One reason why I’m not Catholic

Doesn’t the Bible say to be wary, and not swayed by every wind of doctrine? That ‘wind of doctrine’ could be from anywhere, couldn’t it? Even a human being who has been elected by other human beings into a role designed by human beings to lead human beings in their faith? IE, the Pope?

The process of thinking you have described immediately reminds me of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons). They are lovely, well meaning people. But they seem willing to completely disengage their brains when it comes to determining truth. It often drives me mad when I’m talking with some of them.

I’m glad though, that the Catholic church has remained so orthodox and conservative all these years. It is a testament to the method of a top-down authority. However, it’s also obvious that those in charge throughout history, have gotten it wrong just as often as everyone else.

Feel free to submit your mind to any human authority you like – whether that be the Pope, or the president of the LDS (Mormon) church, or whether it be Jim Jones… Just don’t call it divinely authoritative, it’s only another human equally as fallible as you are. Instead, put in the ‘hard yards’ and engage your mind. Take responsibility for your life and your beliefs and stop passing the buck.

Thanks Glenn,
-Andy Gray

I love how I manage to provoke blog posts XD

I didn’t realize that you had been raised in the Catholic Church. Do you mind telling me what it was that caused you to change?

…lost in a sea of completely subjective opinion with no way at all of reaching answers! Yes, sometimes that exactly how it feels.

Well, the one thing that stands out in the reasoning of the post to me is that the whole argument does not stand or fall on whether the Fathers of the Church accepted or rejected certain books of Scripture, as the decision as to what should be included to be the infallible word of God was decided in Church Councils. Fathers of the Church are not seen as infallible; a good example is Tertillian who became a heretic in later life.

From memory, I think that not all the Fathers accepted the Apocalypse either, but that made it in.

I suspect that most evangelicals (perhaps even most Protestants) operate along a similar pattern to the one you describe your RCC friend having. The only difference is that the Senior Pastor or the church constitution replaces the Pope.

Protestants would by-and-large (and I exclude those few who choose to educate themselves about this) be just as willing to hand over their understanding of the Bible to the Pastor. And I suspect that the Catholic academia would be just as willing to explore these issues as Protestant academia.

This dove-tails into a post I was reading today on Biblicism found here, about a book written by a Protestant-turned-Catholic.

It is relevant here, I think, as part of a larger discussion on the vast amount of interpretive pluralism that exists in Protestantism. The long and the short of that post is that once we (rightly) reject Biblicism, we still don’t have an effective response to that pluralism. So many denominations to choose from…

We can use logic and good practice all we like, but scripture seems, in many places, to defy pinning it down into a single clear meaning. Of course there are many reasons for that – such as only partial knowledge of the language, culture, and authorial intent that we may never understand fully – but there you go.

I suspect that most evangelicals (perhaps even most Protestants) operate along a similar pattern to the one you describe your RCC friend having.

Not in my world – seriously. I have never heard a Protestant claim that because their church has made a declaration, the matter has been settled and no appeal to the evidence can change that. Never. However, I have personally heard a large number of Catholics (by which I mean at least dozens) say that.

So I’m at a loss as to which Evangelical Protestants you have in mind. If you genuinely do know of groups of Protestants you think that way, could you share the examples?

Andrew, I don’t think my assessment is “without foundation” – it’s what I’ve experienced. I don’t approve of it and I do recognize that in every church I’ve seen it, there has been a small group fighting against the tide.

I’ve also seen people leave the churches because they disagreed with the Pastor (and been close to leaving myself); but it always seemed to be to be a minority of people who felt that way.

Andrew (#16), again, I’m speaking from what I have experienced first hand and observed similar patterns in other churches. I’m not going to go naming actual fellowships if that’s what you’re after. There are always those who are thoughtful and careful in evaluating teaching but, as I said, they have seemed to be the minority.

Just Sayin – little popes? No, and this is where some lay Catholics get it so wrong when critiquing Protestantism. A plethora of people disagreeing on mostly peripheral issues (as I have noted before), yes, but none of them claim infallibility or anything like it. They are committed, in principle, to being willing to change their mind in light of the evidence.

You remain very dubious that I have seen that? Well – what can I say to that… I guess I should run all my experiences past you just to check that I am really observing correctly.

First, let me repeat **again** what I actually said: that it is the Pastor that is the final authority for some people, not “the church”.

I am currently attending a Reformed Baptist (two birds with one stone!) church that has an awful lot of people that have somehow got to the position where the Senior Pastor is held in such high esteem that any announcements he makes – within reason – are supported and endorsed. Disagreeing with his teaching is tantamount to challenging his leadership. None of the issues are core doctrines of orthodox Christianity and I would hope that if ever that became the case that it would not be tolerated. And issues such as the recognized canon would probably never fall into this category either. But on many areas of scriptural interpretation, he is not to be disagreed with.

I agree this is not healthy at all! But it’s certainly not an isolated case. Perhaps I have just been unfortunate in the churches I have been involved with, but I have seen this pattern all over the place. Some movements are more susceptible to this than others *cough*Pentecostal*cough* and I am happy to regard my church as unusual in reformed circles if that is the case.

I would even argue that for some Evangelical movements, their denomination serves as the final authority on the points where their movement differs from other denominations. Not all people in those movements, but many.

Andrew – absolutely agree that it is to do with his personality and not the church.

Glenn, fair enough, although the Pentecostal denominations would be very insistent that the last word on the doctrine of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (tongues, healing etc.) is that they have not ceased.

