to visit the imprisoned, to clothe the naked and feed the hungry. I view this as a very specific command to do good works. Do you view it differently? In James chapter 2, we can read that faith without works is a dead faith. St. Paul tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. When a rich young man asked Jesus what he had to do to inherit eternal life and affirmed that he had kept the commandments since his youth, Jesus told him to sell all he had and give to the poor. Works. Was Jesus guilty of a faulty works-based theology when he said this? Or was he telling everyone who hears or reads of this particular encounter that our wealth and our worldly good are meant to be used for God’s kingdom, rather than treasured above our neighbors? We are specifically commanded to love our neighbors, but not in the general sense. The example Christ gave was the story of the Good Samaritan, who acted kindly toward the hurt man, helping him without asking who he was or whether he would ever be able to pay back the expense of the care given him. When Jesus says things like “go and do likewise,” are we in danger of thinking our salvation is at stake over works?
Come on, people, you are not stupid! Who told you that Catholics are not Christians just because we happen to believe that Jesus meant what He said about showing love and mercy to others? More to the point, why did you believe such rot? Read your Bibles. Lots of Protestants read less of the Bible each week than Catholics hear proclaimed at a single Sunday Mass.
The Catholic Church is not trying to negate any of the saving power of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. In fact, the reason we have a huge crucifix at the front of every church is to remind us all that the sacrifice of Jesus is the central truth of our faith. That’s also why I have a crucifix on my wall at home. However, to look upon this image and contemplate the enormity of what it means to have God Himself become man and suffer the horrible death of crucifixion in order to redeem the world should demand a response. Which is a better response to the great kindness and mercy shown by God the Son: ministering to others in love and in mercy as we try to imitate the loving and merciful example of Jesus, or looking for petty and divisive details in our theological constructs and using those as an excuse to hate those who do not agree fully with the details we choose to emphasize?
-Patrick
? There are a whole lot of accusations being thrown around that I don’t ever see in the Bible. But I’m not a theologian. I don’t have a PhD or any of that. I always assumed we should accept Jesus as our savior and then do our utmost to serve God’s will. I guess I’m what you’d call a “less mature believer”. When you theologians figure out what I’m supposed to believe, shoot me a line and let me know.
friendly sarcastic remark aside, I am going to pray for everyone, that we can all be brothers in Christ and share in His love. Will you o the same for me, too?
Michael
Why don’t you answer my question about justification?
First, I am not volunteering for the Calvinistic inquisition.
I agree with all the solas, but I am sure if we discussed how I understand them, you would have major problems with the way I understand them.
I have read all your posts and I don’t know what your question is.
Here’s what I believe about Justification (New Hampshire Confession of Faith):
We believe that the great gospel blessing which Christ26 secures to such as believe in him is Justification;27 that Justification includes the pardon of sin,28 and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness;29 that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer’s blood;30 by virtue of which faith his perfect righteousness is freely imputed to us of God;31 that it brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other blessing needful for time and eternity.32
I do not believe you have to believe the above paragraph in order to be a Christian.
I wrote on Sola Fide here:
http://www.internetmonk.com/solafide.html
Also
http://www.internetmonk.com/papist.html
Michael
This was my previous post
Dear Sir
You choose not to hear me, do you? We all, you and me included, err somewhere in our doctrine. Nobody is saved by correct doctrine.
However, we are saved by the all sufficient work of Christ on the cross and only that. Let’s cut to the chase.
Since the 16th century the greatest contoversy in the church was about justification by faith alone.
SOLO CHRISTO!!
However, IF our justification is not solo Christo, “by Christ alone.” neither is it sola gratia, “by grace alone,” nor sola fide, “by faith alone.” Do you agree?
This is what it is all about. I would like to know your position regarding this one issue?
Posted by Johan at April 7, 2005 09:00 AM
I don’t know what more you want Johan. I agree with the solas- as do all Protestants I assume- and I posted a confessional statement on Justification.
Michael
Thanks, I will read the article you directed me to.
“Folks, the average Catholic is not too very much different from the average Protestant when we come down to belief and practice. ”
I’ve been told that I live in a pretty unusual place, as far as the acceptance of reformed folks by pretty much anybody goes. But the Catholics I know are not so different in beliefs, but very different in practice.
“The main differences I have noticed are that an average Catholic is not quite so smugly self-assured about his guarantee of salvation…”
Accept for the Arminians that teach that you lose your salvation by sinning (but they can be smugly prideful, which is probably worse)
” and the average Catholic spends Mass more focused on God than on the folks around him in the pews.”
You may be right there, but most Catholics *I know* (and I don’t know them all) spend a lot less time at Mass than I do at church, so it probably averages out.
One Catholic I work with daily hasn’t been to Mass (except for Easter) in a couple of years. She has turned her back on some of what the RCC teaches – and in doing so has turned her back on a *lot* of what Christianity teaches.
Is she what IMonk is talking about? Probably not, but most Catholics I know (and i work with a bunch of them) fall one way or the other.
They are either *really* RCC (one woman I work with was having a problem, so she needed to go get an icon of a particular saint to deal with it).
Or they go the other way and don’t appear to have any real relationship with Christ at all. One Catholic woman I know (I currently have guardianship of her son) says she has faith; she is currently in rehab and up on charges for domestic violence against her son. Her attitude is that she is saved because she was baptized into the Catholic church. Her son is “ok” because he was baptized (the fact that she hasn’t taken him to church since doesn’t seem to play into it at all). She says that she’s not supporting her son (as in helping to feed him) because God wants her to focus on herself right now.
