What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: An Appreciation
Apr 20, 2011
Joe Carter
As a child I had almost no direct contact with Catholicism. My family attended a small backwoods fundamentalist congregation—The First Church of Hellfire and Damnation, or something similarly named—and the preacher would often mention the Pope and Catholicism in one of his “Identifying the Antichrist" sermons. The Antichrist was a slippery chameleon, his identity rotating between “usual suspects” among a handful of heathen groups: Chinese communists, the Russians, secular humanists, New England Senators, Episcopalians. 
The Pope, though, was our preacher’s favored candidate for ushering in the End of Days. And the Whore of Babylon was indisputably the Catholic Church
I was nine years old when I first saw the new Pope—John Paul II—on television. Since this was the man who would be ushering in Armageddon, I figured I'd better get to know the enemy. I watched as he stood in front of thousands of Catholics, waving and smiling, and noticed that something wasn't quite right. His wasn't the charming smile of "The Beast" that Brother Bob had warned his flock against. It was more of a sly grin. In fact, this new John Paul seemed like a nice guy; he might even pass for a Christian. Surely, I thought, he couldn't be the Antichrist. After all, he was Polish. The Beast could be Russian or German, but not Polish. Even as a nine-year-old I knew that Poles couldn’t be scary.
This was the beginning of the end for my Jack Chick-style anti-Catholic bias, an inclination that was regrettably prevalent in many parts of rural Texas during my childhood. I became more intrigued by John Paul II, the Catholic Church, and the Catholic girls at my school. Over the years, I’ve engaged more directly with Catholics and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and my admiration and appreciation continues to grow.
Indeed, I’m often amazed when I consider how much of my thinking is shaped by papist scholars’ writing about such issues as bioethics, social thought, natural law theory, and the Just War tradition. Although I do not always find myself in complete agreement with it, the Catholic perspective has caused me to rethink my views on such matters as contraception, in-vitro fertilization, just wages, and the death penalty.
As deeply and irrevocably attached as I am to my own theological traditions (Reformed, Baptist, evangelical) there are many issues where they have historically come up short. In fact, I would argue that there are dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of areas in which we evangelicals should acknowledge a debt owed to our Catholic brothers and sisters.
Consider, for instance, three areas in which our fellow Christians within the Catholic faith have led the way:
On Mary, the mother of God: Many evangelicals suffer from a mild case of Marianphobia—the fear that any appreciation of Mary will be viewed as a sign that we’re closet Catholics. Oddly, while we are quick to defend the virgin birth, we are often hesitant to praise the virgin mother. Even during Christmas, we pay more attention to the magi than we do to the woman who gave birth to our Savior.
Our complete renunciation of Marian theology often causes us to downplay the importance of Mary herself, despite the fact that she is one of the most incredible humans who ever lived. How can we not be in awe of this woman when we realize she held God in her womb?
Our Catholic friends have helped to remind us that Jesus wasn’t just the Son of God—he was Mary’s son, too.
On the Sanctity of Life: In a 1971 resolution on abortion, the Southern Baptist Convention resolved that “society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life.” However, the largest Protestant denomination in America had a peculiar definition of this “sanctity of human life.” In the very next sentence the resolution called on Southern Baptists to “work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion‚” under such conditions as “fetal deformity” and damage to the “emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” Three years later—and two years after Roe codified this position into law—the SBC reaffirmed the resolution. It wasn’t until 1980 that the SBC finally condemned abortion as a grave evil, a position that had always been maintained by the Catholic Church.
For thirty years, evangelicals have been working to catch up to our Catholic brothers and sisters on issues related to the sanctity of life. Even today, the Catholic Church remains more consistent in its application of pro-life moral theology. Sadly, many evangelicals are willing to turn a blind eye to the embryo destruction prevalent in biomedical research and in vitro fertilization.
We still have much to learn from Catholics about how to respect the life that God has created.
Ecclesiology: One of the first principles of Reformed ecclesiology is that there is but one holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Because this principle is difficult to square with the existence of over 10,000 different Protestant denominations, we claim that this refers only to the invisible church. I don’t disagree, but I do wonder: What about the church that is visible? After all, it is Jesus’ desire to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:51-52)
Although the Reformation’s split with the Catholic Church was tragically necessary, reconciliation of Christians into one visible body should be our ecclesiological goal. In this area Catholics have often taken the lead in imparting a spirit of ecumenism. Documents such as Ut unum sint reflect the seriousness with which Catholics approach the “call for Christian unity.”
Such unity, of course, must be predicated on acceptance of Biblical truths. Evangelicals can never abandon our commitment to such doctrines as sola fide (salvation by faith alone) in order to achieve consensus.
We should, however, be constantly praying that the Spirit will reconcile the invisible church into one holy, catholic, apostolic, and visible Body of Christ.
When I first came to work for First Things some Catholic friends jokingly asked how long it would be before I joined the other folks on the masthead who had swum the Tiber. With respect to my friends and fellow editors, I won’t be putting on my theological swim trunks and making the crossing anytime soon. Because the theological differences I have with Catholicism are deep-rooted and unlikely to be resolved in this century, I’ll likely remain a Reformed evangelical for the rest of my days.
Nevertheless, I will continue, like many evangelicals, to express my deep love, respect, and admiration for my fellow believers in the Catholic Church. However much we may disagree on important matters of doctrine, we evangelicals owe Catholics a debt of gratitude for being co-belligerents, fellow servants, and exemplars of the faith.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
Comments:
4.20.2011 | 8:09am
patricksarsfield says:
Mr. Carter goes off the rails on the issue of Ecclesiology in this statement:
"Ecclesiology: One of the first principles of Reformed ecclesiology is that there is but one holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Because this principle is difficult to square with the existence of over 10,000 different Protestant denominations, we claim that this refers only to the invisible church. I don’t disagree, but I do wonder: What about the church that is visible? After all, it is Jesus’ desire to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:51-52)"
This is an entirely unbiblical position. The one, holy and universal Church Jesus founded was not an invisible one. Its visibility (although it had to remain subterranean to some degree because of persecution evidenced by Peter's quondam imprisonment in Herod's prison) and corporate unity is evidenced best in Paul's response to the circumcision controversy in Antioch. Instead of trying to resolve the question himself for himself and his followers, he brought the issue to the Central Church in Jerusalem and the issue was resolved by the Central Church in council.
Now I know some will point to Paul's criticism of Peter's position when the controversy arose and Peter did not immediately respond to James's judaizing with an endorsement of Paul's position, but Peter was an escapee from prison at the time and who knows why he did not want to take on public controversy in Antioch. Peter did make his way back to the city from which he escaped (Jerusalem) and there led the dicsussion at the Council and pronounced the decision to which Judaizing James finally defered and that the Council then promulgated as binding not just on Antioch (or on Antioch and Jerusalem) but on all cites to which the ruling was circulated (Acts 15:1-16:5).
My own thought on why Peter did wait until "the boys were all back in town" was that he knew that the Council in Jerusalem knew to whom Christ had said: "feed my lambs, tend my sheep" (John 21:15 et seq) and to whom God had given the vision on the morrow of the Cornelius conversion (Acts 10:1 et seq) and who left James in charge of Jerusalem when he had to go on the lam(Peter, of course, as Acts 12:3-18 shows).
So, instead of getting involved in a long ultimately futile debate out in the hinterlands of the Church, Peter set it up so that he and James were in the same room with the rest of the Church leaders and he would give James the chance to acknowledge his authoritative position. James did.
We ought to, as well. The clearly visible First Century Church did not become the "Incredible Invisible Church" at some later (and utterly unbiblical) time, except in the minds of people who wish to dispute what the Visible Church which has been existent since the First Century says. IOW, the "Ecclesia Invisibilia" is merely a convenient "Ecclesia ex machina" set up by those who would ignore the long-standing Tradition of the Only Church Jesus did found.
"Ecclesiology: One of the first principles of Reformed ecclesiology is that there is but one holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Because this principle is difficult to square with the existence of over 10,000 different Protestant denominations, we claim that this refers only to the invisible church. I don’t disagree, but I do wonder: What about the church that is visible? After all, it is Jesus’ desire to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:51-52)"
This is an entirely unbiblical position. The one, holy and universal Church Jesus founded was not an invisible one. Its visibility (although it had to remain subterranean to some degree because of persecution evidenced by Peter's quondam imprisonment in Herod's prison) and corporate unity is evidenced best in Paul's response to the circumcision controversy in Antioch. Instead of trying to resolve the question himself for himself and his followers, he brought the issue to the Central Church in Jerusalem and the issue was resolved by the Central Church in council.
Now I know some will point to Paul's criticism of Peter's position when the controversy arose and Peter did not immediately respond to James's judaizing with an endorsement of Paul's position, but Peter was an escapee from prison at the time and who knows why he did not want to take on public controversy in Antioch. Peter did make his way back to the city from which he escaped (Jerusalem) and there led the dicsussion at the Council and pronounced the decision to which Judaizing James finally defered and that the Council then promulgated as binding not just on Antioch (or on Antioch and Jerusalem) but on all cites to which the ruling was circulated (Acts 15:1-16:5).
My own thought on why Peter did wait until "the boys were all back in town" was that he knew that the Council in Jerusalem knew to whom Christ had said: "feed my lambs, tend my sheep" (John 21:15 et seq) and to whom God had given the vision on the morrow of the Cornelius conversion (Acts 10:1 et seq) and who left James in charge of Jerusalem when he had to go on the lam(Peter, of course, as Acts 12:3-18 shows).
So, instead of getting involved in a long ultimately futile debate out in the hinterlands of the Church, Peter set it up so that he and James were in the same room with the rest of the Church leaders and he would give James the chance to acknowledge his authoritative position. James did.
We ought to, as well. The clearly visible First Century Church did not become the "Incredible Invisible Church" at some later (and utterly unbiblical) time, except in the minds of people who wish to dispute what the Visible Church which has been existent since the First Century says. IOW, the "Ecclesia Invisibilia" is merely a convenient "Ecclesia ex machina" set up by those who would ignore the long-standing Tradition of the Only Church Jesus did found.
4.20.2011 | 8:45am
Bill H says:
It's always a lasting pleasure to read a sincerely written article. Many thanks.
4.20.2011 | 8:53am
Anger-free Ex-Catholic says:
Joe, that's a really good essay, and I'm glad you wrote it. Though I left the Catholic Church, I agree with everything you say, and I'm so grateful from what I learned as a Catholic, and for the presence of Catholicism in our public life. A couple of summers ago I was helping out at a summer camp for Evangelical college students, and heard one girl say innocently, "Wasn't Pope John Paul II a communist?" She had no idea who he really was, or what he stood for. We need more essays like yours.
At the same time, I hope FT will commission an essay on the topic, "What Catholics Owe Evangelicals: An Appreciation." Maybe an ex-Evangelical like the Catholic writer Mark Shea, who looks with real appreciation on his Evangelical past, would be a good writer. I saw far too many times in my years as a Catholic a disdain for Evangelicals, especially among Catholics who ought to know better (conservative intellectuals). It's very easy for Catholics to snicker at the ill-informed emotionalism that characterizes much of American Evangelicalism, but the truth is, Evangelicals, generally speaking, are much more engaged with their faith than Catholics are -- especially when it comes to knowledge and love of Scripture. There's a reason Catholics like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida supplement their mass attendance by participating in Evangelical congregations, and if thoughtful Catholics were to really examine the good in American Evangelicalism, they would recognize that there's a lot to learn from them.
Once I heard a sermon in a Catholic Church in which the homilist actually thanked God that we weren't like those Southern Baptists who insist that Jesus is the only way to heaven. I silently said a prayer of Thanksgiving for the Southern Baptists.