I was just pushing back a bit on the sentiment, whether implied or inferred, that somehow protestants don’t have the same kind of reality as Catholics do, when it comes to accepting a default position on doctrinal matters.

We shouldn’t have that reality; we have all the tools and history to counter it. But letting an authority figure determine your theology requires less effort than actually thinking about it, and some denominations more than others exhibit that trait. I think the Reformed churches quote often “forget” that the Westminster Confession refers to it’s own fallibility (which is how that link in my first comment relates).

So yes, I’m saying something different to what you are saying – you are specifically addressing the official position of the church as opposed to what actually happens. My point, really, is that for a lot of the Evangelical churches I have had something to do with, that official position doesn’t mean much in practice.

Please assume all the usual caveats about generalisation etc….

Nice summary CPE.

scrubone – as I said to Phil earlier, I’m perfectly willing to accept that many Protestants may well believe that what their pastor says is correct without much reflection, that’s really not the concern I have raised here. Absolutely no Protestant that I know of – even anecdotally – has said that since their pastor has declared a doctrinal stance, in principal the matter is finally settled for good, infallibly.

Josh, it’s a common anti-Protestant apologetic for some Catholics to use the rhetorical ploy of saying that unless Rome has spoken, we are lost in subjectivity. The conversation that I described in this blog entry was an actual conversation, for example (not merely hypothetical). It has been said to me multiple times by Catholics who have taken upon themselves the task of Catholic apologetics. It’s good to see an honest soul publicly acknowledging that this is not so – but surely if it’s not true in principle, then there’s no reason for it to be true for any particular doctrine.

I used the discussion of the canon only to provide the context for how the issue of authority and reason arose, not at all to make any points about the canon. That said, there’s no doubt that Athanasius did not share your view on the canon. He doesn’t share my list either, but that’s not the point. Here are his own words, from the 39th festal letter:

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit

Bear in mind, too, “Jeremiah AND Baruch” may simply be one book,Jeremiah (Baruch was his scribe).

So the point is not that I agree with his list. The point was just that he didn’t accept some of the books the Catholic Church does. Nobody can deny that. So he’s not an odd witness, he’s an ideal witness to confirm the historical claim that some of the Fathers rejected the canonicity of some of the books that the Catholic Church accepts.

But again, the canon was not the point here. And while in your own opinion an infallible magisterium might not be a threat to our own personal thinking about things, that discussion that I described in this blog is one example of literally dozens that I have seen in real life, sadly. When the war of evidence was lost, a retreat was made to the bunker of Church authority. It genuinely does happen, and far too often. And given the implications of the Catholic position on papal infallibility, I don’t see how this consequence could not follow when the church does speak.

Also, thinking back to some things Frank Sheed said in his “Theology and Sanity”, I think the issue here is that it seems for you and other Protestants, free inquiry and the ability to think new and original thoughts is paramount, while the Catholic sees preservation of the deposit of faith as most important.

Sheed gives a great explanation of how infallibility is the only thing that makes sense if God is to give us revelation and desire for us to think about it. He could have, as Sheed mentions, just as easily given us set formulae that we could remember and that would be that. This hardly produces any sort of thinking, however, and man cannot live without thinking about the rules he is given to live by. He likewise could have just given us each personal infallibility so that when we ponder God’s revelation, we would be kept safe from error. Evidently this is not the case either.

Since revelation cannot intervene when two parties, in their consideration of its meaning, cannot agree on the meaning, God has set up a way of determining the truth in the matter. Otherwise, we’re simply left with chaos and chaos is hardly the environment for sound thinking.

If you’re interested, Sheed discusses these things in pp 292-297 in his “Theology and Sanity” published by Ignatius press.

There are many things attractive about the RCC, as mentioned in comment #2 above for example. But there are some distinct disadvantages, you must admit, as mentioned by Glenn here. Can you not see that?

I cannot imagine you are very familiar with Catholic thought if I am the first person you have come across who says that theology is done within the context of the Creeds and that the Magisterium has infalliblly interpreted very few verses of the Bible.

Josh, if we’re going to converse nicely and get along, I hope this is the last time you attribute to me claims that I just never made. I never said that I had never heard anyone say that theology is done in this context, and I never said you were the first person to say that the church has not declared every single fine doctrine of the faith infallibly. Go back and check my comment, you’ll see what I mean. Let’s just allow people to speak for themselves. For St Pete’s sake, I grew up in the Catholic Church, I frequently read Catholic work and I often converse with Catholic peers. Playing the “you’re just ignorant” card and attributing things to me that I never said will wear out my patience in short time, I’m sorry to say.

What I said is that many Catholics do – as a matter of fact – say to me that unless I have the Church’s word on a matter then I am just lost in an ocean of subjectivity and mere opinion. That is what I said before, and it really, truly happens. Thus, it is refreshing to have a Catholic who does not also play this very very common game, and who admits that this is false, and that actually I can have some objectivity even when the Church has not infallibly declared a position.

I also added that since I am not lost in a sea of subjectivity on some issues even when the Church has not made a declaration (according to you), I see no reason to think that I must be doomed to similar subjectivity when I do not listen to the Catholic Church on the matters where it has spoken either. Why should reason and evidence guide me on one doctrine of the faith but not another?