The fourth woman I’m thinking of is one like IMonk is describing. She’s gentle and kind and talks about Jesus, and little about Mary. That’s about a 3:1 ratio.
I freely say that there are Catholics that are Christians – and there are Protestants who are not. In both cases, it may be in spite of doctrine, rather than because of it.
Some of the most interesting talks I’ve had with Catholics start with, “Oh, Catholics don’t believe that…” and I show them in the catechism.
How I pray we could learn to build a culture of love rather than of hatred, spite, and anger. “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” – John 13:35
“How I pray we could learn to build a culture of love rather than of hatred, spite, and anger.”
I find it curious that recognizing doctrinal error and being “fruit inspectors” tends to result in prayers like these.
Which is more loving, to watch somebody careen off of a cliff, shouting as they go by, “I love you,” or trying to correct their path?
here is some interesting reading: (I don’t agree with a lot of the essays on this site, but for those who call for love first, this is interesting)
http://www.clmag.com/cults/movements/love_heresy.htm
iMonk!!!!
it was an awesome post, bro.
as for the blowhards attacking you and the rcc… some people (for all their fundamentalism and their jesus talk) are just walking sink holes. clanging symbols.
the wife and i went to catholic church here in smyrna georgia and every sunday it was the same: jesus, jesus, jesus. i was raised in protestant fundamentalism and taught that catholics were going to hell. i found at the catholic church people depending profoundly in christ, and never once did they tell me i was going to hell. never once did they suggest i was diseased or infected by protestantism, the way my protestant friends and pastors had always smeared catholics. every sunday, though, they told me i needed jesus. and every sunday i agreed.
anyway, iMonk, your post rocks. thanks, brother. sincerely. and keep it up!
: )
wilkins
i appreciate
I will add a few comments:
1. If this article was about ‘How I Made Peace my With Roman Catholics’ rather than ‘How I Made Peace With the Roman Catholic Church’ I would find it easier to take. I accept Roman Catholics, knowing that many truly are believers who love God, but I don’t accept everything they believe.
2. That which isn’t said often speaks volumes. The Internet Monk expresses that he wishes that this wouldn’t bother some of his readers, but I think that their questions are legitimate. If you endorse something unequivocably without qualifying those statements by offering the other side of the issue at all, then you give the impression that you wholeheartedly agree. I suggest that if Mr. Spencer includes this essay in his book, he may want to add some qualifying statements so that no one is misled as to what he truly believes.
3. In my own Protestant experience, the Catholic Church has been accepted in many ways by Protestant groups, especially in Charismatic circles. I don’t know any Catholic bashers at all. Pentecostals/Charismatics etc who are big on the miraculous share a common interest with those Catholics who look for Mary in window panes and Jesus on grilled cheese sandwiches. And then there are all the futurists who are into the Tim Lahaye series who owe a lot of gratitude to the Roman Catholic Church for some of those ideas when they came up with a way to divert the thoughts of those who believed that the Pope was the Anti-Christ.
4. Let’s face it. This article was written at this time because of the Pope. What I’m wondering at this time (and I don’t believe I’m the only one) is: How can you give a truly Biblical reason for having a Pope in the first place? Countless people are worshipping – Yes, worshipping the Pope. How can this be right, according to Scripture? How can this man be called ‘The Holy See, The Holy Father? How can a man, in good faith, accept all of this adoration? We have our Heavenly Father, and Jesus is our mediator.
Christ Himself gave Simon three things: his new name – Stone (Cephas in Aramaic, and Paul calls him this a few times; Peter in Greek and all of us call him by that name), a promise to build His Church upon Peter, and the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. That last is very interesting. I view this in the same way I have seen a lot of folks view it. The keys to a city were a very important symbol of trust and authority during Apostolic times (and before and after – essentially as long as cities used fortified walls for protection). The job is not one that can be done in only one generation, so it seems reasonable (and necessary, if you look at it from a Catholic viewpoint) to provide for a successor when Peter dies. In the Book of Acts, a new Apostle was chosen to replace Judas, so it isn’t very far-fetched to presume that one could be chosen to replace Peter.
Here is why I think the Pope is so important. The Pope is the visible head of the Catholic Church. His most important purpose is to provide a unifying center to the Church throughout the world. His leadership sets the tone for the whole Church.
In essense, the Petrine Charism is more one of unity than of infallibility. There are Catholics who are good, obedient, God-fearing people who respect and follow the Pope without believing in Papal Infallibility. And the reason is because the Pope and especially the office of Pope unifies the Catholic Church.
The problem with a lot of Protestant churches, in my opinion, is that there is too much independence. I suspect that the insistence on local leadership is why there are so many denominational splits occurring every year, even every month. All of them may be trying to follow the Bible and the Holy Spirit, but I believe that God is served best when people work together in a unified fashion to come to understanding, while still being willing to submit to teaching authority. When minor points of theological disagreement result in a church split, who is served? Not a God who desires brotherly love and unity among believers.
The purpose of the Pope is to avoid those divisions. Among the Orthodox, there are a lot of divisions, mostly along national or cultural lines. Yet, by retaining the formal hierarchy of the Church they avoid the really awful array of splintering that came about when that church structure was abandoned entirely, as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Within the Catholic Church, there are dissenters, even heretics, but they are usually trying to be true to their Catholic faith, not to form a separate denomination. The Pope is who creates that Catholic identity and thereby gives unity to the Church, even with the presence of the dissenting faithful.