At the same time, I hope FT will commission an essay on the topic, "What Catholics Owe Evangelicals: An Appreciation." Maybe an ex-Evangelical like the Catholic writer Mark Shea, who looks with real appreciation on his Evangelical past, would be a good writer. I saw far too many times in my years as a Catholic a disdain for Evangelicals, especially among Catholics who ought to know better (conservative intellectuals). It's very easy for Catholics to snicker at the ill-informed emotionalism that characterizes much of American Evangelicalism, but the truth is, Evangelicals, generally speaking, are much more engaged with their faith than Catholics are -- especially when it comes to knowledge and love of Scripture. There's a reason Catholics like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida supplement their mass attendance by participating in Evangelical congregations, and if thoughtful Catholics were to really examine the good in American Evangelicalism, they would recognize that there's a lot to learn from them.
Once I heard a sermon in a Catholic Church in which the homilist actually thanked God that we weren't like those Southern Baptists who insist that Jesus is the only way to heaven. I silently said a prayer of Thanksgiving for the Southern Baptists.
4.20.2011 | 9:16am
Bart says:
Don't forget the impressive tradition of the university and learning, birthed in the Dark Ages and continued into the Oxford Movement. When the rest of the (invaded) academic world turned to utilitarianism, careerism, and fractured scientism, Catholics and High Church Anglicans stood up for the humanities and the unity of truth.
4.20.2011 | 9:41am
patricksarsfield says:
Joe De Vet asks:
"Sola fide--one of the sine qua nons of ecumenical progress--what does that mean?"
"Sola Fide" would mean the Bible is errant in the statement (James 2:24): "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " It would also mean that Luther was right in reading James's epistle out of the canon as an "epistle of straw."
"Sola fide--one of the sine qua nons of ecumenical progress--what does that mean?"
"Sola Fide" would mean the Bible is errant in the statement (James 2:24): "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. " It would also mean that Luther was right in reading James's epistle out of the canon as an "epistle of straw."
4.20.2011 | 10:26am
Toby says:
A really interesting reflection - thanks Joe. Much better I thought than the feature article a while back on being a Lutheran Catholic, which seemed to involve a large amount of that author deluding himself.
4.20.2011 | 10:43am
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Hopefully the comments here won't become some theological debate in which Protestants and Catholics will never agree. We have way more in common, as Joe rightly points out. Since about 1517 or so, Protestants and Catholics have been at each others throats, when not literally then figuratively. As you can tell by the name, I grew up Catholic but never really got rooted in the faith, and when I turned my back on the Church I became virulently anti-Catholic. I see my journey of growing appreciation for the Catholic Church and Catholicism as a microcosm of a larger cultural detente between the two. It is one of the amazing cultural stories of our time.
I would add to what Joe says that the Catholic Church has never wavered in its commitment to idea of truth, that the real enemy of believers and of Western civilization is secular relativism. In fact wasn't one of the current Pope's first speeches on the dangers of relativism? Conservative Catholics and Protestants are co-belligerents in a struggle against forces who threaten our way of life. We stand for truth, beauty, goodness, family, sacrificial love, liberty, those things that created the most powerful, prosperous and eventually peaceful civilization in the history of the world. Only together we can bequeath to our children, grand children and future generations the best of what we have inherited.
I would add to what Joe says that the Catholic Church has never wavered in its commitment to idea of truth, that the real enemy of believers and of Western civilization is secular relativism. In fact wasn't one of the current Pope's first speeches on the dangers of relativism? Conservative Catholics and Protestants are co-belligerents in a struggle against forces who threaten our way of life. We stand for truth, beauty, goodness, family, sacrificial love, liberty, those things that created the most powerful, prosperous and eventually peaceful civilization in the history of the world. Only together we can bequeath to our children, grand children and future generations the best of what we have inherited.
4.20.2011 | 11:12am
Dan Deeny says:
Excellent article. Many thanks. And thanks be to God for the Evangelicals' implacable opposition to the abortion business. I wish I could say the same thing about the Catholics.
And thank you for the access to Mr. Carter's other articles. I read the one on Picasso. A fascinating explanation on how art reflects an attitude toward women. Everyone should read it!
And thank you for the access to Mr. Carter's other articles. I read the one on Picasso. A fascinating explanation on how art reflects an attitude toward women. Everyone should read it!
4.20.2011 | 11:28am
Publius says:
So Joe Carter extends an olive branch, reflective of his sincere opinion--which patricksarsfield proceeds to snap. It's as if patricksarsfield doesn't want evangelicals moving towards Rome or identifying common ground without repudiating everything they've believed. It's also tremendously ungracious.
As well, whether or not Protestants rightly conceptualize the notion of the church visible, the origins of the notion are St. Augustine--and very much frames the church's response to the Donatists. Or does patricksarsfield mean to develop an ecclesiology independent of the teaching of our LORD concerning the wheat and the tares?
As well, whether or not Protestants rightly conceptualize the notion of the church visible, the origins of the notion are St. Augustine--and very much frames the church's response to the Donatists. Or does patricksarsfield mean to develop an ecclesiology independent of the teaching of our LORD concerning the wheat and the tares?
4.20.2011 | 11:36am
Niall says:
Anger-free ex-Catholic:
Really great point about what Catholics owe Evangelicals. I can't provide an essay, but as a convert I'd say the things that Evangelicals do really well at are (inter alia)
-Love and knowledge of the Scriptures
-Commitment to building a real Christian community of joy
-Commitment to evangelisation
-The hymns!
Really great point about what Catholics owe Evangelicals. I can't provide an essay, but as a convert I'd say the things that Evangelicals do really well at are (inter alia)
-Love and knowledge of the Scriptures
-Commitment to building a real Christian community of joy
-Commitment to evangelisation
-The hymns!
4.20.2011 | 11:57am
Kell says:
Thank you for publishing this article. It's a good thing for us all to think about, rather then being at odds with each other on matters of doctrine, we should be standing together on the issues that involve us all such as abortion, fair wage, ect.
4.20.2011 | 11:58am
ACM says:
Saying "Evangelicals can never abandon our commitment to such doctrines as [fill in the blank]" followed by an admonition to pray for the Spirit to bring visible unity to the church seems a bit odd to me. Does this mean that for evangelicals like Mr. Carter true unity will only come when all other churches finally come to accept the "fundamentals" of Reformed evangelicalism? I don't know what it will take in order for the church to be one visible body (aside from supernatural grace), but I have a feeling that it will not happen unless Christians on all sides are willing to give up things they hold dear to, to put others before themselves, to put the good of the body of Christ as a whole before their own conclusions about what is essential to the faith, to clothe themselves in humility. Perhaps it will be "tragically necessary" for some (or all) to give up deeply held doctrinal convictions for the sake of unity in the body of Christ.
4.20.2011 | 12:12pm
Matt Mackowski says:
Good stuff...this reflects the true spirit of First Things.
4.20.2011 | 12:28pm
Dale Price says:
"At the same time, I hope FT will commission an essay on the topic, "What Catholics Owe Evangelicals: An Appreciation." Maybe an ex-Evangelical like the Catholic writer Mark Shea, who looks with real appreciation on his Evangelical past, would be a good writer. I saw far too many times in my years as a Catholic a disdain for Evangelicals, especially among Catholics who ought to know better (conservative intellectuals). It's very easy for Catholics to snicker at the ill-informed emotionalism that characterizes much of American Evangelicalism, but the truth is, Evangelicals, generally speaking, are much more engaged with their faith than Catholics are -- especially when it comes to knowledge and love of Scripture."
This Catholic says "hear, hear!" The disdain and often overt hostility toward evangelicals in some--but not all, thankfully--Catholic circles drives me nuts.
This Catholic says "hear, hear!" The disdain and often overt hostility toward evangelicals in some--but not all, thankfully--Catholic circles drives me nuts.
4.20.2011 | 12:28pm
Daniel says:
"And thanks be to God for the Evangelicals' implacable opposition to the abortion business. I wish I could say the same thing about the Catholics."
Dan Deeny, care to elaborate on this point? The author seems to lay out the, well, opposite.
Great article!
Dan Deeny, care to elaborate on this point? The author seems to lay out the, well, opposite.
Great article!
4.20.2011 | 12:56pm
Matt Jordan says:
Great piece. But it raises at least one vexing question: Is it possible to coherently maintain both (1) that sola fide is so important that it merits Protestants' absolute, unwavering support; and (2) that Catholics can consciously deny sola fide without placing themselves outside the grace of God?
In other words, if the denial of sola fide does not merit condemnation of the sort Paul issues against the Judaizers in Galatians 4-5, then why treat sola fide as sacrosanct? On the other hand, if denying sola fide is a perversion of the very Gospel itself, then why all the warm and fuzzy ecumenism?
In other words, if the denial of sola fide does not merit condemnation of the sort Paul issues against the Judaizers in Galatians 4-5, then why treat sola fide as sacrosanct? On the other hand, if denying sola fide is a perversion of the very Gospel itself, then why all the warm and fuzzy ecumenism?
4.20.2011 | 1:10pm
Christopher Adams says:
@Niall:
- Catholics have the full knowledge and love for the Scriptures.
- Catholics have been building a real Christian communities of joy for 2000 years (monasteries, hermits, domestic churches, orphanages, hospitals, &c.)
- Catholics have been Evangelizing since Jesus.
- Catholics have had our own hymns since the Psalms. We don't need to borrow.
- Catholics have the full knowledge and love for the Scriptures.
- Catholics have been building a real Christian communities of joy for 2000 years (monasteries, hermits, domestic churches, orphanages, hospitals, &c.)
- Catholics have been Evangelizing since Jesus.
- Catholics have had our own hymns since the Psalms. We don't need to borrow.
4.20.2011 | 1:13pm
Stafford says:
It's hard to maintain loyalty to the Bible and to the "Church of St. Peter" - when Jesus himself calls St. Peter "Satan," in Mat. 16.23.
4.20.2011 | 1:25pm
Fr. Jim says:
So St. Peter is literally Satan? Is that what you say the Bible says? Then why did he later die for Christ if he was Satan? I believe in the Bible because of the authority of the Catholic Church that canonized it (tip of the hat to St. Augustine).
As a former evangelical I enjoyed the article and hope to see many more like it.
As a former evangelical I enjoyed the article and hope to see many more like it.
4.20.2011 | 1:38pm
harry says:
Hello, Mr. Carter,
As a Catholic, thanks for your remarks.
There is indeed an “invisible church” consisting of those who possess the Spirit of Christ. As a cradle Catholic it was my joyful experience to discover His Spirit in my Protestant brothers and sisters as I worked in the Pro-Life movement over the years. You are quite right to wonder, “What about the church that is visible?” It matters, too. It matters very, very much. I often wondered, as I labored in the Pro-Life movement with Protestants who were without a doubt outstanding Christians – saints in my opinion, if the dismemberment of the babies could ever be brought to an end as long as the visible Body of Christ remained dismembered. I still have my doubts.
I wish the Mennonites would come back and bring their awesome courage to be counter-cultural with them. The entire Body of Christ desperately needs that. I wish the Fundamentalists would come back and bring their fierce and quite appropriate devotion to the Scriptures with them. The Church needs them to counter the modern trend to go too far in the other direction, turning the Scriptures into fables with a “moral to the story.” (This trend is not reflected in the official teaching of the Catholic Church, even though many modern Catholic Scripture scholars seem to me to be afflicted with this notion.) I wish the Salvation Army would come back and bring their tremendous commitment to minister to Christ where He is, like poor Lazarus, suffering right there in our midst and yet unnoticed by the rest of us. And so on. All the dismembered body parts have something which the body really needs.
A body in 10,000 pieces, even if the pieces are invisibly united by the Spirit of Christ, is still going to be dysfunctional. That dysfunction has terrible consequences. Christ was deadly serious when He prayed, “May they be one.” We should all be as serious about restoring the unity of the visible church.
I know the doctrinal differences seem insurmountable. I don't think they can be worked out without a serious study of the Church Fathers and a belief in the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to the Church, and in His promise that His Spirit would remain with the Church forever and guide it to “all truth.” This makes the Church, “the pillar and ground of the truth.” He kept His promises. So there must be discernible consistency in belief and practice that has been preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church from the beginning, that Protestant and Catholics – many, many Catholics – need to conform with in submission to the Holy Spirit.