And my goodness Josh – Why on earth would I have to come up with an explanation for all the smart thinkers from Irenaeus to Ratinzger just because I think the Catholic position denies me the right to use God given reason? I never said the Church squelched all good thinking – it only serves as a mental crutch in contexts like the conversation I outlined above. It asks me to doubt my very senses and mind if they scream one thing at me in light of the evidence of Scripture and history when the Church infallibly declares another. I cannot do that. I genuinely can’t. But even you admit that the number of infallible declaration is not huge. How many such declarations had been made by the time of Irenaeus? Now do you see why such declarations did not pose a problem for the early fathers and their freedom of enquiry? There were no such declarations.

You ask if the Catholic Church really is the one, true, inspired, infallible church established by Christ, then what is the issue in listening to her? But Josh, I would ask that you revisit this blog entry, because my concern was not that people are calling me to listen to the church. I do listen – and I listen to other sources too. But the point here is that it is a bit facile to (as my partner in dialogue did) act as though one is willing to argue based on the evidence, when really if the evidence fails to make one’s case they are just going to fall back on the position of “Oh well, I didn’t really need the evidence anyway. The Church says this is the case, so that’s the end of it.”

Glenn:

My intention wasn’t to be insulting. I don’t think it’s a moral failing not to know Catholic thought. Whom are you reading within the Catholic world?

Secondly, the Church totally believes you have every right to follow your conscience. However, the Church totally believes that your conscience can be ill-formed and wrong. If the Church has said something and if she really is who she says she is, the pillar and foundation of truth, then I think it’s probably wise to trust her. The issue does not seem to be that we must surrender our reason if the Church requires something of us – this is demonstrably false. The issue is whether the Catholic Church is who she says she is. If she is truly the inspired, original body of Christ, then where is the issue in listening to her? Can you imagine how wrong an individual would be if their reason alone caused them to reject the Resurrection or some of Paul’s letters? Or the decision of the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? In fact, reason did cause people to reject large portions of the faith. Marcion by reason figured that the Old Testament is not Christian Scripture. Arius by reason figured that Christ is created. The Gnostics by reason figured that Christ had to come not from the Creator God. By reason men and women stood in front of Christ, their God, and yelled “Crucify”, they spat upon Him and then killed Him. The Catholic Church believes that every one of them has every right to use that reason and to be completely wrong.

And what I said was not meant to be a slight on Protestants, but is my experience. I was a Protestant, attended a Protestant institution of higher learning, etc. I saw numerous unintentional heretics (people who were accidentally Modalists, Apollinarians, Nestorians, etc, but did not know what those things were) because they were completely unbounded by the creed, by the sensus fidei, etc. The “benefit” was that they had no authority but God and the Bible to hold them accountable, but as stated above, the Bible alone does a lousy job of intervening when someone gets it wrong. God could have chosen to make everyone individually infallible on matters of faith, but in His wisdom chose not to. Hence the reason I said that it seems your position is that it’s better to have the freedom to reason about things (even if you’re wrong) than it is to have an inspired entity on earth that preserves infallibly the Apostolic deposit of faith. That’s where we part ways. I believe that entity exists, you do not. I never meant to imply that you don’t think the deposit of faith is important. You obviously do if you care about Scripture.

Dogma of course doesn’t cause me to think any less. How could it? The Church has constantly asked me to think about what it is she teaches, to contemplate it. She has yet to come up short on answers. Just because someone tells me that there are certain rules in mathematics doesn’t mean I think about math any less, that there is somehow less to explore. A hermeneutic of discontinuity within the faith, disagreeing because you happen not to be convinced of this or that, creates chaos. I think if we’re honest, the last 500 years testify to that. Nobody says you are incapable of coming to the truth looking at Scripture and history. The difference is that we believe the Church’s teaching authority is given the gift of infallibility while Glenn Peoples is not.

On the Mary issue: just like the Resurrection, either the Church is right or wrong. Reason alone tells me that there’s little chance of a man rising from the dead. Faith naturally plays a part. The Church of course doesn’t simply say, “Now, we realize there’s no evidence for this, but you have to believe it anyway.” Far from. Anyone familiar with Catholic theology, particularly on the Mary questions, knows that the Church’s reasons are Scriptural and historical. Granted, just as Irenaeus says in AH 1.8.1, some (he’s speaking about Valentinians, but I see no reason it cannot be universally true) take the “picture of the king” and try to make it into a fox. That is, some take the picture the Bible presents and by reason and a hermeneutic of discontinuity they create an entirely new picture of a fox. They have the same stones and there still exists a picture, but it’s just the wrong one. What means did God give us to determine which of the pictures is right? Did He intend for there to be a Church with a teaching authority who could say universally one way or another or did He intend that we all have to examine the case, to look through all the evidence, and then to vote and hope for unanimity or else schism?

Just sayin’ – I attended numerous churches which split over those types of things. The pastor was “just reading the plain meaning of Scripture” and if you dared to disagree (like so many did), you could just go elsewhere (like so many did). There was no way of settling who was right about anything. Like I said: chaos. It results in ecclesiastical anarchy. There was basically just this agreement that on this side of Kingdom Come, we were all lost in a sea of good opinions.

There’s a formal dogma of infallibility, Glenn, and there’s de facto claims to infallibility. For the latter, cf. thousands of small Protestant fundamentalist sects.

Josh
Thankyou for your kind and polite reply. I think i answered your questions with my comment that the RC church is no less but but no more than one part of the body of Christ. However to be more specific, no i dont believe Christ intended for the Church to be a teaching authority making or pronouncing universally. The church is the body of Christ, also the Bride of Christ, the sum of those redeemed through His sacrifice. The idea that the Church is some earthly political institution/organisation be that Roman Catholic,Greek Orthodox,Coptic Presbyterian or Baptist has nothing particularly to do with Christ or His church. These are just associations of convenience for men.