The above is my own opinion and may not accurately or fully reflect the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Another Catholic may well give you a completely different reason for the Pope. I’m just telling you why he matters to me.
-Patrick
After lurking for a while, I’d like to offer my two cents.
It seems to me the chief point of disagreement among the commentators in this thread issues from different understandings of sola fide: “Faith in Christ is the sole means of receiving grace unto salvation” vs. “Faith exclusively in Christ is the sole means of receiving grace unto salvation.” In other words, I think we all agree that having faith of any measure, in anything or anyone other than the person of Jesus Christ, is ineffectual for attaining saving grace; the question is whether having such misplaced faith necessarily precludes one’s also having actual, saving faith in Christ.
I am inclined to think it does not. In my (admittedly quite limited) soteriological understanding, all genuine, saving faith in Christ is a spiritual gift from God, a product of the Holy Spirit’s work in the believer; work which begins before the point of justification (drawing him to Christ), continues throughout this life (sanctification or reformation; conforming him closer to the likeness of Christ), and is completed only after physical death (glorification).
Do any of us have a perfect faith? Can any of us in honesty claim never, since he first trusted in Christ, to have attempted to earn God’s grace by any other means? I, for one, fall into self-righteousness quite frequently. Praise be to God, that He is gracious to show me my error, lead me to repentance, and forgive all my sins!
Faith in one’s own works, the Pope, the/a Church, Mary, other saints, baptism, other sacraments–all of this faith is wrong, useless, harmful, sinful. Like all other sin, its only cure is to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. But I don’t think that means a sinner with misplaced faith cannot also have real, correct, saving faith.
I pray my contribution will help, not inflame, the dialogue.
‘Which is more loving, to watch somebody careen off of a cliff, shouting as they go by, “I love you,” or trying to correct their path?’
Certainly, there are arrogant, rude ways of correcting a brother; and there are loving ways of correcting a brother. In my life I’ve seen both.
Whatever one does in the name of love, for it to be genuinely loving it must be patient and kind. It must neither be enviable nor boastful, neither arrogant nor rude. It must not insist on its own way; it must not be irritable nor resentful (1 Corinthians 13:4-5).
“And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” – 1 Corinthians 13:2
I agree with Alan.
Alan & James:
Are you saying the a person can have saving faith, that is, trust in Christ only for salvation and at the same time trust in baptism or someone else, say Mohammed, as also essential for salvation? If so, this seems contradictory. How can “Christ only” and “Christ+something else” be true at the same time and in the same way? Or, are you suggesting that God simply ignores the “+something else” and only sees “Christ only”?
I’m willing to claim perfect saving faith since I received it as a gift from God. As attempting to earn God’s grace, that’s contradictory. Have I ever claimed a work of Holy Spirit through me as my own work? Regretfully, I have (and will probably do it again). I wanted a share of the glory. But thankfully, I have a merciful mediator between God and me, the man Christ Jesus.
Quote from Doug Wilson…
“‘There follows from this a vital and liberating point, which I first met in the works of the great Anglican divine Richard Hooker, and for which I shall always be grateful. One is not justified by faith by believing in justification by faith. One is justified by faith by believing in Jesus’ (What St. Paul Really Said, p. 159).
This is a glorious point, really, and is one of the reasons why those who differ with Wright on other important points should still be able to read him with profit. This is a point, incidentally, where Wright understands the gospel far better than John Robbins does.
Mr. Robbins is on my mind because I just finished reading “A Guide for the Perplexed” by him, in which he essays to provide a set of directions for people wanting to sort through the federal vision stuff. Robbins can crank out articles like this because he only deals with propositions, and the ninth commandment, being an imperative, is not a proposition. No sense carrying around all that heavy stuff that slows you down in making your connections.
A statement from Wright like the above will be met with howls of protest. And because I quoted it approvingly, it will no doubt be said that I think that belief in justification by faith alone is “not important” and so on. But of course belief in justification by faith alone is crucial, and anyone who cannot clearly define it, articulate it, and defend it from Scripture ought not to be ordained. But if anyone says that defining it, articulating it, and defending it is essential to salvation, he has in effect denied the doctrine itself in the name of defending it. What score must you get on the theology quiz, justification section, before the pearly gates swing open? And who grades the quizzes anyway?”
http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=987
Michael:
I enjoyed this post, but your concepts of Catholicism are from the outside looking in. Just some general observations from one who was on the inside and got out.
JP II was pre Vat 2 priest which meant that he grew up and was ordained in the tradition that Protestants weren’t going to heaven. Having known my share of these priests who were still teaching it in the 70s and 80s, it seem pretty likely that he was in the same vein. In fact, I never saw anything that led me to believe anything else – even when I was still a follower.
I wish the both Catholics and Protestants were more tolerant and loving of one another. Catholics, in general, are not bad people – just deceived. And having been trained their whole life to believe their church was the only way and with direct linkage to Peter, it’s hard for them to give up on their religion without Biblical knowledge – something from within not from without. Many, many Catholics end up having disputes with the Church and just don’t go but never seek out other Christian faiths.
We should still love them as our brothers and sisters. We should still love them anyway.
Great essay Michael, thank you! When can we expect a similar essay about the Orthodox Church? *smile*
Just some reswponses to those posts above that claim that thr RC is in serious theological error.