The reason all should agree to look at the Early Church Fathers to find what that consistent belief and practice was is that they are just that: Our Fathers - the spiritual Fathers of all the denominations. They belong to all of us. They said what they said and did what they did before the current situation began. Where they unanimously agreed was the promised work of the Holy Spirit. Where else would we look for guidance in resolving the current disputes?
I know the Catholic Church has had from the beginning, starting with Judas Iscariot, scandalous apostles. If Christ Himself had one out of twelve go bad on Him, we should have never expected to do any better. The point is not the sins of the Catholic Church or any denomination, the point is that the Body of Christ, even if it is united by His Spirit, is a terrible witness to the world in 10,000 visible pieces.
The blood of untold billions of innocents cries out to God. A united and whole Body of Christ would have never, ever allowed the “legalization” of child killing. We need to get serious about restoring the unity of the visible Body of Christ in order to save Him in His least brothers and sisters who are yet unborn, just as He saved us while we were yet unborn. It is wonderful actually, in its own way, that Christ has given this generation of Christians the chance to love Him and save Him in a way that is so similar to the way He loved and saved us – while we were yet unborn. At the time He was our only hope. In our times we are, in His least brethren, His only hope. Step one in our task is restoring the unity of the visible Body of Christ.
As a Catholic, thanks for your remarks.
There is indeed an “invisible church” consisting of those who possess the Spirit of Christ. As a cradle Catholic it was my joyful experience to discover His Spirit in my Protestant brothers and sisters as I worked in the Pro-Life movement over the years. You are quite right to wonder, “What about the church that is visible?” It matters, too. It matters very, very much. I often wondered, as I labored in the Pro-Life movement with Protestants who were without a doubt outstanding Christians – saints in my opinion, if the dismemberment of the babies could ever be brought to an end as long as the visible Body of Christ remained dismembered. I still have my doubts.
I wish the Mennonites would come back and bring their awesome courage to be counter-cultural with them. The entire Body of Christ desperately needs that. I wish the Fundamentalists would come back and bring their fierce and quite appropriate devotion to the Scriptures with them. The Church needs them to counter the modern trend to go too far in the other direction, turning the Scriptures into fables with a “moral to the story.” (This trend is not reflected in the official teaching of the Catholic Church, even though many modern Catholic Scripture scholars seem to me to be afflicted with this notion.) I wish the Salvation Army would come back and bring their tremendous commitment to minister to Christ where He is, like poor Lazarus, suffering right there in our midst and yet unnoticed by the rest of us. And so on. All the dismembered body parts have something which the body really needs.
A body in 10,000 pieces, even if the pieces are invisibly united by the Spirit of Christ, is still going to be dysfunctional. That dysfunction has terrible consequences. Christ was deadly serious when He prayed, “May they be one.” We should all be as serious about restoring the unity of the visible church.
I know the doctrinal differences seem insurmountable. I don't think they can be worked out without a serious study of the Church Fathers and a belief in the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to the Church, and in His promise that His Spirit would remain with the Church forever and guide it to “all truth.” This makes the Church, “the pillar and ground of the truth.” He kept His promises. So there must be discernible consistency in belief and practice that has been preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church from the beginning, that Protestant and Catholics – many, many Catholics – need to conform with in submission to the Holy Spirit.
The reason all should agree to look at the Early Church Fathers to find what that consistent belief and practice was is that they are just that: Our Fathers - the spiritual Fathers of all the denominations. They belong to all of us. They said what they said and did what they did before the current situation began. Where they unanimously agreed was the promised work of the Holy Spirit. Where else would we look for guidance in resolving the current disputes?
I know the Catholic Church has had from the beginning, starting with Judas Iscariot, scandalous apostles. If Christ Himself had one out of twelve go bad on Him, we should have never expected to do any better. The point is not the sins of the Catholic Church or any denomination, the point is that the Body of Christ, even if it is united by His Spirit, is a terrible witness to the world in 10,000 visible pieces.
The blood of untold billions of innocents cries out to God. A united and whole Body of Christ would have never, ever allowed the “legalization” of child killing. We need to get serious about restoring the unity of the visible Body of Christ in order to save Him in His least brothers and sisters who are yet unborn, just as He saved us while we were yet unborn. It is wonderful actually, in its own way, that Christ has given this generation of Christians the chance to love Him and save Him in a way that is so similar to the way He loved and saved us – while we were yet unborn. At the time He was our only hope. In our times we are, in His least brethren, His only hope. Step one in our task is restoring the unity of the visible Body of Christ.
4.20.2011 | 1:41pm
elcid says:
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" Mt 16.18, one Church, one God, one Faith..Protestants please refer to this link: http://www.drbo.org/church.htm
4.20.2011 | 1:59pm
Murtheol says:
Dear Joe: If you could only read and understand a calendar, then you might conclude the Catholic Church today is the Church of 2,000 years ago. There is no such thing as an "invisible church" and if you belive there is, you are deeply deluded. There is no such thing as "faith alone" because faith is a work and works always accompany faith. And, if it were not for the Catholic faith, you would have no faith at all. There is only one Church instituted by Christ Jesus and that is the Catholic Church. Stop kidding yourself.
4.20.2011 | 2:22pm
Colin says:
30,000, Mr Carter. There are over 30,000 denominations of Protestantism. The number increases, consistently, each year. All of them claiming to be the "true" faith, the "true" Church.
The Reformation, far from being "necessary," is arguably the worst event ever to have occurred in the West.
The Reformation, far from being "necessary," is arguably the worst event ever to have occurred in the West.
4.20.2011 | 2:23pm
Bill Daugherty says:
Joe, it was the issue of the visibility of one church the finally led me back to the Catholic Church after years away. *patricksarsfield* above demonstrates the collegial nature of the magisterium. It continues to this day through the apostolic succession which is one of the four marks of the Church: it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
I join my thanks to all the others for a kind and thoughtful reflection on our shared faith.
Bill
I join my thanks to all the others for a kind and thoughtful reflection on our shared faith.
Bill
4.20.2011 | 2:28pm
Nancy D. says:
Without a final authority, there can be no cohesiveness of belief, without a cohesiveness of belief, there can be no cohesiveness of Faith, without a cohesiveness of Faith, there can be no communion. Without communion, The Catholic Church cannot be ONE.
4.20.2011 | 2:30pm
Devin Rose says:
Wonderful piece! I wrote a blog post sometime back about What's Good About Protestantism, focusing on my Evangelical Protestant heritage specifically. First Things should definitely run a piece like that.
Regarding sola fide, I would point out Pope Benedict's recent catechesis where he explained that the Catholic Church can agree with sola fide, so long as that faith is joined with agape (love). Catholics believe we are initially justified--going from unrighteous to righteous--by faith-informed-by-agape and no works on our part. Without love it is impossible to please God. Faith without agape is dead faith, as spoken of in various places in the Scriptures.
Now then, our sanctification (or some Catholics say, "ongoing justification" ala the book of James) does include works, but these are the works done by God's grace, which He prepared in advance for us (cf. Ephesians 2). Most Reformed Protestants agree that works done in God's grace are part of our sanctification and therefore part of our salvation.
Just wanted to point out that the Catholic dogma on justification can agree with "faith alone" so long as the critical theological virtue of love--which is also a gift from God--is not rejected.
Regarding sola fide, I would point out Pope Benedict's recent catechesis where he explained that the Catholic Church can agree with sola fide, so long as that faith is joined with agape (love). Catholics believe we are initially justified--going from unrighteous to righteous--by faith-informed-by-agape and no works on our part. Without love it is impossible to please God. Faith without agape is dead faith, as spoken of in various places in the Scriptures.
Now then, our sanctification (or some Catholics say, "ongoing justification" ala the book of James) does include works, but these are the works done by God's grace, which He prepared in advance for us (cf. Ephesians 2). Most Reformed Protestants agree that works done in God's grace are part of our sanctification and therefore part of our salvation.
Just wanted to point out that the Catholic dogma on justification can agree with "faith alone" so long as the critical theological virtue of love--which is also a gift from God--is not rejected.
4.20.2011 | 3:00pm
Publius says:
Murtheol wrongly assumes that the notion of the church "invisible" is Protestant. It's one Protestants got from the very Catholic Augustine of Hippo and so from Catholicism. Moreover, as I suggested above, it was invoked by the Church and by Augustine in dealing with the Donatist controversy, of which Murtheol seems entirely unaware. So it's rather strange to bash Joe Carter for including in his discussion what is, by origin, a Catholic notion. It's true that Luther and Calvin speak of it. But they didn't invent it or think they got it directly from Scripture. They knew exactly where they got it from--Augustine. Again, whether or not Protestants have employed the notion rightly is one thing. But to bash a Protestant for invoking the common currency of the early church--seems anti-Catholic as well.
4.20.2011 | 3:02pm
wayne says:
Chris Adams says;
Catholics have been building a real Christian communities of joy for 2000 years ...and
Catholics have been Evangelizing since Jesus.
I hate to keep bring this up, but i cant help it sometimes. This community of joy, help me out here. Where was it during the 700 yrs of the Inquisition?
Second; This evangelizing, like the work done in south anerica? Where the priests had the parents killed and raised the children catholic. Thats why so many SA people are catholic now, not because they embrased it, but was forced on them. Same in europe. Join the CC or suffer the consequences of the Inquisition. Explain how that is evangelizing. Thanks
Catholics have been building a real Christian communities of joy for 2000 years ...and
Catholics have been Evangelizing since Jesus.
I hate to keep bring this up, but i cant help it sometimes. This community of joy, help me out here. Where was it during the 700 yrs of the Inquisition?
Second; This evangelizing, like the work done in south anerica? Where the priests had the parents killed and raised the children catholic. Thats why so many SA people are catholic now, not because they embrased it, but was forced on them. Same in europe. Join the CC or suffer the consequences of the Inquisition. Explain how that is evangelizing. Thanks
4.20.2011 | 3:10pm
andrew says:
i am a catholic convert from the reformed tradition and remain catholic because i think catholic doctrines are true.
but the homilies around here are pop psychology trash. so every weekend, in addition to attending mass, my family and i listen to a tim keller christocentric sermon -- keller is the pastor at redeemer presbyterian in manhattan, and i've followed his sermons for 15 years. my brother tells me he'd pay to hear keller speak, and he'd pay to have everyone else shut up. i am inclined to agree, though not completely.
and the hymns found in the reformed "trinity hymnal" are priceless, in contrast to the 70's inspired kumbaya tunes i have to endure each weekend at mass. ken myers calls such kumbaya tunes the "barry manilow school of liturgy."
but the homilies around here are pop psychology trash. so every weekend, in addition to attending mass, my family and i listen to a tim keller christocentric sermon -- keller is the pastor at redeemer presbyterian in manhattan, and i've followed his sermons for 15 years. my brother tells me he'd pay to hear keller speak, and he'd pay to have everyone else shut up. i am inclined to agree, though not completely.
and the hymns found in the reformed "trinity hymnal" are priceless, in contrast to the 70's inspired kumbaya tunes i have to endure each weekend at mass. ken myers calls such kumbaya tunes the "barry manilow school of liturgy."
4.20.2011 | 3:15pm
Ken Crawford says:
@Niall:
As Christopher Adams points out, the list you suggest is not a very good one. You'd didn't specify what you were a convert to or from, but I'm guessing it's not to Catholic. The list should really come from a Catholic, as we'll better appreciate where we're lacking and where evangelicals are leading the way.
The one area I'd agree with you is evangelization in modern America. Catholics may have a great history of evangelization, but in the US, we're too introverted and oblivious. We make people come to us and even when they do, we're not particularly welcoming. Where we've improved, it has been from watching the success of evangelicals.
Other things I would say we owe a debt to evangelicals:
-Use of media like TV, Radio, etc.: Catholics were late to the game and followed evangelical leads
-Beauty of immersion baptisms: While they've always been allowed and we won't ever make them required, there is a large increase in their use in Catholic Churches and I think a lot of that comes from baptist/evangelical influence.