“Do you have a problem listening to His Apostles? Do you have a problem listening to the men who continued their teaching? Or the next generation who continued the same teaching?”

Again trying not to be offensive , but i thought that was the whole point of the Reformation. That part of the human political institution known as the Roman Catholic Church which had come to dominate part of Europe, had drifted too far from the teaching of the Apostles and Scripture. They were in fact not listening to or sharing Christ at all. Martin Luther’s 95 theses were an attempt to get the RC church to return to the teaching of Christ and of scripture rather than persuing the political and power desires of the institution. Institutional desires prevailed, thus the Reformation.

“but i thought that was the whole point of the Reformation”
Exactly! Hence my tongue in cheek comment about relics etc. The RCC has got doctrine WRONG, so very very wrong. So wrong, Catholics should question it’s ‘authority’, because it simply can’t be trusted any more. Is that so hard to see?

It claims authority, yet it exhibits all the same characteristics of any individual. That is, it’s very human in its behaviour, it’s as corrupt as any human, and as wrong as any human and as fallible as any human. This is clearly shown throughout history isn’t it?

Case in point… why not think about the RCC counter reformation. Worth pondering…

Thanks Josh,

“if the Church really is who she says she is (and I personally find her claims to be convincing), then what issue is there in listening to her?”

That is a good question. Perhaps it’s useful to define ‘Church’. Isn’t it the group of believers here on earth? So just who is it that this ‘church’ says she is? Some sort of hierarchical organization who defines what is doctrine, and dispenses God’s grace on earth? If that’s who she says she is, then WHY does she say this?

As you say, the church is full of people who are fallible, right? Well, if that’s what the church is, then how can a group of fallible people form something that is infallible? As I see it, the RCC is just as fallible as I am. The difference between me and my RCC brethren, is that I KNOW my beliefs may be slightly wrong, and so I go and figure it out, whereas some of my RCC brethren don’t.

“the Church is chock full of people who make mistakes”
Except for the Pope perhaps???? Somehow he’s the exception is he?

I’m sorry if I seem like I’m missing the obvious here. I’m not all clued up on this topic, yet it seems ridiculously obvious to me, even in my relative ignorance.

This discussion reminds me of a talk I had recently, discussing the most efficient form of govt. We discussed the fact that the most efficient seems to be a dictatorship. But that seems to go against our sensibilities. But what if said dictatorship was one where the ruler was near perfect? It would be awesome, right? But what if the ruler was just like me, very frail and human. Well, then it would be awful. Seems this is a bit of a crude analogy, but perhaps similar in some ways. If the RCC can be fallible like me (which it clearly is given that it is just a group of fallible people, just like me), then giving a dictatorship type rule over doctrine seems to be just stupid.

I’m sure that this has been raised before, and perhaps my feeble understanding of the issues will make my statements seem trite. Yet I can’t help but feel like the completely obvious has been missed by those insisting on resting SOLELY on the decrees of the RCC.

in summary:
1. The RCC is clearly not infallible
2. We have brains
3. We have the Holy Spirit
4. Truth is knowable if we use our brains and are guided by the Holy Spirit/God.
5. Therefore Christians should use our brains and allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit. (NB using our brains can mean taking advantage of our fore-fathers who have had to use their brains and had often come up with useful stuff)

What do you think?

I think that actually you and I agree with each other in essence. You chose to become a Catholic. Is that because you researched it and realized that whatever the RCC said must be true? Or because you researched it and came to agreement with what the RCC said must be true?

“Except for the Pope perhaps???? Somehow he’s the exception is he?”

Andrew, no, the Catholic view is that the Pope may indeed make mistakes – even though when he speaks in general he is believed by the church. When papal infallibility was invented by the Council of Trent, they specified that he is only infallible when his is uniquely speaking in his office as Pope, as the teaching head of the church, in spelling out a doctrine on behalf of the church.

Now this still poses problems given that this is exactly what, for example, Pope Honorius was doing and the Church still later rejected his teaching and anathematised him for it – in spite of the unsightly wriggling some modern Catholics engage in to get around it. Of course, there was no need for wriggling back then, as the Church didn’t believe in papal infallibility at the time so there was no issue. But it’s important to realise that the Pope is not said to be infallible in all that he happens to say.

Glenn:

I haven’t really been responding to you because it seemed as though you’ve avoided everything I’ve said. I’m not emotional about this in the slightest and I haven’t mischaracterized anyone’s arguments. The conversation has degraded, however. Nothing is being addressed, questions aren’t being answered, arguments are not being considered. You have my email, I assume – feel free to email me if you want to continue this. Otherwise I feel like I’m just spinning my wheels here.

Andrew:

Might I suggest understanding the position of another before you critique it? It helped me immensely in learning what Catholics actually think.

@Josh McManaway
hahaha Point well taken. I’m well aware of my lack of total understanding on the topic, so in many ways I’m unqualified to critique. But on the other hand, I think I have something worth saying, and I suspect we all have something to learn from this discussion if we’re open enough.

Proverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.”

Glenn:

If you feel I’ve misrepresented your view, I apologize. It’s not my intent. I also didn’t ask for a full blown historical account of how the canon could develop without the Papacy. That’s not even remotely what I asked for (who’s misrepresenting now?). Like I said, I’m spinning my wheels here. I also asked loads more questions that all went unanswered.