“Those (and other) statements on the RCC were true in 1562 and they are still true today. The Church of Rome is in theological error — serious theological error — especially when it comes to the gospel.”
I disagree. And heres why.
Faith.
Protestants claim that the RC teaches faith+works.
In fact the church teaches that faith and works cannot be seperated, and so works are not an “add on”. The Bible is crystal clear on this point. Just because you believe, does not mean you are saved. If your beliefs do not result in works, then your faith is a fraud.
Faith and Works are not two seperate things. We cannot be saved by faith alone, because true faith manifests in works. If it does not, the Bible is clear that it is not true faith.
Both the Roman and Orthodox churches understand this and they are right. The “Sola Fide” doctrine is a distortion of the Bible and the witness of tradition.
Much of the Protestant error is this regard is a result of focusing on a substitutionary atonement theology to the exlusion of any other. This leads to a legalistsic way of thinking about issues like justification and faith.
The sacrifice of the mass.
Protestants usually think they understand this doctrine. I have rarely met any who did in reality.
The correct Catholic understanding is this. Christ was sacrificed ONCE and ONCE only. He is NOT re-sacrificed during the mass, and the RC has never at any time taught that He is. The sacrifice of the mass is the very SAME one sacrifice Christ made for us once for all. Christ’s work of atonement on the cross is not bound by time. If it was, none of us now living would be saved. Instead the the sacrifice was made once for all in history, but made avaliable for all in eternity. Each time a mass is said, Christ is not being re-sacrificed, the ONE sacrifive he made is being accessed.
Mary.
While some aspects of popular devotion to Mary can be critiqued, the Protestant stand on this issue is far and away much worse. Total silence on the one human being responsible for the birth of the Savour is a pathetic self-serving distortion of the Bible. The Orthodox church has a balanced approach to Mary that I think is right. The Protestant rejection of Mary as in any way important to the Faith is one of the main reasons for the growth of liberalism in Protestant churches. Take away Mary, and you take away the Incarnation.
That those same Christians who criticise Catholics and Orthodox for asking Mary to pray for them, and then go around asking other Christian here on earth to pray for them, are blind to their own hypocrisy.
Here is a good example of Protestant error.
“Faith in one’s own works, the Pope, the/a Church, Mary, other saints, baptism, other sacraments–all of this faith is wrong, useless, harmful, sinful. Like all other sin, its only cure is to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”
How does Christ manifest in the world? Through His Body the Church. What is the church? The communion of ALL the saints in time and eternity. How is Christs’s grace given to believers? Through the sacraments. When Catholics and Orthodox access the grace of Christ though the lives of the saints or the sacraments, they are not replacing Christ alone, they are accessing Christ alone through the means that His church provides.
The problem here is not the RC, but Protestants who have such a poverty of imagination that they cannot see Christ working through any created thing. Therefore when they see an icon, they think idol, when they see prayers to Mary and the Saints, they see Christ being replaced.
Let me be clear. THE ERROR HERE IS WITH PROTESTANTS NOT THE RC.
Yes, Chrst alone is our mediator, but Christ is not bound by time and human limitations. His grace flows to us through the Bible, but also through the whole church, including the Saints and the sacraments.
A Catholic or Orthodox lay person praying to Mary or using an icon is not replacing the sole mediation of Christ, but accessing the sole mediation of Christ through the means of grace in His church.
The Pope is simply the leader of the church. Catholics do not put their faith in him instead of Jesus. If you go to a church, your church has leaders. To claim that the Pope is an idol but your church leaders are not is utter nonsense.
People are not worshiping the Pope. They are honouring a witness to Christian love.
Let me be clear. (Now I shout.)THE ERROR HERE IS SHAWN’S DOUBLE-TALK.
Somebody stick a fork in this thread.
It’s done.
“THE ERROR HERE IS SHAWN’S DOUBLE-TALK.”
What double talk? Show me where I have engaged in any kind of couble talk.
The fact is that most attacks on Catholic doctrine proceed from errors in understanding those doctrines in the first place.
And the fact is that many Protestants, especially those from the Reformed/Baptist traditions, are woefully ignorant of what both Catholic and Orthodox churches teach.
This ignorance manifests itself in claims that the Catholics and Orthodox “add on” works to faith, which as I have shown is not the case IF you understand that in Catholic and Orthodox thinking faith and works are not seperate things in the first place. Thats not double talk, its a simple and clear statement of what both churches understand and teach. Now if you want to critique that teaching then by all means do so. But to claim a falsehood ( that the RC and Ortho’s “add” something to faith) is simply setting up a straw man and arguing with that. The result is that you start from error and finish with error.
The same is true of the RC and Orthodox understanding of the communion of saints. I have talked to many in both churches, and I regularly meet with an Orthodox priest whio is a personal friend. Every informed Catholic and Orthodox person will tell you that they believe in the one and sole mediation of Christ. But they understand that mediation to be expressed through created means. Even Lutherans understand this, and refer to Baptism, Communion and the Bible as means of grace. The only difference is that Catholics and Orthodox understand this in a much wider sense and include the Saints and things like icons. But it is still the one mediation of Christ that they are accessing, at least in their understanding.
Again, you can critique their understanding of this, but to do so you must critique the actual doctrine, and not a false understanding of such doctrine.
The more I talk to Catholics and Orthodox, especially those I am friends with, the more I realise how poorly many Protestants understand the actual doctrines of those traditions.