-Teen programs: The big hole in Catholic education has always been teens. That wasn't a big problem as long as the teen years were a quick transition from childhood to married parenthood. Now that it's no longer the case, the need for teen/young adult church activities are much higher and if you look at Catholic programs, they owe much to the groundwork of evangelicals.
There are others as well.
As Christopher Adams points out, the list you suggest is not a very good one. You'd didn't specify what you were a convert to or from, but I'm guessing it's not to Catholic. The list should really come from a Catholic, as we'll better appreciate where we're lacking and where evangelicals are leading the way.
The one area I'd agree with you is evangelization in modern America. Catholics may have a great history of evangelization, but in the US, we're too introverted and oblivious. We make people come to us and even when they do, we're not particularly welcoming. Where we've improved, it has been from watching the success of evangelicals.
Other things I would say we owe a debt to evangelicals:
-Use of media like TV, Radio, etc.: Catholics were late to the game and followed evangelical leads
-Beauty of immersion baptisms: While they've always been allowed and we won't ever make them required, there is a large increase in their use in Catholic Churches and I think a lot of that comes from baptist/evangelical influence.
-Teen programs: The big hole in Catholic education has always been teens. That wasn't a big problem as long as the teen years were a quick transition from childhood to married parenthood. Now that it's no longer the case, the need for teen/young adult church activities are much higher and if you look at Catholic programs, they owe much to the groundwork of evangelicals.
There are others as well.
4.20.2011 | 3:17pm
Random Catholic says:
Right back at you - we Catholics should appreciate and imitate the zeal, love and knowledge of scripture, and overall passion that is so often displayed by Evangelicals and not quiet as much by Catholics. Unity will occur in God's time, even if that be after the end of the world, but until then there is much we can learn from each other and much we can accomplish should we recognize this fact.
And Wayne - read a history book that wasn't written by Jack Chick.
And Wayne - read a history book that wasn't written by Jack Chick.
4.20.2011 | 3:36pm
Dennis Murphy says:
I enjoyed your article, Mr Carter, but I think the mild Marianphobia would not be present if Mary hadn't previously been all but deified. More likely is that Catholics owe Evangelicals for helping restrain them from an excessive adoration that sometimes bordered on Marianolatry.
In my church I've been reminded that we owe much to Catholic missionaries who have encouraged and sometimes even materially assisted our own missionaries in many difficult situations in third world countries.
In my church I've been reminded that we owe much to Catholic missionaries who have encouraged and sometimes even materially assisted our own missionaries in many difficult situations in third world countries.
4.20.2011 | 3:41pm
Catholic Convert says:
I just wanted to drop a quick note thanking Joe Carter for his post and raising a couple of oblique points:
(1) Everyone here, I hope, will get a chance to read an old book by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, called Christian Brotherhood. An eye opening read for any Protestant who has yet to experience the ecumenical impulse of the current Pope.
(2) Evangelicals also deserve a great deal of credit for realizing that there's no magic money pot at head office to fund or staff their endeavors. I still run into Catholics who think there's some kind of either diocesan or Vatican pot of gold that's going to magically fund evangelization or clandestine warehouse of priests that are going to be magically parachuted in to save them from certain ruin. This is likely less of a problem in the US, but in Canada, many Catholics have yet to figure out that the laity can build up sizeable apostolates through vigorous fund raising.
Best,
CC
(1) Everyone here, I hope, will get a chance to read an old book by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, called Christian Brotherhood. An eye opening read for any Protestant who has yet to experience the ecumenical impulse of the current Pope.
(2) Evangelicals also deserve a great deal of credit for realizing that there's no magic money pot at head office to fund or staff their endeavors. I still run into Catholics who think there's some kind of either diocesan or Vatican pot of gold that's going to magically fund evangelization or clandestine warehouse of priests that are going to be magically parachuted in to save them from certain ruin. This is likely less of a problem in the US, but in Canada, many Catholics have yet to figure out that the laity can build up sizeable apostolates through vigorous fund raising.
Best,
CC
4.20.2011 | 3:51pm
Nancy D. says:
"Unity will occur in God's time,..."
God is not responsible for the lack of unity in His Church. Lack of fidelity to The Deposit of Faith has caused division in The Catholic Church. While it is true that corruption within The Church must always be abolished, with every schism, something was changed regarding The Deposit of Faith.
God is not responsible for the lack of unity in His Church. Lack of fidelity to The Deposit of Faith has caused division in The Catholic Church. While it is true that corruption within The Church must always be abolished, with every schism, something was changed regarding The Deposit of Faith.
4.20.2011 | 4:01pm
Dan Deeny says:
Daniel,
Yes, and thanks for the request. Here are some names: Pelosi, Harkin, Durbin, Biden, Sebelius, Diaz, Kmiec, Kennedy, McCaskill, Cuomo (father and son), etc. There are others.
Yes, and thanks for the request. Here are some names: Pelosi, Harkin, Durbin, Biden, Sebelius, Diaz, Kmiec, Kennedy, McCaskill, Cuomo (father and son), etc. There are others.
4.20.2011 | 4:30pm
Pat says:
I have friends who are Evangelicals, and in laws.
I quit attending Mass for several years until I was called back.
I will never find a closer relationship on this earth to the Lord Jesus than to consume His Body and Blood [sometimes daily]. He is in me, and I am filled with Him.
The Church, as the original and only Church founded by Christ Himself has never had need to be improved because God promised He would keep His teachings within, stain free, and He has.
I don't dislike or have anything against Evangelicals, i actually feel pity they don't have the awe striking moment of reception of the Eucharist and it's bountiful font of graces. As someone who was once lukewarm, and unknowledgeable at one time of scriptures and the depths of Catholicism, i can certainly relate to the ex Catholics. However; God eventually led me to the answers i sought and now I have all i will ever need on earth as it is in Heaven. I have Him the Holy of Holies in 'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity' til the day I shall hope to enter into eternal peace with Him.
God Bless
I quit attending Mass for several years until I was called back.
I will never find a closer relationship on this earth to the Lord Jesus than to consume His Body and Blood [sometimes daily]. He is in me, and I am filled with Him.
The Church, as the original and only Church founded by Christ Himself has never had need to be improved because God promised He would keep His teachings within, stain free, and He has.
I don't dislike or have anything against Evangelicals, i actually feel pity they don't have the awe striking moment of reception of the Eucharist and it's bountiful font of graces. As someone who was once lukewarm, and unknowledgeable at one time of scriptures and the depths of Catholicism, i can certainly relate to the ex Catholics. However; God eventually led me to the answers i sought and now I have all i will ever need on earth as it is in Heaven. I have Him the Holy of Holies in 'Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity' til the day I shall hope to enter into eternal peace with Him.
God Bless
4.20.2011 | 4:32pm
murtheol says:
Publius, Augustine was referring to the mystery of how the Church continued without external (political and social) visible support. Joe Carter's notion of invisible is very different. There were no Protestants at the time Augustine lived, so your application is out of context and anachronistic. Evangelism means a return to the Catholic Church. The Church engages Protestants for no other reason. If Joe Carter thinks the "invisible" church is just all the baptized he is wrong. There is no point in "unity" if Catholic doctrine is rejected.
4.20.2011 | 4:34pm
Mark Shea says:
"At the same time, I hope FT will commission an essay on the topic, "What Catholics Owe Evangelicals: An Appreciation." Maybe an ex-Evangelical like the Catholic writer Mark Shea, who looks with real appreciation on his Evangelical past, would be a good writer."
You know, I think I just might do that. Look for something over at Inside Catholic in a couple of weeks (sorry i can't do it faster, but I'm swamped).
Great piece, Joe!
You know, I think I just might do that. Look for something over at Inside Catholic in a couple of weeks (sorry i can't do it faster, but I'm swamped).
Great piece, Joe!
4.20.2011 | 4:38pm
Steve Martin says:
There are many good and faithful Roman Catholics who are Christians. And there are many who are not (Christians). We don't know who does belong to God and who does not.
But the Roman theology is fully semi-Pelagian. A little bit of me and a lot of God. Only it ususlly turns out the other way around.
Christ ALONE, is what the BIble tells us is necessary.
The rock on which Christ builds His Church is not the man Peter, but Peter's confession of faith. Which by the grace of God we can all make, as well.
But the Roman theology is fully semi-Pelagian. A little bit of me and a lot of God. Only it ususlly turns out the other way around.
Christ ALONE, is what the BIble tells us is necessary.
The rock on which Christ builds His Church is not the man Peter, but Peter's confession of faith. Which by the grace of God we can all make, as well.
4.20.2011 | 5:03pm
Devin Rose says:
Steve,
With respect, the Catholic Church has condemned Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. It is dogma that no person can come to Christ and become justified by their own volition or power. It is only through God's grace alone through faith that a person can come to God and become justified. Pelagianism in all its forms is thus excluded.
Now then, once a person is justified, sanctification is a process whereby works done in God's grace do contribute, but Reformed Protestantism agrees with this, as I pointed out earlier, so if the Catholic Church is semi-Pelagian here, so is Reformed Protestantism.
With respect, the Catholic Church has condemned Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. It is dogma that no person can come to Christ and become justified by their own volition or power. It is only through God's grace alone through faith that a person can come to God and become justified. Pelagianism in all its forms is thus excluded.
Now then, once a person is justified, sanctification is a process whereby works done in God's grace do contribute, but Reformed Protestantism agrees with this, as I pointed out earlier, so if the Catholic Church is semi-Pelagian here, so is Reformed Protestantism.
4.20.2011 | 5:21pm
Colin says:
@Wayne
Firstly, I assume you are speaking particularly of the the Spanish Inquisition.
Secondly, if you would take time to read literature on the subject, you would discover that the Spanish Inquisition is not the horrible 'Shoah' of the Middle Ages that it has been made out to be. This becomes evident as you look at the actual statistics regarding trials, detentions, executions, et cetera.
So, while the Spanish Inquisition is certainly a stain on the Church, it hardly constitutes the genocide that you and others pretend it is.
Firstly, I assume you are speaking particularly of the the Spanish Inquisition.
Secondly, if you would take time to read literature on the subject, you would discover that the Spanish Inquisition is not the horrible 'Shoah' of the Middle Ages that it has been made out to be. This becomes evident as you look at the actual statistics regarding trials, detentions, executions, et cetera.
So, while the Spanish Inquisition is certainly a stain on the Church, it hardly constitutes the genocide that you and others pretend it is.
4.20.2011 | 5:34pm
Niall says:
Just to clarify, folks, I am a convert from Evangelicalism to Catholicism, and British, if that changes anything. My list wasn't intended as an attack on Catholicism, and shouldn't be read as such, but rather to emphasise the way in which Evangelicalism gave me a wonderful grounding in the Catholic faith.
4.20.2011 | 5:42pm
Wayne1a says:
I am a Former reformed/baptist/evangelical now Catholic.
Y'all have no idea of the curious mix of aghast horror anger… and joy that accompanies a former anti-Cthlc on his/her journey across the Tiber.
My former Baptist pastor (now a Presbyterian pastor) taught me 30+some years ago that "although we are saved by 'faith alone', that faith is never alone: it is always accompanied by deeds/fruit". I viewed scripture through that interpretive filter. It broke when I realized that Jesus and the NT writers were amazingly sloppy or misleading in what they taught. That grand theological adventure culminated in a four week journey of anguish and horror when Wayne the raging Boettnerist recognized the truth of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Family and friends still sadly shake their heads. And it wasn't the smells and bells!! It took me more years to appreciate liturgy, rites, devotional practicesc and formality.
Y'all have no idea of the curious mix of aghast horror anger… and joy that accompanies a former anti-Cthlc on his/her journey across the Tiber.
My former Baptist pastor (now a Presbyterian pastor) taught me 30+some years ago that "although we are saved by 'faith alone', that faith is never alone: it is always accompanied by deeds/fruit". I viewed scripture through that interpretive filter. It broke when I realized that Jesus and the NT writers were amazingly sloppy or misleading in what they taught. That grand theological adventure culminated in a four week journey of anguish and horror when Wayne the raging Boettnerist recognized the truth of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Family and friends still sadly shake their heads. And it wasn't the smells and bells!! It took me more years to appreciate liturgy, rites, devotional practicesc and formality.