Andrew:

If you want to read about the Papacy in antiquity, I suggest Adrian Fortescue’s short but informative book, “The Early Papacy”. Also, this isn’t such a big deal, but some (such as myself) find “RCC” offensive. It’s a misnomer created by the Anglicans. We are simply ‘Catholic’, a word we’ve been using for about 1900 years now. It’s more respectful in my opinion to simply use Catholic (just like ‘Quaker’ or ‘Mormon’ are derogatory and should instead be ‘Friend’ and ‘LDS’).

Oh – I’m really sorry. I just thought RCC (short for Roman Catholic Church) was more useful that saying “Catholic”, because of the equivocation that seems to surround the use of that word. I’ll avoid using it, I didn’t know it was a little offensive.

Glenn:

There’s a wide array of possibilities between a full-length treatment on the issue of the canon and a sound bite answer. I’ve given answers here that are concise. It’s not impossible. I understand if you feel like you need more space than a blog comment provides. If you feel like you want to answer those questions I asked, feel free to email me (or email me a link if you end up treating it in a blog post).

Andrew:

I knew you were not intending to be offensive. A pejorative term in one generation becomes the standard name in the next (just consider the word ‘Christian’). And I seriously recommend the book on the Papacy. The brief history of the Pope and his infallibility given here has been inaccurate, but the nature of blog comments seems to sacrifice historicity for expedience.

“I’ve given answers here that are concise” – Josh, there is an obvious reason for that. You only need one. The head of the church has authority and has decided the matter. If I were to give a case, it would involve a lot more than that. Of course I could complain that your answers have not been concise because you’ve left out any justifying reasons for thinking that your Church is infallible at all. But as long as that is your answer: The Church says it and is infallible, then it’s going to be short.

Please don’t try to play the game of depicting me as simply being unwilling to answer simple questions. The question is not simple, and the kind of answer that would be required is genuinely lengthy. I would be happy to point you in the direction of some books on it if you like. A substantial amount has been written on the subject. Other than the question on canon, which requires a substantial treatment, I have answered your other questions. Again, feel free to remind me of any that I have missed.

Duh! “View older comments.” Never noticed that before!!!

Just Sayin’, I know that many Protestants can be as unreasonable as anyone, and are just as capable of zoning out and taking their local leadar’s word for things.

But – and I hate to harp on about it – You earlier did say that those Protestants really do claim infallibility, which was not correct at all. What’s more, I don’t think the distinction between genuinely claiming infallibility and just believing what the leader says is a small distinction. It matters, because one of those Protestants, if you pin them down and say “Look, I understand you think this guy is gifted, a spiritual man, smart, called to ministry and all that, but do you think it’s possible for him to make mistakes?” The answer will be yes, which may crack open the door to a more fruitful discussion about the doctrine that is being discussed at the time.

So the distinction matters. Now of course, if they dug their toes in and said “No, I will not look at the issue using all the tools at my disposal, the leader has spoken and he cannot be wrong,” then obviously I would have as much issue with him doing that as I do with Catholics who act in the way described in this blog post. In other words, I do not object only when Catholics do it. That would be quite unfair.

It seems that regarding what should be accepted as scripture, one should turn to whom scripture was delivered to-ie the Jews. The Hebrew bible doesn’t contain any Apocryphal book whatsoever! And indeed this was confirmed by Catholic scholars such as Melito, Jerome, Athanasius and Origen. If indeed the Apocrypha was to be considered canonical, why did it take the RCC until 1546 to do so?

Lol Glenn-is there not a special place in the deepest recesses of hell for bloggers? ; )

Hey Josh

I see every reason for christians to take clues from the Jewish canon to authenticate what should be included/excluded. They received Gods words, recorded them and as far as Im aware the canon was closed. So Im confused about your comment that the Hebrew canon is a post christian event! Please expand….

Josh

It would seem that while Jerome did include the deuterocanon in his Vulgate it was at the bequest of the pope, but Jerome himself was critical of the deuterocanonicals and wrote prefaces outlining his position ie the “Helmeted Prologues.”

Care should be taken in suggesting that the Hebrew canon is post Christian.

The Roman Catholic church formalised its canon in the 16th century, but no Catholic apologist would let you say that this canon didn’t exist until the 16th century. Catholic apologists therefore ought not take that approach to the Hebrew canon (otherwise they can’t object if Protestants do it to them, for that would be a double standard). The (yes, somewhat contested) Council of Jamnia that recognised the Hebrew Canon was meant to acknowledge those books that were already treated as canon, rather than decide for the first time what they would be. Jamnia or no, however, that there was such a recognition at the time is a fair assessment.

It is generally admitted that as far as the evidence is concerned, the books that Jerome called the Apocrypha have Greek originals, rather than Hebrew. Hebrew versions exist (e.g. fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls), but of course the Septuagint (LXX) was used by Hebrew speakers, so this is not a surprise. The evidence, quite apart from Jamnia, indicates that what the Jews regard as the Hebrew Canon was in fact the Scripture in Hebrew, whereas the LXX contains the Hebrew canon plus other books that were first written in Greek.

While the Protestant Bible is based on the Hebrew books, its books are arranged in the order of the LXX. However, what’s fascinating here is that Jesus appears to have had the Hebrew Bible in mind and not the LXX in Matthew 23:35. He referred to “all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechia.” Abel is obviously from Genesis, and Zechariah is in Chronicles, the last book, and the last martyr, in the Hebrew Bible. But of course, Chronicles is only the last book in the Hebrew Canon, not the LXX. Although not speaking explicitly about canon, this comment from Jesus appears to presuppose the Hebrew Canon and not that of the Septuagint.