This is not good enough. To attack the oldest expressions of the Christian Faith for doctrines and teachings that they dont actually hold, and to distort those teachings and then attack your distortions, is a grave and serious sin.
Ol’Geezer:
I am not claiming that a person can have faith exclusively in Christ (”Christ only” as you said) and in something or someone else simultaneously; that is logically impossible. What I am saying is that “saving faith” may not have to be defined as “faith exclusively in Christ.” That is, it may be that a person can have genuine faith in Christ and “be saved,” without Christ necessarily being the sole object of that person’s faith. In other words, even though faith in anything/anyone other than the person of Jesus Christ cannot save (and is indeed sinful), it doesn’t necessarily prevent one from *also* having genuine faith in Christ unto salvation.
I could certainly be wrong about this; I am no learned theologian. These ideas come partly from the little bit of knowledge and understanding I do possess, but mainly from speculation.
Shawn:
Please re-read my previous post and notice that I did not say anything about the official doctrines or teachings of Roman Catholicism. I did not accuse any person or group of actually committing the error of misplaced faith. Yes, I did say this:
“Faith in one’s own works, the Pope, the/a Church, Mary, other saints, baptism, other sacraments–all of this faith is wrong, useless, harmful, sinful. Like all other sin, its only cure is to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”
But notice I did *not* say that there was anything wrong with “one’s own works, the Pope, the/a Church, Mary, other saints, baptism, other sacraments” in and of themselves; nor did I make any comment or judgment regarding the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on these subjects. I said only that trusting any of these things as the basis for any part of one’s salvation, instead of relying solely on Christ, is wrong.
I do not know very much about official Roman Catholic doctrine, and even less about Eastern Orthodoxy. For that matter, I know next to nothing about Coptic, Armenian, or Syriac doctrine. What I *do* know is that many Christians whom I have known personally, Catholic and Protestant alike, and myself included, have at one time or another relied on things other than Christ for our salvation. It happens that for Protestants the object of misplaced faith is nearly always one’s own works or one’s church (usually a church that has fallen into a cult of personality around one or more of its leaders); for Catholics I have known, there has been more variety. But this is only incidental; the problem is the misplaced faith, not its object.
Everyone:
If this discussion is to continue any further, please, let’s all make an effort to be more charitable toward one another. A calm, honest discussion of ideas can be very fruitful; angrily attacking others’ positions and putting words into their mouths accomplishes nothing. If someone else’s comments upset you, perhaps you should wait a few hours before you post a reply; let your emotions subside, and try to consider the other positions more objectively.
If this discussion is not uplifting of our fellow believers and glorifying to Christ, it is all wasted words.
First of all let state that I am not a Roman Catholic but do appreciate and value what they have given to the church.
I agree for the most part with Shawn and even with IMonk on many points. Protestants have unfairly critiqued Catholics without actually reading their own documents and understanding their teachings. There is a definite prejudice that resides with Protestants and the venom thrown out in this thread shows just that to be true. I feel sorry for all those who have voiced an anti-Catholic position. They are the very reason that the church is so divided today. The unsubmissive and divisive spirit of Luther exists in most Protestants. There cannot be one Body ever as long as Protestants continue their “protest” without seeking to reconcile the mother church. There are only two traditions that can actually claim apostolic authority (if such a thing exists) in the earth i.e. The RCC and the Orthodox faiths. All other protestant churches are based on schism and manifest their fruit via more schism. I am ashamed to call myself a Protestant and so I do not. I am a believer on the Lord Jesus Christ and accept all who are the Lord’s no matter where they may be found.
I would also like to state that Protestants do not correctly understand Catholic teaching on communion and the Eucharist. I have studied and read many of the writings of the early church fathers and I would have to say that history betrays the Protestant position. I have found that the earliest records of those outside of our Bible indicate that the early Christians actually did believe that in the giving of thanks (that is what Eucharist literally means by the way) of the bread and wine it really did become the body and blood of Christ. Not just a symbol. They took what Christ said literally. Now I do not know of any Protestant churches that hold to even this one and important early Christian belief.
I could go on but it is my experience that Protestants are non-objective and think that truth began and ends with the Sola’s. How very sad. Why would God have allowed millions of people to go to hell, for hundreds of years, until their savior, Martin Luther, came along? This is just blind Protestant arrogance!
Much Christian love to all!
Philologus
“Protestants are non-objective … their savior, Martin Luther…just blind Protestant arrogance!” What an interesting juxtaposition to “Much Christian love to all!”
Doug was right, stick a fork in this thread.
Ol’Geezeer,
To speak the truth is not in juxtaposition to much Christian love. Perhaps you are confusing “sentimentality” with real, honest Christian love? I suppose you don’t believe in ‘rebuke”? I guess rebuking is considered unloving in the church charaterized by worldy political correctness.
In Him,
Philologus
Doug (and others of course):
I already had cited Hooker umpteen posts back but it didn’t seem to make much of a difference to the “sola sola fide” camp 
good to see you brought Hooker into the debate … you were a little late to the party though
Shawn (and others of course):
Since it was my post that you decided to quote in saying that protestants misunderstand RC doctrines I will reply (at some length) to you. I hope you take the time to read what I have said and think about it. I would welcome any comments you have.