4.20.2011 | 6:16pm
Craig Payne says:
Quote: "Just wanted to point out that the Catholic dogma on justification can agree with "faith alone" so long as the critical theological virtue of love--which is also a gift from God--is not rejected."
To follow up a bit: I like to ask people if they agree with this: "I believe we are saved by faith in Christ and obedience to His teachings."
If they say "Yes," I say, "Then we are in agreement."
If they say "No, we only need faith in Christ," I give them a funny look. And a New Testament.
On the subject of "What Catholics Can Learn from Protestants": the ability to articulate quickly and clearly what one believes, an ability based on much Bible study. This ability among Protestants remains fairly constant even if the belief being defended is way off base. Many Catholics I have met either do not know what the CC actually teaches, or know but are not able to articulate and defend it, especially not biblically.
On the other hand: Over the past 3-4 months, I have heard many comments from Protestants about "what Catholics believe." I am pretty sure that not a single comment I have heard has been accurate--not one. Part of this lack of knowledge is due to, as I mentioned, lack of clear and consistent statements from Catholics themselves, but part of it also could be due to Protestants' already knowing what they think about Catholicism and not wanting to learn anything different.
Finally: Laying out one's cards is helpful. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
To follow up a bit: I like to ask people if they agree with this: "I believe we are saved by faith in Christ and obedience to His teachings."
If they say "Yes," I say, "Then we are in agreement."
If they say "No, we only need faith in Christ," I give them a funny look. And a New Testament.
On the subject of "What Catholics Can Learn from Protestants": the ability to articulate quickly and clearly what one believes, an ability based on much Bible study. This ability among Protestants remains fairly constant even if the belief being defended is way off base. Many Catholics I have met either do not know what the CC actually teaches, or know but are not able to articulate and defend it, especially not biblically.
On the other hand: Over the past 3-4 months, I have heard many comments from Protestants about "what Catholics believe." I am pretty sure that not a single comment I have heard has been accurate--not one. Part of this lack of knowledge is due to, as I mentioned, lack of clear and consistent statements from Catholics themselves, but part of it also could be due to Protestants' already knowing what they think about Catholicism and not wanting to learn anything different.
Finally: Laying out one's cards is helpful. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
4.20.2011 | 6:23pm
Laurel says:
THANK YOU!!!! That was a gracious read. I wish some of the comments had been as gracious.
4.20.2011 | 6:48pm
Jack S. says:
Mr. Devin Rose,
Could you please provide a link for the following reference "Regarding sola fide, I would point out Pope Benedict's recent catechesis where he explained that the Catholic Church can agree with sola fide, so long as that faith is joined with agape (love)"? I am a Catholic with an Evangelical girlfriend, and we started out debating this issue but have since come to realize how much similarity is actually held when properly laid out. I have been wanting to find a theological explanation without any polemics or tribalism, and what you refer to sounds like just the thing. Thanks very much in advance.
Could you please provide a link for the following reference "Regarding sola fide, I would point out Pope Benedict's recent catechesis where he explained that the Catholic Church can agree with sola fide, so long as that faith is joined with agape (love)"? I am a Catholic with an Evangelical girlfriend, and we started out debating this issue but have since come to realize how much similarity is actually held when properly laid out. I have been wanting to find a theological explanation without any polemics or tribalism, and what you refer to sounds like just the thing. Thanks very much in advance.
4.20.2011 | 6:58pm
Lissa Morris says:
Joe, thanks for a wonderful article. Keep reading the ancient fathers of the faith.
As far as "sola fide", well, we are saved through grace and through grace, we have an obligation to "work out our salvation through fear and trembling" as well.
"Sola scriptura"? For my Protestant friends, where is that written in the Bible? ;D
I swam the Tiber several years ago. Thank God! I am finally home and at peace.
For those of you wondering, I encourage you to remember that Jesus Christ promised a visible Church set on a hill, that the gates of hell could not prevail against. There is only one Church like that in the world.
Regardless of the sins of mere men in the Church (Jesus also said there would be wolves in sheeps' clothing amongst us), that does not negate the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Seek and ye shall find!
As far as "sola fide", well, we are saved through grace and through grace, we have an obligation to "work out our salvation through fear and trembling" as well.
"Sola scriptura"? For my Protestant friends, where is that written in the Bible? ;D
I swam the Tiber several years ago. Thank God! I am finally home and at peace.
For those of you wondering, I encourage you to remember that Jesus Christ promised a visible Church set on a hill, that the gates of hell could not prevail against. There is only one Church like that in the world.
Regardless of the sins of mere men in the Church (Jesus also said there would be wolves in sheeps' clothing amongst us), that does not negate the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
Seek and ye shall find!
4.20.2011 | 7:05pm
Joseph E. says:
Wayne: the questions you raise about the inquisition and the South American thing are just like the kid who asked above... "Wasn't Pope John Paul II a communist?" These are all written down somewhere for the gullible to feed on but as are all gullibles they are all hula baloo. Maybe you should start by going to open internet sources like wikipedia and others and checking this out with what Catholic sites have to say about these 'events'.
Anger-free ex-Catholic: Love and knowledge of scripture as good as they are cannot save. God is not going to ask anybody what John 3:16 or Matthew 18 or whatever says. The salvific use I see is in ruminating on the mysteries of the Christian faith. This faith is what is handed down from generation to generation. There are countless saints who have been able to see God after this life that didn't have the opportunity or the capacity to read the scriptures but learnt faith from the Church. It is the faith of the Church that saved them.
Unfortunately, for me who lives in West Africa, the Charismatic groups of the Catholic Church have shown themselves to a thorn in the side of the church. With their love and knowledge of scripture, Commitment to building a real Christian community of joy, Commitment to evangelisation, The hymns they have proven themselves a people of pride and schismatism. While these attributes are not evil in themselves there is something in these forms that are rather pretentious and which many authentic Catholics see right through.
All what God seeks to find in our souls are the images of Jesus Christ by which we will be recognized as his brothers and sisters, a priestly, prophetic and kingly people. The purpose of the church is to lead us there by the means provided by God himself delivered by the pastoral care of the church, the body of Christ.
Anger-free ex-Catholic: Love and knowledge of scripture as good as they are cannot save. God is not going to ask anybody what John 3:16 or Matthew 18 or whatever says. The salvific use I see is in ruminating on the mysteries of the Christian faith. This faith is what is handed down from generation to generation. There are countless saints who have been able to see God after this life that didn't have the opportunity or the capacity to read the scriptures but learnt faith from the Church. It is the faith of the Church that saved them.
Unfortunately, for me who lives in West Africa, the Charismatic groups of the Catholic Church have shown themselves to a thorn in the side of the church. With their love and knowledge of scripture, Commitment to building a real Christian community of joy, Commitment to evangelisation, The hymns they have proven themselves a people of pride and schismatism. While these attributes are not evil in themselves there is something in these forms that are rather pretentious and which many authentic Catholics see right through.
All what God seeks to find in our souls are the images of Jesus Christ by which we will be recognized as his brothers and sisters, a priestly, prophetic and kingly people. The purpose of the church is to lead us there by the means provided by God himself delivered by the pastoral care of the church, the body of Christ.
4.20.2011 | 7:38pm
Steve Martin says:
"With respect, the Catholic Church has condemned Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism."
Yes...and it still practices it.
Grace means unmerited favor. It isn't your doing, even with God's help.
It is love for sinners. Real sinners , the kind we know we are.
And there is one Mediator, and that is Christ Jesus. We do not need His grace distributed by the Catholic Church for us. He gives it to us directly.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Yes...and it still practices it.
Grace means unmerited favor. It isn't your doing, even with God's help.
It is love for sinners. Real sinners , the kind we know we are.
And there is one Mediator, and that is Christ Jesus. We do not need His grace distributed by the Catholic Church for us. He gives it to us directly.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
4.20.2011 | 8:16pm
Suzanne Slupesky says:
"Although the Reformation’s split with the Catholic Church was tragically necessary,"
Mr. Carter, I enjoyed this article, but as a convert from the Wesleyan Methodist movement to Catholicism, I find this statement completely absurd. When there is a problem in a marriage, is the good and proper /BEST thing to do to just leave the situation and divorce? Of course not. Luther was exactly the same...instead of working to solve the problems that no one disputes were in the church at that time, he just left and 'divorced' the church. (REad some biographies on Luther and they will surprise you...what he did believe vs what most protest-ant churches still teach; his personal life, etc) IF instead he had submitted to the authority of the Church and worked for reform, then perhaps today we all still would be one. I sincerely agree that the Reformation was one of the worst things that has happened in Christian culture. Any study of history will support that.
Mr. Carter, I enjoyed this article, but as a convert from the Wesleyan Methodist movement to Catholicism, I find this statement completely absurd. When there is a problem in a marriage, is the good and proper /BEST thing to do to just leave the situation and divorce? Of course not. Luther was exactly the same...instead of working to solve the problems that no one disputes were in the church at that time, he just left and 'divorced' the church. (REad some biographies on Luther and they will surprise you...what he did believe vs what most protest-ant churches still teach; his personal life, etc) IF instead he had submitted to the authority of the Church and worked for reform, then perhaps today we all still would be one. I sincerely agree that the Reformation was one of the worst things that has happened in Christian culture. Any study of history will support that.
4.20.2011 | 8:25pm
Mark Hobart says:
Dear Mr Carter,
"Because the theological differences I have with Catholicism are deep-rooted and unlikely to be resolved in this century"
Would you care to elaborate?
Best wishes, Mark.
"Because the theological differences I have with Catholicism are deep-rooted and unlikely to be resolved in this century"
Would you care to elaborate?
Best wishes, Mark.
4.20.2011 | 8:52pm
Steve Martin says:
This is a very short audio snippet that speaks in clear terns of what we are discussing here:
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/dont-tamper-with-the-word/
Just click on #8 (and get right to the heart of it).
Thanks.
http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/dont-tamper-with-the-word/
Just click on #8 (and get right to the heart of it).
Thanks.
4.20.2011 | 8:55pm
patricksarsfield says:
Publius writes:
"So Joe Carter extends an olive branch, reflective of his sincere opinion--which patricksarsfield proceeds to snap. It's as if patricksarsfield doesn't want evangelicals moving towards Rome or identifying common ground without repudiating everything they've believed. It's also tremendously ungracious."
Sorry, Publius, but the question "which Church is Christ's Church" can be answered easily once the fallacy of the Protestant construct of an "Invisible Church" is dealt with. Because Mr. Carter repeated that error, I thought it important to correct it.
Also: if you don't like someone speaking "their truth" in ecumenical discussions, your irenicism is but surface deep.
"So Joe Carter extends an olive branch, reflective of his sincere opinion--which patricksarsfield proceeds to snap. It's as if patricksarsfield doesn't want evangelicals moving towards Rome or identifying common ground without repudiating everything they've believed. It's also tremendously ungracious."
Sorry, Publius, but the question "which Church is Christ's Church" can be answered easily once the fallacy of the Protestant construct of an "Invisible Church" is dealt with. Because Mr. Carter repeated that error, I thought it important to correct it.
Also: if you don't like someone speaking "their truth" in ecumenical discussions, your irenicism is but surface deep.
4.20.2011 | 9:10pm
patricksarsfield says:
Steve Martin rather arbitrarily asserts:
"There are many good and faithful Roman Catholics who are Christians. And there are many who are not (Christians). We don't know who does belong to God and who does not."
And who left Mr. Martin in charge of determining who is a christian and who isn't? This is just another example of how full of themselves Protestants can be. Steve Martin is not in apostolic succession to anyone. He is just another reader of the Bible, no more qualified to search the hearts of his fellow men than any other lay person. What's more, the Bible is a book that nowhere defines what a christian is. So, what is his authority? Did someone lay hands on him and appoint him to the charism of discerning true christians? Or is he just arrogating this to himself the way so many arrogate so much to themselves?
"There are many good and faithful Roman Catholics who are Christians. And there are many who are not (Christians). We don't know who does belong to God and who does not."