Glenn:

Plenty of care was taken. There’s no evidence for Jamnia. It’s a myth. Read David Aune’s JBL article from the 90’s on this.

The Christian canon was decided by the late 4th century in various synods, but particularly in Rome. Trent simply reaffirms the canon as a response to Luther’s editing.

Chris, in first century Judea the normal language for Jews would be Aramaic, and the Hebrew Scriptures would have been used in the synagogue, rather than the longer Septuagint.

An interesting perspective from a fellow blogger:

http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2011/08/what-protestantism-needs-to-save-itself/

Well Chris, in Protestant theology the priesthood of all believers doesn’t mean the church leadership of all believers. I think Protestants do need good leaders and teachers. But definitely not one who claims infallibility.

Hey Glenn

Im not a Protestant, but agree fully with you that any church needs good “leaders” and teachers. I like the concept of a plural leadership ie a group of “elders”, deacons, overseers-call them what you wish-so no one man has any form of monopoly.

“By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munificentissimus_Deus)

Really? Excuse me, but this is probably the most bizarre pontification I have ever heard. Even Benny Hinn isn’t this absurd (and that’s saying something)! Indeed, I have always seen this as actual evidence for the FALLIBILITY of the Catholic Church, and of the Pope. I would even go as far as to say this is evidence for how the poor blighter’s in the Catholic Church leadership can just completely stuff it all up (aka make a big mistake).

“Ever Virgin”… eh? Didn’t Jesus have a brother? Was he immaculately born also then? When or where did Peter or Paul *ever* say Mary was Assumed into heaven? “Mother of God” … eh? What? I hope this is just a typo.

Seriously, I cannot fathom why this was given any credence by the Pope. Even some of the sources that they used to come to the above conclusion, were based on some people (Eg John of Damascus) who actually were in an environment where Mohammed also was believed to have ascended into heaven LOL.

I’m sorry if this offends my Catholic Church brothers, but this issue just completely “confuddles” me, and is one reason why *I* am not a Roman Catholic Church member, nor will ever be I’m afraid (which is a pity because I would like to be a member of the Catholic Church, but they just have too many things plainly wrong IMO, and have hence had to sadly break away in order to get back to the plain truth)

Andrew Gray –

Concerning the semantic range of the word ??????? (adelfos) in the New Testament, it’s probably best to see how a variety of early interpreters took the word. As far as I know, it’s a non-issue to understand that the word has a wide semantic range that of course includes ‘brother’ in the sense that we think of it and also ‘cousin’ in the sense that we think of it. Also, and I’m open to correction here, I believe Hebrew lacks a word for ‘cousin’ because they considered their ‘cousins’ to be ‘brothers.’ So, when we consider the culture behind the language (which is how we arrive at meaning – lexemes filtered through cultural lenses), it’s easy to see that the Catholic position is not absurd and is a possible one.

Also, “Immaculate Conception” refers to Mary, not Christ. The Latin word ‘immaculata’ means ‘unspotted’ and refers to the fact that Catholics believe Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin (this is an ancient belief and one I’m happy to explain if you want to email me).

I think there’s also Biblical evidence of Mary’s Assumption and it’s attested throughout Patristic literature. If you email me, I will be glad to discuss this further.

You need not be sorry. You ought, however, to make sure that you understand the Catholicism that you’re rejecting. I know that when I was at the Baptist seminary, I did not know what I was rejecting when I said the word ‘Catholicism.’

“I like the concept of a plural leadership ie a group of “elders”, deacons, overseers-call them what you wish-so no one man has any form of monopoly.”

Chris, that exists, and it’s called Presbyterianism!

“Mary is the Mother of God because she is the mother of Jesus, who is the 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity. She not the mother of Jesus’s human nature, she is the mother of a person. As Jesus is also God, then Mary is the Mother of God. It’s very simple.”

Lucia, I go along with all of this; it’s the Assumption that I struggle with.

As for Jesus having no brothers; I disagree but that’s not something about which any Pope has spoken infallibly, so is not a major problem for me.

“I would be careful talking about God’s mother in a less than respectful way – you know how people are about their mothers.”

I completely agree.

I see that there is not a consensus on whether Jesus of Nazareth had a brother or not. Fine.
Also, if Joseph and Mary did remain virgins for her whole lives, then man, I actually feel sorry for them. Wow, did they get the raw end of the deal!! lol

I guess I kind of see it as a bit of a mistake to say Mary was the mother of God. God always existed, long before he came to this world as the Messiah. Mary gave birth to Him. Joseph and Mary raised Him. But I think the scripture indicates that Jesus saw Himself as the Son of God more than the son of Mary and Joseph. And I suspect we ought to too.

Luke 2:48-49 New International Version (NIV) – When as a boy, Jesus stayed at the Temple:
When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”
“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”

See what I mean?

Chris:

There are numerous treatises written on both. There’s no need to rehearse them here. If you’re genuinely interested in the Catholic position on either of those topics, they are quite literally at your fingertips if you look around the web, not to mention the hundreds of books on either subject.

Andrew –

Of course there’s not a consensus. Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin, and later Protestants do not (though many of the original Reformers did).

I’m not so sure I would say that living a chaste life is the ‘raw end of the deal.’ Both Christ and St. Paul affirm the beauty of living a celibate life.