I agree that many Protestants misunderstand and even misrepresent RC dogmas. But we are fairly simple folk really and most of us don’t even understand protestantism
So please forgive us for our limitations. But for that matter most RC’s don’t understand their own church’s teachings either or protestant distinctives for that matter. In short you could say that nearly all of us don’t know very much about anything!
Now I don’t for one minute claim to be an expert on RC belief and practice. I am a protestant who tries to be as fair-minded as I can in understanding what the church of Rome teaches and does. If you think I have misrepresented RC teaching please take the effort to correct my mistake.
I as a protestant do not believe that RC teaches “salvation by works” or “salvation by faith plus works”.
But before I get on to talking about “salvation by faith + works” I first want to suggest a reason why there is so much mutual misunderstanding in theological debate between RCs and protestants — particularly when it comes to the thorny issue of salvation.
What a RC might see as a protestant “misunderstanding” or “misrepresentation” of Roman Catholicism might actually be a *protestant evaluation* of RC teaching. If a protestant were to say “the RC church teaches X — but in my view this really amounts to Y” and the RC church did in fact teach X then you could hardly fault the protestant for “misrepresenting” RC teaching. You (as a RC) would simply say he was right in identifying what the RC church teaches but wrong in his understanding of it.
If, however, our protestant were to say “the RCC teaches Y” when it in fact teaches X then a loyal son of Rome might (understandably) see this as a protestant “misunderstanding” or, even worse, a “misrepresentation”.
I want to suggest that much of what RCs see as “protestant misunderstandings” or “misrepresentations” are actually protestant evaluations (”RCC teaches X which in my view really amounts to Y”) of Roman Catholicism expressed (rather unhelpfully) in the shorthand form (”RCC teaches Y”).
An example of this would be the protestant claim that “Roman Catholicism is semi-Pelagian”. If you asked this of any Roman Catholic priest, bishop, theologian etc this would be vehemently denied and probably seen as a protestant “misunderstanding” or “misrepresentation”. But most protestants who would make this claim would probably also know enough theology to know what “semi-Pelagianism” does and doesn’t entail. They would probably also know that the RCC doesn’t officially teach “semi-Pelagianism” but officially repudiates both it and “Pelagianism” and instead officially confesses an Augustinian view of original sin.
The protestant view of Roman Catholicism being “semi-Pelagian” is not a claim about what the Roman church *officially* teaches but a (protestant) evaluation of what it *effectively* teaches despite its official position. I hope you can see the difference.
I actually made the (short-hand!) comment about semi-Pelagianism on another wesite and got the reply from a RC that I obviously didn’t know what I was talking about because semi-Pelagianism was officially repudiated by the Council of Orange in AD 529.
While well-meant, the criticism of my comment missed the point I was trying to make. I wasn’t claiming what the RC church officially teaches. I knew full well that the RCC claims to be Augustinian. I was making a comment that it’s teaching is in effect semi-Pelagian.
In fact both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism claim to be the true heirs to Augustinianism. But both disagree as to what “Augustinianism” entails. On the RC understanding of Augustinianism, Protestants (or at least the Lutherans and Calvinists), go too far in teaching the complete inability of the human will to cooperate with the divine will in salvation. On the Protestant view of Augustinianism, however, Roman Catholics fall short of recognising the full effects of the Fall on human ability and are effectively “semi-Pelagian”.
So who is the true heir of Augustinius? Rome or Luther/Calvin? Well that’s a matter for debate which I hope you’ll think seriously about. The point is, however, that both Roman Catholics and protestants claim to be “Augustinian” but the meaning of the term “Augustinianism” is rarely mentioned and not debated. We talk past each other which then leads to all kinds of misunderstadings.
I now want to suggest a similar analysis for the “salvation by faith plus works”.
I actually think some or possibly even many protestants do misunderstand the RC position and actually believe that the RCC teaches “salvation by faith plus works”.
I for one don’t believe that the RCC teaches this, and I hope that all thoughtful protestants come to the same conclusion. Actually, like our argument about “Augustinianism” there is a similar one concerning “justification by grace”. Both Roman Catholics and protestants believe in “justification by God’s grace”. We have different understandings of what this means and this then leads to the evaluations-cum-accusations of protestants that the RCC believes in “salvation by faith plus works”.
We actually disagree with what is meant by “justification” and how we receive God’s grace. A protestant *evaluation* of the RC understanding of justification is that the RCC conflates justification and sanctification. In the protestant view, works are part of our sanctification, whereas — as you point out — on the RC view the two are intertwined.
And we also differ when it comes to how we receive God’s grace. Protestants believe we receive God’s grace by faith in Christ alone. A Roman Catholic believes that we, without being justified by our works, can (and must) cooperate with the divine will in our justification by grace.
So, in short, protestants (or at least those who follow Luther/Calvin) believe in the complete inability of the human will to cooperate with teh divine in justification. Justification is seen as a single forensic act of God in declaring the sinner righteous in his sight. This is done by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer by means of faith in Christ alone. The works of a Christian are irrelvant for justification but all-important for our sanctification, as indeed good works are what we in Christ Jesus were created for (Eph 2:10).
RCs on the other hand see justification as a process. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Justification denotes that change or transformation in the soul by which man is transferred from the state of original sin, in which as a child of Adam he was born, to that of grace and Divine sonship through Jesus Christ, the second Adam, our Redeemer”. Moreover, it “requires an intrinsic union of the Divine and human action, of grace and moral freedom of election”.
