 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 10th, 2008 10:58 pm |
|
The Second Vatican Council teaches us Catholics that we must accept Protestants as brothers in Christ, and give them much respect indeed (which was implicit in St. Augustine's view regarding Donatists, and in St. Thomas Aquinas also). Even the "notorious" anathemas of Trent do not apply to whole groups so much as to individuals. There is much more leeway in those statements than is usually understood by those who object to them so vociferously.
I follow Louis Bouyer, Karl Adam, Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI], Pope John Paul II and the mainstream Catholic opinion that the Protestant Reformation had many positive elements mixed in with what we consider to be heretical error, and that it was in part a judgment on the Catholic Church for corruptions in practice and neglect of ancient truths. Bouyer points out that, e.g., elements in late medieval nominalist soteriology were distinctly semi-Pelagian. Luther's view was not (though it was extreme in its double predestinarianism). In that way, Luther was correct. What he (and many Catholics at the time) neglected to see was that traditional Catholic soteriology was as entirely based on God's free grace as Luther's was.
But now the tendency in evangelical Protestantism is to split into two broad camps of either "fundamentalist/exclusivist" or "tolerant advocates of diversity on the 'secondary' issues." I was always in the second camp as a Protestant, and maintain the same general ecumenical attitude as a Catholic, but I was never willing to claim that there were whole areas of belief which could never be finally determined, as disturbingly many Protestants do today. I always believed that there was one truth, even if I had to compile it from a hodge-podge of existing denominational traditions, none of which got it all right. In the end I came to believe that there was a Church which got it all right under one roof, and that only because of God's gracious guidance and protection by His Holy Spirit.
A doctrine (such as baptism) is trivialized if it is concluded in despair that no determination of which doctrinal understanding of it is true, can be made. I see that as a concession to "Enlightenment" and post-modernist relativism. If a person thinks there is one truth about baptism but doesn't yet personally know what it is, that is one thing. If a person thinks there is one truth and that Christians shouldn't anathematize each other over it, that is another. But if a person says that the perspicuity of Scriptures (or, if you will, Church history) definitely cannot positively decide the issue, so that it must remain a debating-point till Kingdom Come, then I think an internal coherence problem (both with sola Scriptura and with philosophical/theological relativism) is revealed.
When I was a Protestant I always had a mixture of views, based on what I felt was the closest to biblical truth. I had a Baptist view of (what other Christians called) the sacraments: symbolic Eucharist; symbolic adult baptism. I had a Reformed outlook on Christ and culture, apologetics (for the most part, along the semi-evidentialist lines of Sproul and Schaeffer), and eschatology (I converted away from pre-trib rapture, pre-mil views as an evangelical) and civil disobedience. I had a Presbyterian, semi-congregational view of ecclesiology, and a Wesleyan, Arminian view of soteriology. My view of Church history was more-or-less (but not quite) akin to a traditional Anglican approach (I never forsook sola Scriptura as a Protestant, but I highly respected Christian Tradition).
My moral theology was increasingly Catholic as the years went on. I opposed divorce, abortion, female ordination, premarital sex, etc., and eventually, contraception, in the half-year before my conversion. I was fond of the monastic tradition and Catholic spirituality. I was (and am) a charismatic with regard to the spiritual gifts. I had a very low-church, "Jesus Freak" disdain for formal liturgy. I always despised religious liberalism and fundamentalist legalism and anti-intellectualism alike. Etc., etc. Was there one denomination that combined all these elements? I never found one within Protestantism (and I don't think it exists to be found).
The Bible is clear that doctrinal and personal division is sinful, and an abomination (and that charity is required towards all). I think we can agree on that much, and not be led to the despairing position that because division is always with us (like the poor), therefore it is normative and some sort of message to us. That is as silly as saying that because sin is always with us, it, too, is "normal" and right. Catholics are idealists in that regard, unlike Protestants, who necessarily (because of the very nature of individualistic Protestantism) must accept their sinful divisions and schisms as an ongoing reality (inevitably brought about by their formal principles, whether they desire this or not).
But Catholic ecclesiological idealism (called "triumphalism" and "intolerance" by detractors and critics) is based in faith in God's omnipotent power to preserve One Church and One Apostolic Deposit, not on man's alleged ability to "figure out" on an individual level, what the one truth is, scattered over hundreds of competing Christian groups which are (by any report and reasonable description) hopelessly contradictory.
The dogmatism which hinders good discussion is not entirely confined within Catholic environs. The true ecumenical spirit acknowledges honest differences held by intelligent, committed, sincere folks on all sides, and proceeds from existing differences to look for commonalities. The ecumenist doesn't demand right off the bat that someone must give up their heartfelt beliefs to even obtain a seat at the table of "open-minded discourse." So it appears to me that many Protestants who reason in this fashion end up committing the very dogmatism that they purport to be so against.
Catholics don't say that there is no legitimate Christian community without a bishop, but rather, that there is no apostolic succession. That is hardly a notable or controversial claim since those who don't believe in apostolic succession in the first place care little about whether I as a Catholic assert about that attribute. To my mind, the important consideration (in an ecumenical context) is whether another group is considered Christian and in possession of grace. Catholics readily grant that to all validly baptized trinitarians. But everyone knows who goes around denying that other types of Christians are in fact Christians. Once again, then, the "triumphalism" or lack of "centrist" attitude is much more characteristic of several brands of anti-Catholic Protestantism than of Catholicism. People in glass houses . . .