And who left Mr. Martin in charge of determining who is a christian and who isn't? This is just another example of how full of themselves Protestants can be. Steve Martin is not in apostolic succession to anyone. He is just another reader of the Bible, no more qualified to search the hearts of his fellow men than any other lay person. What's more, the Bible is a book that nowhere defines what a christian is. So, what is his authority? Did someone lay hands on him and appoint him to the charism of discerning true christians? Or is he just arrogating this to himself the way so many arrogate so much to themselves?
4.20.2011 | 9:23pm
Anger-Free Ex-Catholic says:
@ChristopherAdams, responding to Niall:
- Catholics have the full knowledge and love for the Scriptures.
- Catholics have been building a real Christian communities of joy for 2000 years (monasteries, hermits, domestic churches, orphanages, hospitals, &c.)
- Catholics have been Evangelizing since Jesus.
- Catholics have had our own hymns since the Psalms. We don't need to borrow.
Boy, is that ever a sneering, ungracious response. And one that is defensive and ignorant of the reality of life as it is actually lived in American Catholic parishes (maybe British ones too). The kind of Scripture-lovers that are thick on the ground in Evangelical churches are fairly rare in Catholic parishes. You even more rarely find Catholics as committed to evangelizing as the Evangelicals. I was part of many Catholic parishes in my years as a Catholic, and there was nothing like what most Evangelicals have in terms of joy. And while I can't stand "praise choruses" in the megachurch style, there is simply nothing in post-Vatican II Catholic hymnody to compare to the classic Protestant hymns.
To be sure, there is no doctrinal reason why Catholics can't be as devoted to Scripture as Evangelicals, or as zealous for evangelizing as Evangelicals. You look at Catholics like Mark Shea and his friend Sherry Weddell, and you see what Catholics could be, if they took their tradition seriously enough. But it is what it is. Instead of being all uppity, Christopher Adams, why don't you be as generous as Joe Carter and look to your brothers and sisters on the other side of the tragic divide in Western Christianity, and learn from those of their admirable practices that you can incorporate into Catholicism.
I am afraid that there is simply no way to account for "On Eagle's Wings" and "Gather Us In," except that the Lord chastises those whom He loves. ;-)
- Catholics have the full knowledge and love for the Scriptures.
- Catholics have been building a real Christian communities of joy for 2000 years (monasteries, hermits, domestic churches, orphanages, hospitals, &c.)
- Catholics have been Evangelizing since Jesus.
- Catholics have had our own hymns since the Psalms. We don't need to borrow.
Boy, is that ever a sneering, ungracious response. And one that is defensive and ignorant of the reality of life as it is actually lived in American Catholic parishes (maybe British ones too). The kind of Scripture-lovers that are thick on the ground in Evangelical churches are fairly rare in Catholic parishes. You even more rarely find Catholics as committed to evangelizing as the Evangelicals. I was part of many Catholic parishes in my years as a Catholic, and there was nothing like what most Evangelicals have in terms of joy. And while I can't stand "praise choruses" in the megachurch style, there is simply nothing in post-Vatican II Catholic hymnody to compare to the classic Protestant hymns.
To be sure, there is no doctrinal reason why Catholics can't be as devoted to Scripture as Evangelicals, or as zealous for evangelizing as Evangelicals. You look at Catholics like Mark Shea and his friend Sherry Weddell, and you see what Catholics could be, if they took their tradition seriously enough. But it is what it is. Instead of being all uppity, Christopher Adams, why don't you be as generous as Joe Carter and look to your brothers and sisters on the other side of the tragic divide in Western Christianity, and learn from those of their admirable practices that you can incorporate into Catholicism.
I am afraid that there is simply no way to account for "On Eagle's Wings" and "Gather Us In," except that the Lord chastises those whom He loves. ;-)
4.20.2011 | 11:06pm
Trillium says:
Ahem...Joe....what criteria have you for saying Mary was "one of the most incredible humans who ever lived"? Who else is in her league and why? Luther, Calvin, Sam Houston;)???
Beside her son, she is THE most incredible human who ever lived because she was the Mother of Our Lord. Ponder that. One of the greatest scandals of Prostestantism is the shabby treatment they give Mary.
Beside her son, she is THE most incredible human who ever lived because she was the Mother of Our Lord. Ponder that. One of the greatest scandals of Prostestantism is the shabby treatment they give Mary.
4.20.2011 | 11:14pm
A.M says:
Could an essentail and may be solvable diffrence between Catholicism and other Christian sects be how 'salvation ' is understood ..
Catholics are invited to take in deeply the words of St.Paul ' to work out salvation in fear and trembling ' , in the sense of vigilance to see if enemy brings in hatreds , unforgiveness etc : ; they are given plenty of help , to get freedom from such , esp. in the confessional ( wish all protestants and more Catholics could experience the joyful freedom when the priest, in 'persona Christi' utters the words of absolution ! )
They are given strong guidelines as to what behaviors would make it very difficult , to have a trusting relationship with God and dogmas that in turn help to build up trust in God's goodness !
For such a Catholic , the freedom and peace could be more from the assurance that whatever comes at that person , in the future , God would extend the grace , to be able forgive the other and the peace that comes with it ; the part on one's end being to live faithful lives, to the best of one's capacity .
We see the witness of the holy martyrs !
The many ways that one can be out of touch of God's holiness is spelled out clearly - in turn, giving many occasions , to recieve forgiveness and mercy , helping to make one confidant of being able to do so for the other !
Deeper , richer , yet simple , with the Godly nature of forgiveness for oneself and the other clearer, more concrete ..
Eucharistic Adoration and Holy Mass - hope many nonCatholics would feel comfortable attending both and experience The Presence , to discover as many have , what heaven on earth is about !
Catholics are invited to take in deeply the words of St.Paul ' to work out salvation in fear and trembling ' , in the sense of vigilance to see if enemy brings in hatreds , unforgiveness etc : ; they are given plenty of help , to get freedom from such , esp. in the confessional ( wish all protestants and more Catholics could experience the joyful freedom when the priest, in 'persona Christi' utters the words of absolution ! )
They are given strong guidelines as to what behaviors would make it very difficult , to have a trusting relationship with God and dogmas that in turn help to build up trust in God's goodness !
For such a Catholic , the freedom and peace could be more from the assurance that whatever comes at that person , in the future , God would extend the grace , to be able forgive the other and the peace that comes with it ; the part on one's end being to live faithful lives, to the best of one's capacity .
We see the witness of the holy martyrs !
The many ways that one can be out of touch of God's holiness is spelled out clearly - in turn, giving many occasions , to recieve forgiveness and mercy , helping to make one confidant of being able to do so for the other !
Deeper , richer , yet simple , with the Godly nature of forgiveness for oneself and the other clearer, more concrete ..
Eucharistic Adoration and Holy Mass - hope many nonCatholics would feel comfortable attending both and experience The Presence , to discover as many have , what heaven on earth is about !
4.20.2011 | 11:42pm
Devin Rose says:
Jack S.,
Sure I am happy to help. Hopefully they will let me put a link here. Pope Benedict on Nov. 19th, 2008. http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english
Excerpt:
"That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14)."
For an in-depth discussion on this talk of Pope Benedict's from both an informed Reformed Protestant side and the Catholic side, see this blog post at Called to Communion: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/st-augustine-on-faith-without-love/
God bless you and your girlfriend as you work through these important issues!
Sure I am happy to help. Hopefully they will let me put a link here. Pope Benedict on Nov. 19th, 2008. http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english
Excerpt:
"That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14)."
For an in-depth discussion on this talk of Pope Benedict's from both an informed Reformed Protestant side and the Catholic side, see this blog post at Called to Communion: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/st-augustine-on-faith-without-love/
God bless you and your girlfriend as you work through these important issues!
4.20.2011 | 11:50pm
Joe Carter says:
@ Trillium ***Who else is in her league and why?***
Who else is in her league? John the Baptist. Why? Because Jesus said so. ; )
"Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist." (Matthew 11:11)
Who else is in her league? John the Baptist. Why? Because Jesus said so. ; )
"Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist." (Matthew 11:11)
4.21.2011 | 12:01am
Devin Rose says:
Steve Martin,
You said the Catholic Church "still practices [semi-Pelagianism]." What does it mean that the Catholic Church "practices" it? I pointed out that the Church condemns these heresies and has never taught them. Are you claiming that some persons in the Catholic Church practice this (due to ignorance or confusion)?
You said that "grace is unmerited favor." The Catholic Church agrees. Actual grace is unmerited favor. Sanctifying grace is God's very divine life dwelling in us--through no work of ours, completely unmerited--how beautiful is that?
The idea that God gives us the grace "directly" and not through the Catholic Church is a false dichotomy. I'm a bit confused as to why you argue this as looking at your site you seem to be classical Lutheran. Luther certainly believed that God gave grace through sacraments of the Church, especially baptism. Do you believe God gives grace through baptism like Luther did or do you reject that belief?
I listened to the #8 podcast. One claim made is that the Church at that time was teaching works-righteousness. I would counter that the Catholic Church has never taught that we go from unrighteous to righteous (justification) by works (and point out as evidence the canons from the Council of Trent that condemn this view, if I recall correctly). Now there were some people in Luther's locale in Germany with a distorted understanding of what the Church taught, and Luther did react against this, but these were not the teachings of the Church but local errors being promulgated, which the counter-Reformation in the Catholic Church corrected.
God bless,
Devin
You said the Catholic Church "still practices [semi-Pelagianism]." What does it mean that the Catholic Church "practices" it? I pointed out that the Church condemns these heresies and has never taught them. Are you claiming that some persons in the Catholic Church practice this (due to ignorance or confusion)?
You said that "grace is unmerited favor." The Catholic Church agrees. Actual grace is unmerited favor. Sanctifying grace is God's very divine life dwelling in us--through no work of ours, completely unmerited--how beautiful is that?
The idea that God gives us the grace "directly" and not through the Catholic Church is a false dichotomy. I'm a bit confused as to why you argue this as looking at your site you seem to be classical Lutheran. Luther certainly believed that God gave grace through sacraments of the Church, especially baptism. Do you believe God gives grace through baptism like Luther did or do you reject that belief?
I listened to the #8 podcast. One claim made is that the Church at that time was teaching works-righteousness. I would counter that the Catholic Church has never taught that we go from unrighteous to righteous (justification) by works (and point out as evidence the canons from the Council of Trent that condemn this view, if I recall correctly). Now there were some people in Luther's locale in Germany with a distorted understanding of what the Church taught, and Luther did react against this, but these were not the teachings of the Church but local errors being promulgated, which the counter-Reformation in the Catholic Church corrected.
God bless,
Devin
4.21.2011 | 12:22am
joe says:
Good Catholic nod to Evangelicals here:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html
4.21.2011 | 12:58am
JDR says:
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. NOT flesh and blood but my heavenly
Father. Wow, that is the same heavenly Father who made covenants with Adam , Noah, Abraham , Moses, etc. The same heavenly Father who said in Numbers chapter 23 verse 19 : God is not man that he should speak falsely, nor human, that he should change his mind. Is he one to speak and not act, to decree and not fulfill?
The TRUTH is (1) our heavenly Father's relationship with man has been obedience thru covenants. (2)He has always had one leader of his community.
The NEW and EVERLASTING covenant is the Eucharist , and the leader of the institution that administers the new and everlasting covenant is the Pope. Now quit bickering people and just trust Christ , when you become obedient to the Eucharist the TRUTH becomes crystal clear (our divine Mother helps a bit also).
Father. Wow, that is the same heavenly Father who made covenants with Adam , Noah, Abraham , Moses, etc. The same heavenly Father who said in Numbers chapter 23 verse 19 : God is not man that he should speak falsely, nor human, that he should change his mind. Is he one to speak and not act, to decree and not fulfill?
The TRUTH is (1) our heavenly Father's relationship with man has been obedience thru covenants. (2)He has always had one leader of his community.
The NEW and EVERLASTING covenant is the Eucharist , and the leader of the institution that administers the new and everlasting covenant is the Pope. Now quit bickering people and just trust Christ , when you become obedient to the Eucharist the TRUTH becomes crystal clear (our divine Mother helps a bit also).