So, from a protestant view, the Roman Catholic teaching of justification could be *evaluated* as “salvation by faith plus works”. As a protestant while I can sympathise with the want to say what the RCC “really teaches” I think such an evaluation is unnuanced and does not really do justice to the RC understading of sin, human nature and divine action.
If we really want to understand one another, protestants and RCs need to get to the core issues: What were the effects of the fall on out free-will, and what do we mean by terms such as justification and sanctification, and how do we sinful people receive God’s grace?
I think I have said enough. Almost none of it is original but hopefully it will help to clarify things.
Grace and Peace,
David
The Lover of the Word (Philologus) said:
“There are only two traditions that can actually claim apostolic authority (if such a thing exists) in the earth i.e. The RCC and the Orthodox faiths. All other protestant churches are based on schism and manifest their fruit via more schism.”
So my question to you is as follows:
What is your view on the Anglicans? They have apostolic succession … and they are a protestant church. If you are going to throw the Orthodox in with the Roman Catholics on what basis do you exclude the Anglicans?
Just curious as I am an Anglican
But for the record I don’t actually believe that apostolic succession of the episcopacy (or indeed an episcopacy at all) is necessary to claim the marks of apostolicity or catholicity. True apostolicity and catholicity is found where the pure Word of God is preached and the (two!) sacraments are duly administered.
David.
“What is your view on the Anglicans? They have apostolic succession … and they are a protestant church. If you are going to throw the Orthodox in with the Roman Catholics on what basis do you exclude the Anglicans?”
David, my view on Anglicanism is that it was started on a divisive foundation. Henry the VIII refused to acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church and seceded from it by making himself “head” of the church of his making. He fashioned the Anglican church after himself and planted the seeds that have now resulted in the acceptance of homosexual clergy and many other abominations.
Do I think that there are true Christians among the Anglicans? Of course I do! However, since you are Anglican it might do you good to research the life and teachings of a famous Anglican, John Henry Newman, and see where he wound up. It might surprise you what conclusions he arrived at about Anglicanism.
You might try and compare the political Anglican head with Rome but there is a world of difference. I acknowledge that the Anglicans were once tied to Rome but their schism is based on immorality and one man’s desire to do as he pleased just because he was king. If it wasn’t for Henry VIII you would likely be Catholic today. Think about that!
In Christ,
Philologus
Philologus:
thanks for your comments. You are a scholar and a gentleman.
First, I still don’t understand how you can exclude the Anglicans for being schismatic but include the Orthodox. Surely in not recognising the Bishop of Rome as their spiritual (if not political) head they are just as “schismatic” as the Anglicans?
Secondly, as far as I am aware there is no “political head” of “Anglicanism”. The sovereign of the United Kingdom is the “Supreme Governor” of the Church of England. But most Anglicans aren’t members of the Church of England. Elsewhere in the world (including the other countries of the British Isles) there is no “political head” of the church. In case you are wondering I’m a member of the Anglican Church of Australia.
Thirdly, in my experience it’s Roman Catholics who like to try to draw all kinds of comparisons between the pope and the “political head” of the Church of England. Roman Catholics, accustomed to having a political head, want to view the outside world in terms of their own structures. This is unserstandable but I don’t think very helpful. I think most Anglicans would take the more sobre view that the position of the Queen as supreme governor of the C of E is nothing more than a quirk of history. I think this is all the more so given that the church was disestablished in both Wales and Ireland and could at any moment be disestablished in England.
Fourthly, (if you care to read my very first post) I DO consider myself Catholic. I am not, however, Roman Catholic. I know this appropriation of the term “catholick” by (some) protestant hereticks must irk papal followers. But guess what: the opposite claim (by the Church of Rome and those churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome) irks a few protestants too. So like most debates between protestants and RCs we are fighting over common terminolgy. Who has the better claim to the title “Catholic”? You probably already know my view on this. I do, however, understand what you mean though whenever you use the term “Catholic”
Fifthly, if it wasn’t for Henry VIII I don’t know what I would be. Historical counterfactuals are often interesting but usually a waste of time. One historical counterfactual that isn’t a waste of time is that about Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. I care a lot more about the fact that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world than what motives Henry VIII had for ditching the Bishop of Rome and installing himself as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I am a Christian because of the grace of God in Christ and not because of the actions of a 16th Century King of England. I wasn’t raised a Christian or an Anglican. Whether I’m Anglican or not is at the end of the day not in the slightest bit relevant. At the last judgment Jesus is not going to ask me if I intellectually assent to the 39 Articles and doctrines contained in the 1662 BCP and was faithful in attendance of Morning Prayer, Evensong and Holy Communion. There are true followers of Jesus Christ across many different churches and denominations. And in a shock to some in what I have called the “sola sola fide” camp I have no doubt that God in his mercy can and does save people who have faith in Christ but don’t believe in sola fide. This no doubt includes people within the Church of Rome. If you are one of those Philologus then I welcome you as a Christian brother.
But at a guess, if it wasn’t for Henry VIII spitting the dummy all those centuries ago I would probably be a Christian of the presbyterian flavour. Definitely not Roman Catholic. The truth of the Reformation would still have come down to us without the actions of Henry.
Maybe Henry VIII had sinful personal motives for separating from Rome. It’s hard to get to the truth of the matter in the light of all the papal propaganda. But even so, God can take sinful human motives and use them for his glory (Genesis 50:20).