Why is it considered such an amazing, extraordinary, implausible, intolerantly "dogmatic and triumphalistic" thing for a Catholic to simply believe that the Universal Church should have a leader, just as any boy scout troop does, or corporation, or mountaineering expedition? I wonder why this particular discussion has to be that way, and what it is about non-Catholic premises and viewpoints in this regard that causes proponents to have such an ideological -- almost guttural -- hostility to the papacy: the very concept of it, even before we get into how the office has been exercised, used, or abused, throughout history?
Why would Protestant views be regarded by anyone as inherently superior and more plausible than Catholic ones? How is it, e.g., that they can appeal to some nebulous, ethereal "tradition" which leads them to believe that ecclesiological diversity, or evolution according to the times, is a more acceptable solution to the issue at hand than some form of papacy (either the Catholic version, or the "Anglican/Orthodox" version)?
Which concept is more plausible a priori: Protestant subjective opinion as to what constitutes a "proper" or "agreeable" ecclesiology, based on what they think is comfortable and reasonable, but not on Scripture, and not in any readily identifiable tradition, or the Catholic view that Jesus appointed a leader to His Church, which was to be a perpetual office, protected by the Holy Spirit with the gift of infallibility, based on many indications in Scripture, and observed throughout the history of Christianity?
I don't think the papacy is a whit less plausible than the notion of sinful men being inspired to write infallible and inerrent and indeed, divinely-inspired Scripture, by the power of God. It is thought that the very idea of a pope implies or inevitably amounts to "lording it over" the flock. Of course, that does not necessarily follow. If authority is proper and necessary, its exercise might, and often unfortunately does, but does not have to necessarily involve raw power or power politics, or pride, etc.
We don't say that the President of the United States is "lording it over" everyone, when he makes a decree or signs a bill. We acknowledge all sorts of legitimate "top-down" authority, from the Supreme Court, to mayors in their cities, to coaches of sports teams, or air traffic controllers who have the final say. Why is it considered such a novelty for the Catholic to have a similar view on Christian governance -- one which he can back up with the Bible, history, and reason?
Many non-Catholics who are engaging in ecumenical endeavors are confusing the roles of dogma and ecumenism, and neglecting beliefs held in faith. They act as if the ecumenical enterprise is one where all parties come to the table and start with the premise: "you have some truth; we have some truth; let's bargain and wheel and deal (like politicians working on some pragmatic compromise on legislation) and see what sort of compromise we can achieve, so that a new Christian truth and resolution can come about."
In fact, this view isn't about achieving new Hegelian-type syntheses or truths, so much as it presupposes (usually only half-consciously at best) the relativism and indifferentism that characterizes liberal theology and secular philosophy. This is what the Catholic objects to from the outset, because everyone's deepest-held faith convictions should not be subjected to such pragmatic, arbitrary conditions. That's not how genuine ecumenism works. Catholics believe there is one truth and one apostolic deposit. Most Protestants used to believe the same thing, till theological liberalism brought in this notion of relativism and "tolerated diversity."
Dogma is not the equivalent of intolerance and pride that "we are RIGHT and everyone else is a deluded simpleton, fool, or idiot and dead-wrong, period." Dogma is belief that certain things are true and others false, based on religious faith and any number of justifications from reason, experience, the Bible, history, etc. Dogmas and doctrines are not up for grabs as soon as we sit down and try to be "ecumenical." Such a view would violate the very importance and centrality of the doctrines of Christianity we are all ostensibly fighting to uphold.
No; ecumenism is the endeavor to find as much as we have in common, to rejoice in those things, and to build upon them. It isn't about giving up truths here and there, as if Christian doctrines were like poker chips, which we can throw into the pot, to see how it comes out, or like vegetables to throw into the stew, which emerges as another entity after it is cooked. We start with our own views and talk to our brothers and sisters in Christ with respect, and attempt to learn about their viewpoints, and the rationales they offer for them.
Last edited on Thu Jul 10th, 2008 11:01 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
left coast mystic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | La Honda, California USA |
| Posts: | 131 |
| First Name: | Marcee | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nondenominational charismatic, Presbyterian, long-time lover of the RCC |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 02:54 pm |
|
Dave -
I for one am extremely grateful for Vatican II because the seemingly insuperable communication barrier of between Catholics and protestants was removed. Without an environment in which exploration of commonalities is encouraged, people who could be friends and allies are ignorant of one another and too easily jump to the conclusion that they must be enemies. Communication is the first necessary step on the road to communion; you'll never reach one without practicing the other.
Dave, reading your postings is like eating a very rich meal; they require careful attention if their meaning is to be fully absorbed. I'm usually the one that others come to for definitions and explanations, but your writings often reference terms that I'm not familiar with. It's a good stretch for me.
Marcee
____________________
Godliness with contentment is great gain. (1 Tim. 6:6)
In returning and rest you shall be saved; in quietness and confidence shall be your strength. (Isa. 30:15)
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 04:06 am |
|
Well, you're very kind, Marcee. Aw, shucks! 
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 03:24 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