4.21.2011 | 1:08am
Publius says:
@patricksarsfield,
I'm much less concerned with the particulars of what you say when it comes to the faith than with the dripping condescension with which you say it. You speak of the faith but speak of it in a way that belies speech untainted by love. Your utter lack of graciousness in these posts has on more than one occasion made me wonder whether my consideration of crossing the Tiber is entirely misguided. I think you're not interested in dialogue but rather in smacking Evangelicals around as much as you can. And I, for one, am done with it. I'm sure you'll think this a lack of thick skin. Maybe you're right. But truth is, you infer a lot about people's motives--something which you can never know and never infer from their words. So you can have your caricatures and straw men. You refute them very well.
@murtheol
As it happens, I know at least a bit about Augustine--lowly political philosopher though I am. For instance, I know that his doctrine of the church invisible originate in the Donatist controversy and that he bases the doctrine on the parable of the wheat and the tares. I think, therefore, the context in which the Augustinian teaching was developed makes your interpretation a stretch. Nor is my interpretation my own or off the top of my head. It's based in Augustine and is the understanding of more than one first rate Augustine scholar.
I'm much less concerned with the particulars of what you say when it comes to the faith than with the dripping condescension with which you say it. You speak of the faith but speak of it in a way that belies speech untainted by love. Your utter lack of graciousness in these posts has on more than one occasion made me wonder whether my consideration of crossing the Tiber is entirely misguided. I think you're not interested in dialogue but rather in smacking Evangelicals around as much as you can. And I, for one, am done with it. I'm sure you'll think this a lack of thick skin. Maybe you're right. But truth is, you infer a lot about people's motives--something which you can never know and never infer from their words. So you can have your caricatures and straw men. You refute them very well.
@murtheol
As it happens, I know at least a bit about Augustine--lowly political philosopher though I am. For instance, I know that his doctrine of the church invisible originate in the Donatist controversy and that he bases the doctrine on the parable of the wheat and the tares. I think, therefore, the context in which the Augustinian teaching was developed makes your interpretation a stretch. Nor is my interpretation my own or off the top of my head. It's based in Augustine and is the understanding of more than one first rate Augustine scholar.
4.21.2011 | 1:14am
patricksarsfield says:
And from Anger-Free Ex-Catholic we get this very silly variant on the "Tin Pan Alley School of Ecclesiology":
" I was part of many Catholic parishes in my years as a Catholic, and there was nothing like what most Evangelicals have in terms of joy. And while I can't stand "praise choruses" in the megachurch style, there is simply nothing in post-Vatican II Catholic hymnody to compare to the classic Protestant hymns."
Sorry, but there is no biblical support for this. Christ did not say: "thou art Peter and thou art the composer of 'On Eagles Wings" and both of you can found churches in my name and I will leave it up to people who want to be my followers to pick their church on the basis of the hymn style that suits them." IOW, Christianity is not a rave for "battling bands" in which we pick our teacher (for that is what the Church is (Matt. 28:20) on the basis of the music we like.
Anyway, between the pablum that is "On Eagles Wings" and the music that Catholicism built up over the centuries (e.g., Mozart and Palestrina to name just two), there is little basis for a claim that Protestyant music is in any way superior to Catholic music (and the pablum we are now singing in our churches is the unfortunate product of too many efforts at irenic composition ). In all events, this is a mere matter of taste, and as is said in the mother tongue: "de gustibus non disputandum."
In truth, the question of which church is Christ's Church does not turn on either , music or joy or which group of adherents purportedly "loves the Scriptures more" but on a simple question of History:
WHICH CHURCH DID CHRIST FOUND IN THE FIRST CENTURY AD?
There is no biblical warrant for the protestant claim that the Church Jesus founded in the First Century AD is not Christ's Church. Nor is there any biblical warrant for the protestant claim that some church founded by man fifteen hundred years or more later is Christ's Church.
" I was part of many Catholic parishes in my years as a Catholic, and there was nothing like what most Evangelicals have in terms of joy. And while I can't stand "praise choruses" in the megachurch style, there is simply nothing in post-Vatican II Catholic hymnody to compare to the classic Protestant hymns."
Sorry, but there is no biblical support for this. Christ did not say: "thou art Peter and thou art the composer of 'On Eagles Wings" and both of you can found churches in my name and I will leave it up to people who want to be my followers to pick their church on the basis of the hymn style that suits them." IOW, Christianity is not a rave for "battling bands" in which we pick our teacher (for that is what the Church is (Matt. 28:20) on the basis of the music we like.
Anyway, between the pablum that is "On Eagles Wings" and the music that Catholicism built up over the centuries (e.g., Mozart and Palestrina to name just two), there is little basis for a claim that Protestyant music is in any way superior to Catholic music (and the pablum we are now singing in our churches is the unfortunate product of too many efforts at irenic composition ). In all events, this is a mere matter of taste, and as is said in the mother tongue: "de gustibus non disputandum."
In truth, the question of which church is Christ's Church does not turn on either , music or joy or which group of adherents purportedly "loves the Scriptures more" but on a simple question of History:
WHICH CHURCH DID CHRIST FOUND IN THE FIRST CENTURY AD?
There is no biblical warrant for the protestant claim that the Church Jesus founded in the First Century AD is not Christ's Church. Nor is there any biblical warrant for the protestant claim that some church founded by man fifteen hundred years or more later is Christ's Church.
4.21.2011 | 4:55am
Charles Collins says:
@JDR "(Our divine Mother helps a bit also)" Probably not the best phrase to use in this debate. Although the phrase is sometimes used in Catholic practice, it refers to the divine Maternity, not to Mary being Divine (which she is not). But when in discussion with those of a non-Catholic persuasion, its best to avoid terms which can be easily misconstrued.
As a Catholic, I can honestly say that Protestants generally have better organized bible studies, and better "outreach" both to those outside and inside the church buildings. Ex-Catholics are the second largest denomination in the USA for a reason. My family stopped going to Mass when I was about 10. One reason may have been when my mother (our father was not around) had to work several Sundays in a row, no one asked her where she was. She had taught CCD for years, sang in the choir, and was not just a face in the crowd. During a very difficult period in her life, she then had work commitments on Sundays for over a month. No one called to see if she was okay, or to see if anything was alright. No one at the parish seemed to care. This would not have happened in most Baptist Churches.
Upon my return to the Catholic Church in my 20's - my experience at several parishes (where I always tried to be active) taught me my mother's experience was not fluke. The "joyful" experience one poster speaks about at protestant churches is not just "nice music" - its a genuine feeling of being loved and cared for by the Church. Frankly, many Catholics do not get that - and we should appreciate others have shown it does not have to be like it so often is.
As a Catholic, I can honestly say that Protestants generally have better organized bible studies, and better "outreach" both to those outside and inside the church buildings. Ex-Catholics are the second largest denomination in the USA for a reason. My family stopped going to Mass when I was about 10. One reason may have been when my mother (our father was not around) had to work several Sundays in a row, no one asked her where she was. She had taught CCD for years, sang in the choir, and was not just a face in the crowd. During a very difficult period in her life, she then had work commitments on Sundays for over a month. No one called to see if she was okay, or to see if anything was alright. No one at the parish seemed to care. This would not have happened in most Baptist Churches.
Upon my return to the Catholic Church in my 20's - my experience at several parishes (where I always tried to be active) taught me my mother's experience was not fluke. The "joyful" experience one poster speaks about at protestant churches is not just "nice music" - its a genuine feeling of being loved and cared for by the Church. Frankly, many Catholics do not get that - and we should appreciate others have shown it does not have to be like it so often is.
4.21.2011 | 4:56am
Brian says:
Mr Carter;
Thank you and the Lord for a most charitable and well-written article. As a Catholic with deep love and respect for my Evangelical brethren, and any who so clearly demonstrate the love of Christ, I urge you to keep your heart open to the possibility of one day entering into full communion with the visible One, Holy, Catholic, and Apsostolic Church.
The Catholic Church holds that there exist degrees of membership within the Mystical Body of Christ. As a baptized Christian, you already enjoy a high degree of participation in the family of God. Your writings make clear that your intellectual and moral unity with the Catholic Church is already stronger than that of most self-professed Catholics.
You are quite right that in these evil times, the servants of Jesus must unite against the flesh, the world, and the devil. Please consider coming home! An honest examination of your Evangelical tradition in the light of history and faith will show that the gulf between us is much narrower than it has been made to appear. Becoming Catholic will not entail parting with your venerable traditions, but completing them. The Church needs your piety, charity, and deep respect for Sacred Scripture.
Since the Reformation, each of the separated traditions has been developing its particular gifts. The time has come to begin gathering them back into the fold. Please help this great work of God to be realized. Amen.
Thank you and the Lord for a most charitable and well-written article. As a Catholic with deep love and respect for my Evangelical brethren, and any who so clearly demonstrate the love of Christ, I urge you to keep your heart open to the possibility of one day entering into full communion with the visible One, Holy, Catholic, and Apsostolic Church.
The Catholic Church holds that there exist degrees of membership within the Mystical Body of Christ. As a baptized Christian, you already enjoy a high degree of participation in the family of God. Your writings make clear that your intellectual and moral unity with the Catholic Church is already stronger than that of most self-professed Catholics.
You are quite right that in these evil times, the servants of Jesus must unite against the flesh, the world, and the devil. Please consider coming home! An honest examination of your Evangelical tradition in the light of history and faith will show that the gulf between us is much narrower than it has been made to appear. Becoming Catholic will not entail parting with your venerable traditions, but completing them. The Church needs your piety, charity, and deep respect for Sacred Scripture.
Since the Reformation, each of the separated traditions has been developing its particular gifts. The time has come to begin gathering them back into the fold. Please help this great work of God to be realized. Amen.
4.21.2011 | 7:29am
Jim says:
Mr Carter,
For what else should Evangelicals owe Catholics appreciation?
How about The Bible!
For what else should Evangelicals owe Catholics appreciation?
How about The Bible!
4.21.2011 | 7:44am
patricksarsfield says:
Publius writes:
"I'm much less concerned with the particulars of what you say when it comes to the faith than with the dripping condescension with which you say it. You speak of the faith but speak of it in a way that belies speech untainted by love. Your utter lack of graciousness in these posts has on more than one occasion made me wonder whether my consideration of crossing the Tiber is entirely misguided."
If you review my writing in a less emotional way ("And I, for one, am done with it"), you will see that I make substantive ecclesiological points in a straightforward way and support them with appropriate citations. The reaction of many responders, such as yourself, is to avoid the substantive points and to reflect instead on my perceived motives or purported lack of graciousness. I will not get bogged down in those side show issues and will just note that responses of that sort are unfortunate examples of ad hominem attacks.
The real question is: "which church did Jesus found?" That question has rarely been addressed in the responses to this column. I made substantive points about the Acts 15 Council and about the book of James that no protestant (or Catholic convert who is suggesting he might revert because of my purported condescension such as Publius) has addresssed. These questions about the History of the First Century Church are the important ones for christians to address rather than getting bogged down in trivia such as whether ephemera such as "megachurch praise choruses" say something about the true church of Christ or not. BTW, terms like trivia and ephemera may strike Publius and others as "condescending" but they are a lot more temperate than much protestant-speak about the Catholic Church, such as Joe Carter's references to what he heard growing up ("Antichrist" and the "Beast").
"I'm much less concerned with the particulars of what you say when it comes to the faith than with the dripping condescension with which you say it. You speak of the faith but speak of it in a way that belies speech untainted by love. Your utter lack of graciousness in these posts has on more than one occasion made me wonder whether my consideration of crossing the Tiber is entirely misguided."
If you review my writing in a less emotional way ("And I, for one, am done with it"), you will see that I make substantive ecclesiological points in a straightforward way and support them with appropriate citations. The reaction of many responders, such as yourself, is to avoid the substantive points and to reflect instead on my perceived motives or purported lack of graciousness. I will not get bogged down in those side show issues and will just note that responses of that sort are unfortunate examples of ad hominem attacks.