Sixthly, I respectfully disagree that Henry VIII in “fashioning the Anglican church after himself” “sowed the seeds for and planted the seeds that have now resulted in the acceptance of homosexual clergy and many other abominations.” Don’t get me wrong. Sexual sin among the clergy is an abomination. The Episcopal Church in the USA has by its own actions cut itself off from the rest of the Christian world. I can understand why you might think that Henry’s separation in the 16th Century sowed the seeds for that. But I have to disagree. I could say that the root cause was the false gospel of the church of Rome. If Rome hadn’t taught a false gospel and been unwilling to repent and believe the gospel there would have been no need for the reformational churches to have separated in the first place. Anyway, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this point. But I think we should all note that Anglicanism is not the only branch of Christianity to have been affected by sexual sin among the clergy.
Finally, on John Henry Newman: I have read some of his work and will continue to read more. I am fascinated by the man and his writings. The man was a very gifted writer and theologian. There is no doubt about that. Unfortunately he got a few important things wrong. Like most human authors not writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit I find myself sometimes in agreement with him and sometimes in disagreement with him.
In Christ,
David.
Wow. This thread makes me really glad to be an Anglican. I get admire both Protestants and Roman Catholics without anyone having a problem. Woo!
Seriously though; my church is very High Church traditional Anglican (the correct term would be Anglo-Catholic, but that gets a little complicated). And it’s been the best thing to ever happen to me.
I grew up uber-Protestant Southern Baptist (though I was fortunate that my parents never really indulged in Catholic-bashing), and heard plenty of stories about people being converted from Roman Catholicism.
But you know? I found as much legalism in my Protestant church as they claimed was in the RCC, as much “tradition,” though they’d never claim it as such, as many “creeds,” as much misplaced devotion. But they weren’t aware of it, and couldn’t be on guard against excesses.
The more Catholic parts of my current church as what has saved my Christianity. Finally, there are things that mean something! It’s not longer just a shadow play. Communion means something now. Good works mean something now, and spring naturally from faith. They can’t be seperated; it’s silly. Wht I do with my body has meaning, because of the Incarnation, because of the Sacraments. Spirit affects matter.
I have some serious disagreements with the RCC, and could never become Catholic (at least, with doctrines currently being what they are), but I hope and pray for the renewed communion between the churches.
Thankyou for your comments David. I understand your point, which is quite different from the kinds of errors with regards to what the RCC actually teaches that I was responding to. I dont think I would agree with your points exactly, (actually I dont think I even agree with the RCC as I’m increasingly leaning towards the Orthodox understanding of original sin and salvation which is critical of Augustianism), but I appreciate that your making your points from an informed perspective. Thats a vast improvement over some of the other posts critical of the RCC above from other posters.
Joi, good to see another Anglo-Catholic here!
Shawn,
Yeah, same here! All too rare in these days of ECUSA!
Joi & Shawn,
Back at you both. I joined a traditional Anglican Catholic Church last October after being raised RC, and spending many more years in non-denominational churches. The ACC has been a breath of fresh air.
Dear Monk –
Just found your blog. I have a couple of things to offer you in reading what you’ve written, and you can take them for whatever they are worth:
(1) I appreciate (and categorically disagree) with your position about the Roman Catholic Church. However, there is a basis to resolve part of the dispute which exists between us: can you tell me if anyone, in the final account, will go to hell for holding a false view of Jesus Christ? For example, if someone says that Jesus is an exalted man, or Jesus is an emanation from the Godhead and not a person, or for that matter, if the Church itself is spiritually begotten Jesus plus some other person, will that person be reckoned in the final account to have faith or not to have faith?
And here’s a bone for you: there are certainly beliefs extant in “evangelical” circles today (I have listed one, above) that are damnably false. The question is not “Aren’t all evangelical saved?” but is “are there beliefs which are exclusive of the Gospel”?
(2) You have made some direct points in your blog about James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries — and it’s a blog, so you have to talk about something, so good on you for having an opinion. Any chance you’d talk to Dr. White one-on-one for about an hour today at 4 PM MST (6 PM CT) today (or any Thursday), or Tuesday at 11 AM MST (1PM CT)? His live webcast is on, and I’m sure you would have ample opportunity to offer him correction to his position. In your case, he might even extend the broadcast to make sure there was enough said.
The link is: http://aomin.org/dividingline.html
The phone numer is: 1-877-753-3341 (Toll Free)
Thanks for your time.
The following is from http://www.saintaquinas.com/bible_versions.html:
We must be careful when reading dynamic versions of the Bible as translated by Protestant scholars. In order to create a modern English translation with increased readability, biblical scholars will often summarize a passages translation into modern English. Unfortunately, this means that the author will sometimes allow their biases to creep into the translated text. For instance, the rendering of John 3:16 in a literal translation, such as the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible (DRC), would say, For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. However, a popular dynamic Protestant translation, the New International Version (NIV), quotes John 3:16 as, For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Note how the NIV omits the word may before the phrase have life everlasting. Clearly, Protestant bias, whether inadvertent or not, has crept into the NIV text. Protestants commonly believe that salvation is dependent only on having faith in God, without consideration of works of righteousness. The skewed translation of the dynamic NIV alludes to the Protestant belief that faith in Christ is all that is needed for salvation; a view which Catholic doctrine rejects. Therefore, it is important for an inexperienced biblical reader to either read a reliable literal translation (such as the Douay-Rheims or the 1611 King James Version) or a Catholic dynamic translation (such as the New American Bible).