The role Joseph and Mary played in Christ’s life is subordinate to the will of the Father. This is obvious. This doesn’t mean that we should somehow disregard the real and important relationship Jesus had with Mary and Joseph. Consider all the passages leading up to Lk 2.41. Quite a lot of the passages before Lk 2.41 are about Jesus’ family, both his parents and Zechariah, Elizabeth and John. I don’t think Luke is trying to teach us that Jesus disregarded His mother and father (to do so would break the commandment to honor one’s father and mother). Lk 2.52 even explicitly says that Jesus was obedient to them.

Affirming that Mary is the “Mater Dei” (Mother of God) is affirming that Jesus truly is God, two natures in one person. Since, as Lucia mentioned, mothers give birth to persons and not simply to natures, it makes sense to say that Mary is the mother of God. By this, however, Catholics do not mean to say that Mary is somehow the mother of Jesus’ divinity (because, again, mothers don’t give birth to natures). Saying that Mary is the ‘Mother of God’ (or the preferred term in the East: Theotokos, God-bearer) is to affirm Christological realities.

Chris:

That’s not the case at all. I find when people are telling me what I “really” know is contrary to what I’m actually saying, they’re in a tough spot. You’ve asked a big question and it deserves a big response.. If you are serious about the question, I’m sure you can find all the available literature on either question. If you are not, then continue doing what you’re doing. No Patristic author who believes in Mary either being preserved from original sin or her Assumption has ever said, “Just take the Pope’s word on it because we have no Biblical evidence.” I’ve yet to see anyone base the case for Mary’s preservation from original sin or her Assumption on silence either. Their reasons are entirely rooted in the Scriptures. If you want to understand the position Catholics hold, it’s available to you.

Also, Paul makes no qualification there in Romans 3 about the “all”, but we both believe he doesn’t include Jesus. Likewise, St. Paul in 1 Tim 6.10 says that the “root of all evil is the love of money.” He uses the same word there for “all” as he does in Rom 3.23 (in the Genitive case in 1 Tim, the Nominative in Rom). Of course neither of us believes that St. Paul means “all” literally. Adam and Eve did not fall from grace because of a love of money. Satan did not fall from Heaven because of money. Some English translations have picked up on this and now read, “the root of all kinds of evil.” So we understand that even when Paul uses “all”, he can certainly use it in a qualified way.

As a Catholic who is faithful and believes what the ‘pillar and foundation of truth’ teaches, I am encouraging you to exercise your intellect and to look into the matter. I totally commend you to study why Catholics believe what they believe on any point before making your own declarations against the belief. It can only help your own position to understand the position of another before critiquing it.

“Well, if you are trying so hard to be accurate…”
when I say ‘you’, I don’t mean ‘you’ personally necessarily. Just thought I should clarify that I’m not having a go at you at all 🙂

Andrew:

I think Chesterton told a story once about a man who comes across a fence and doesn’t know why it’s there, but wants to knock it down. If you are that man and “Theotokos” is that fence, I suggest looking into why the fence is there before knocking it over. “Mother of Jesus” is correct, though less precise than what ‘Mother of God’ is getting at. For instance, ‘Mother of Jesus’ could affirm heretical Christologies from adoptionism to Nestorianism (the heresy that sparked the Church’s clarification on Mary as Mater Dei). ‘Mother of God’ isn’t misleading and it cuts through those heresies. I think understanding the logic behind the title helps to see its necessity.

Christ actually came from the womb of Mary, so His relationship to Mary is a biological one. Was Christ’s relationship with Joseph a good one? If Christ really did honor His father, of course. But, again, affirming Mary as ‘Mater Dei’ is Christological. Mary is obviously more involved in the Incarnation than Joseph. It’s not simply trying to tack on titles, but gives clarity to complex Christological debates. I would also hope that in the future you don’t feel the need to talk about how “stupid” something is if you don’t understand the reason for it. Likewise, talking about someone’s Church (the body of Christ, after all) as taking “crazy pills” is most unhelpful in the spirit of charitable dialogue.

How silly would it be to you if someone who does not affirm the Resurrection – say a Muslim or Atheist said, “You know, if only the Apostles would just swallow their pride and admit they never saw Jesus raised from the dead, I would be a Christian today!”? You can see, hopefully, how your statement sounds to me. I think confusing your judgment of the Church with God’s is also dangerous.

Just some scattered comments:

For what it’s worth, I think Mother of Christ is clearer than Mother of God, but I accept either, since Jesus is God. The trouble, of course, is that we can also say that God is a Trinity, and to say “God is a Trinity. Mary is the Mother of God.” has horrific implications.

Regarding Jesus’ brethren, Hebrew was certainly well equipped to refer to extended family members with the term go’el, which just means “kinsman,” a member of one’s larger family. Now of course, a Protestant can simply allow the evidence to remain open and ambiguous and believe that either option is possible – although I have no reason for wishing to avoid the more immediate relationship of “brother,” since these brothers are mentioned as being with Mary. if I were a Catholic, however, I would have to rule that out.

Lastly, the bodily assumption of Mary is a remarkable doctrine. It strikes me as a test case of what can go wrong with papal infallibility. There is no biblical evidence for it, and I don’t even know of a Catholic apologist who calims that Scripture teaches it. What’s more, none of the Fathers taught it. I find it frankly incredible that it found its way into Catholic doctrine. It is, contrary to some claims made above, held solely on the basis of papal dogma (I don’t use that word as a negative one, in spite of the context of disapproval).

Really, Gelasius? He’s the same Pope who expressly denied that there is any change of substance in the Eucharist. Why was he so harsh on Catholic doctrine, the stuff that the Church had taught from the beginning?

Or was he? 😉

Nevermind, I found the site (justforcatholics.org) where you got your information.

Just Sayin – Christ’s Ascension is by His own power. Mary was Assumed (passive) into Heaven by the power of God, not on her own.

Okay.

Josh, I’m interested to know the earliest source that your aware of where someone actually wrote that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. (i.e. they stated that this happened, or that it was a current belief in the orthodox church that this happened).

This is genuine interest, not some sort of challenge.

Hi Glenn,

Interesting points! Being Catholic (uh oh!…) I am interested in your first point in particular about canonicity. I can’t say I’ve studied scriptures a whole lot, but it seems to me that the question of canonicity is not so straight forward. For example, how can Protestants be confident that the books of the New Testament (just to change topic slightly) are canonical? What about what we call the Apocryphal Gospels, or the letters of Clement? Why not include some or all of them? Who decides? It seems from my limited education (please correct me) that there were early lists, e.g. the Muratorian fragment, that stated the canonical books, but at the end of the day it was decrees from the Catholic Church that settled the matter. So, we’re in the odd situation where Protestants take direction from the Catholic Church. On a related theme, the idea of sola scriptura, seems paradoxical – how can it be? As you know the Catholic Church professes one Word but two modes of transmission – Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The writing of the New Testament is an example of Tradition in action. So, how can Sola Scriptura be upheld? Can Sola Scriptura define which books are canonical? What happened in the Church before the Scriptures were written?

Pax

Will

I am just interested in following comments regarding this brother having left the RCC…..and asking if you are reformed now.

Are you familiar with the traditional Catholic website and YouTube channel of Most Holy Family Monastery?

vaticancatholic.com

youtube.com/user/mhfm1

Lots of truly amazing eye-openers there! Would warmly recommend.

With kind regards,

Thomas Murphy

Cardinal Newman’s weapon of choice was his romantic “Theory of the Development of Doctrine”, whereby he retrospectively reads back into the past the present Roman teachings and practices, admitting the Protestant contention that these doctrines were never there from the beginning, nevertheless he invented an implicit “seed-form” of distinctive Roman doctrine which “grew” into an explicit doctrine over time. The problem of course which such retroactive reconstructions is that with sufficient creativity, *any* present doctrine and practices can be retroactively read back into the past, and far from protecting the integrity of the Church, his theory smashed open a hole in the citadel permitting the howling winds of the Zeitgeist entry to justify *any* novel doctrine and practices as long as one can provide a clever retroactive reading of Church history leading to this new development.

Cardinal Manning’s strategy was the complete opposite. While Newman (over!)confidently asserted that, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”, Cardinal Manning believed to be too deep into history was to cease being a Roman Catholic and instead anathemise the entire enterprise of history and antiquity altogether by thundering, “…the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy”! It is instructive to note that this condemnation was given in response to “the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity.” Rather than employ Newman’s (dishonest?) attempt to force Roman doctrines backwards into the past and deny that their doctrines were not primitive, Manning simply shove the whole thing aside by declaring the complete irrelevance of history and antiquity to the Roman faith.

Personally I would of course think that Manning was the more honest cardinal of the two to refuse to attempt a sly tinkering of historical facts in aid of providing an illusion of justification for the Roman Church. With what one might call an almost Nietzchean wilfulness, Manning declared that the Roman Faith preceded history, fact and antiquity and they form no part of the Roman theological method or proof. Instead, Manning outrightly asserted that the Church simply teaches by a “perpetual living voice”, not by appeals to history, antiquity or tradition.

I think it would be instructive to quote Cardinal Manning at length here from his Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost to get a full sense of the Roman Catholic dialectical (or contradictory) attitude towards history:

The other objection I shall touch but briefly. It is often said that Catholics are arbitrary and positive even to provocation in perpetually affirming the indivisible unity and infallibility of the Church, the primacy of the Holy See, and the like, without regard to the difficulties of history, the facts of antiquity, and the divisions of Christendom. It is implied by this that these truths are not borne out by history and fact: that they are even irreconcilable with it: that they are no more than theories, pious opinions, assumptions, and therefore visionary and false.

We very frankly accept the issue. No Catholic would first take what our objectors call history, fact, antiquity and the like, and from them deduce his faith ; and for this reason, the faith was revealed and taught before history, fact or antiquity existed. These things are but the basis of his faith, nor is the examination of them his method of theological proof. The Church, which teaches him now by its perpetual living voice, taught the same faith before as yet the Church had a history or an antiquity. The rule and basis of faith to those who lived before either the history or antiquity of which we hear so much existed, is the rule and basis of our faith now.

But perhaps it may be asked: If you reject history and antiquity, how can you know what was revealed before, as you say, history and antiquity existed ? ‘I answer : The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum, of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation. I know what are revealed there not by retrospect, but by listening.

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? … I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. … The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.

Opps, feel free to delete them all then, I forgot about that.

“It must tolerate within itself mutually exclusive dogmatic claims, all allegedly originating from the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures”

The solution to which is very catholic (small c): Have a small creed that we can agree serves as a summary of the necessities, and extend charity beyond that. The Nicene Creed is pretty good. 🙂

Moreover, the fact that there exist some Catholics who do not argue in the way that I have described does not mean that this criticism of the Catholics who do this fails. The truth is that I quite clearly had the evidence on my side in the discussion in question. The “Oh well, forget the evidence, here’s what the Church (now) says” reply was a real one, and I do not agree that my criticism of it “fails.” It will fail when Catholic culture changes and nobody argues this way and Catholics accept that the evidence would trump the decision of the papacy. When and if that happens, this one reason why I am not Catholic will cease to be.