The real question is: "which church did Jesus found?" That question has rarely been addressed in the responses to this column. I made substantive points about the Acts 15 Council and about the book of James that no protestant (or Catholic convert who is suggesting he might revert because of my purported condescension such as Publius) has addresssed. These questions about the History of the First Century Church are the important ones for christians to address rather than getting bogged down in trivia such as whether ephemera such as "megachurch praise choruses" say something about the true church of Christ or not. BTW, terms like trivia and ephemera may strike Publius and others as "condescending" but they are a lot more temperate than much protestant-speak about the Catholic Church, such as Joe Carter's references to what he heard growing up ("Antichrist" and the "Beast").
4.21.2011 | 8:04am
patricksarsfield says:
Charles Collins writes:
" One reason may have been when my mother (our father was not around) had to work several Sundays in a row, no one asked her where she was. She had taught CCD for years, sang in the choir, and was not just a face in the crowd. During a very difficult period in her life, she then had work commitments on Sundays for over a month. No one called to see if she was okay, or to see if anything was alright. No one at the parish seemed to care. This would not have happened in most Baptist Churches."
It is unquestionable that there is less anonymity in Protestant churches than in Catholic churches, but that is a function of the different sizes of Protestant and Catholic churches in the US. There are about twice as many Protestants as Catholics in the US but there are about 15 times as many Protestant churches (300,000 protestat churches versus about 20,000 Catholic churches). Thus the average Catholic church is seven times the size of the average Protestant church. Why? There are a lot of reasons, I suppose, including the clergy shortage in Catholicism but the most important one is the tendency of Protestant sects to multiply (fissiparousness).
Why the splits in Protestantism? Historically, there were many reasons including the splits between Scots and English and between the Royal Church of England and the separatist sects which were often controlled by the aristocracy, but in America the splits have come a lot faster. Why? Who knows. My own thought is that Protestantism has a different dynamic for church formation. Ministers (except in the declining "mainstream churches") are not controlled by an overall authority and are free to strike out on their own in reliance on their entrepreneurial instincts.
In all events, Protestant churches have more the feel of clubs while Catholic churches are the People of God gathered together in a certain area. Each approach has its pluses and minuses. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the World and feel it is my Church. As a result, I have gone to my churches in the Bronx and Manhattan and my church in New Jersey and my church in Paris (Notre Dame) and my church in Rome (usually St. Peter's, but Santa Maria dei Populi on one Sunday morning). I never feel out of place. They are all "my church."
" One reason may have been when my mother (our father was not around) had to work several Sundays in a row, no one asked her where she was. She had taught CCD for years, sang in the choir, and was not just a face in the crowd. During a very difficult period in her life, she then had work commitments on Sundays for over a month. No one called to see if she was okay, or to see if anything was alright. No one at the parish seemed to care. This would not have happened in most Baptist Churches."
It is unquestionable that there is less anonymity in Protestant churches than in Catholic churches, but that is a function of the different sizes of Protestant and Catholic churches in the US. There are about twice as many Protestants as Catholics in the US but there are about 15 times as many Protestant churches (300,000 protestat churches versus about 20,000 Catholic churches). Thus the average Catholic church is seven times the size of the average Protestant church. Why? There are a lot of reasons, I suppose, including the clergy shortage in Catholicism but the most important one is the tendency of Protestant sects to multiply (fissiparousness).
Why the splits in Protestantism? Historically, there were many reasons including the splits between Scots and English and between the Royal Church of England and the separatist sects which were often controlled by the aristocracy, but in America the splits have come a lot faster. Why? Who knows. My own thought is that Protestantism has a different dynamic for church formation. Ministers (except in the declining "mainstream churches") are not controlled by an overall authority and are free to strike out on their own in reliance on their entrepreneurial instincts.
In all events, Protestant churches have more the feel of clubs while Catholic churches are the People of God gathered together in a certain area. Each approach has its pluses and minuses. I can go into any Catholic Church anywhere in the World and feel it is my Church. As a result, I have gone to my churches in the Bronx and Manhattan and my church in New Jersey and my church in Paris (Notre Dame) and my church in Rome (usually St. Peter's, but Santa Maria dei Populi on one Sunday morning). I never feel out of place. They are all "my church."
4.21.2011 | 10:40am
harry says:
It is evident from many of the remarks here why the unity of the of the visible Body of Christ has not yet been restored.
What all those who possess the Spirit of Christ have in common is just that: the Spirit of Christ. That is infinitely more than we need to have in common in order to begin restoring the unity of the visible Body of Christ. To the extent that our own spirits reign in us instead of His, that task becomes difficult.
What all those who possess the Spirit of Christ have in common is just that: the Spirit of Christ. That is infinitely more than we need to have in common in order to begin restoring the unity of the visible Body of Christ. To the extent that our own spirits reign in us instead of His, that task becomes difficult.
4.21.2011 | 3:38pm
Michael says:
After studying a Pew study, Thomas Reese makes some interesting arguments about why half of Roman Catholics leaving the church become evangelicals.
Basically, he says that Roman Catholics become evangelical not because of doctrine but because they find better spirituality, better worship, better music, and greater focus on the Bible.
(Meanwhile, those Roman Catholics who become mainline Protestants do so because they too seek better spirituality, worship, and music.)
Here are some snippets:
“Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith. In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service.”
“Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic”
“Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic.”
“Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers.”
“Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key.”
You can read the full article here (http://ncronline.org/news/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants)
Basically, he says that Roman Catholics become evangelical not because of doctrine but because they find better spirituality, better worship, better music, and greater focus on the Bible.
(Meanwhile, those Roman Catholics who become mainline Protestants do so because they too seek better spirituality, worship, and music.)
Here are some snippets:
“Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith. In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service.”
“Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic”
“Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic.”
“Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers.”
“Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key.”
You can read the full article here (http://ncronline.org/news/hidden-exodus-catholics-becoming-protestants)
4.21.2011 | 4:46pm
harry says:
Hello, Michael,
I don't doubt that official Catholic teaching on the Scriptures being replaced with a presentation of Scripture as fables causes some Catholics to leave the faith. I have heard of such cases. I don't think those people, or those who taught them, had a firm grip on Catholicism.
For the most part though, those Catholics who understand the essential beliefs of contemporary Catholicism, and find those same beliefs expressed in the writings of the Early Church Fathers as well, and learn the scriptural basis for those beliefs, and realize those beliefs have been consistently held by Catholics from the beginning to this very day, do not ever leave the Catholic Church.
I don't doubt that official Catholic teaching on the Scriptures being replaced with a presentation of Scripture as fables causes some Catholics to leave the faith. I have heard of such cases. I don't think those people, or those who taught them, had a firm grip on Catholicism.
For the most part though, those Catholics who understand the essential beliefs of contemporary Catholicism, and find those same beliefs expressed in the writings of the Early Church Fathers as well, and learn the scriptural basis for those beliefs, and realize those beliefs have been consistently held by Catholics from the beginning to this very day, do not ever leave the Catholic Church.
4.21.2011 | 6:04pm
Trillium says:
C'mon, Catholics, help me out, isn't Our Blessed Mother more "incredible" than John the Baptist? Sure, John, was incredible, for many reasons, but he didn't give birth to God!!!! So Joe puts John the Baptist on par with Mary??? What do you all make of that!? Joe, there are no persons in the Bible that speak the words of Mary "all generations to come will call me blessed" Luke 1:48. Why don't you Protestants call her Blessed? You simply call her Mary. We call her Blessed Virgin Mary. Again, you cherry pick what you want to support your view, but choose to ignore things that are too Catholic for you. Who is the woman spoken of in Revelation clothed with the sun with the moon and stars beneath her crushing the head of the serphant? Is that Jn 14? Anyway, who is she? She is the Blessed Virgin Mary! Swim, Joe, swim the Tiber and you will not have to cling to the 30,000 or so differing views on how a Christian should interpret the Bible or live a holy life. You will have the Magisterium and 2000 years of tradition to aid you in your journey.
4.21.2011 | 7:44pm
Devin Rose says:
I would say, John the Baptist was pointed out as an ideal representative from the Old Covenant, but now the New has come, which surpasses the Old in every way.
Along these lines, Mary (and I would also argue St. Joseph) are singularities in a sense, being given as they were a special vocation to be the parents of Jesus Christ. No privilege given to any person before or since has been greater than theirs.
Even St. Joseph, about whom the New Testament says relatively little, is known through sacred Tradition to be the patriarch par excellence. How much more so then is Mary, the mother of God, to be esteemed.
Along these lines, Mary (and I would also argue St. Joseph) are singularities in a sense, being given as they were a special vocation to be the parents of Jesus Christ. No privilege given to any person before or since has been greater than theirs.
Even St. Joseph, about whom the New Testament says relatively little, is known through sacred Tradition to be the patriarch par excellence. How much more so then is Mary, the mother of God, to be esteemed.
4.21.2011 | 9:09pm
Ignatius33 says:
Joe, great article -- Protestants and Catholics have much we can learn from one another. Off the top of my head, I think Catholics can learn a great deal from many of our fellow separated brothers and sisters, including a passion for studying Sacred Scripture and a zeal for evangelization.
But since you reference the fact that you cannot envision yourself becoming Catholic (a view I once shared for myself), perhaps you'll permit me to comment briefly on that point. It seems that "faith alone" might be the principal stumbling block keeping you away from the Catholic faith. As a former Evangelical Protestant myself, I appreciate where you are coming from. Without getting into this issue in any depth, I'll just note that B16 has said that "faith alone" is not incompatible with Catholic teaching as long as the term "faith" is understood to be a living faith, i.e., a faith that exhibits charity (love), which is supernaturally rooted in God's grace (www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html). In other words, faith and love are necessarily two sides of the same coin.
In any event, in my own faith journey, I was surprised and later overwhelmed when I began to recognize the Positive historical and Scriptural evidence in favor of Catholic teaching (e.g., the sacraments -- especially the Eucharist, Baptismal regeneration and Confession -- a ministerial priesthood, visible hierarchy, apostolic succession, etc.), rather than focusing on the so-called "defeaters" of the Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) faith.
By analogy, atheists are adept at finding "defeaters" to Christian beliefs, such as the inerrancy of Scripture. They might point to two passages that look completely contradictory. For example, I have never heard of an adequate explanation of the apparent contradiction between 2 Kings 10:30 (God rewards Jehu for the slaughter of Jezreel) and Hosea 1:4 (God punishes Jehu for the very same act). Ok, so with the limitations of my own human mind, I can't give a satisfying explanation against this so-called defeater. But it doesn't erode my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Why? Because the problem with this approach is that it ignores the overwhelming Positive evidence in favor of the inerrancy of Scripture. In that light, the defeaters are insufficient to explain away the positive evidence. It's the same methodology scientists use in their analysis. If you adopt this approach to investigating Catholic teaching as a whole, you might be more open to embracing it. Anyway, that's my two cents.
But since you reference the fact that you cannot envision yourself becoming Catholic (a view I once shared for myself), perhaps you'll permit me to comment briefly on that point. It seems that "faith alone" might be the principal stumbling block keeping you away from the Catholic faith. As a former Evangelical Protestant myself, I appreciate where you are coming from. Without getting into this issue in any depth, I'll just note that B16 has said that "faith alone" is not incompatible with Catholic teaching as long as the term "faith" is understood to be a living faith, i.e., a faith that exhibits charity (love), which is supernaturally rooted in God's grace (www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html). In other words, faith and love are necessarily two sides of the same coin.
In any event, in my own faith journey, I was surprised and later overwhelmed when I began to recognize the Positive historical and Scriptural evidence in favor of Catholic teaching (e.g., the sacraments -- especially the Eucharist, Baptismal regeneration and Confession -- a ministerial priesthood, visible hierarchy, apostolic succession, etc.), rather than focusing on the so-called "defeaters" of the Catholic (or Eastern Orthodox) faith.
By analogy, atheists are adept at finding "defeaters" to Christian beliefs, such as the inerrancy of Scripture. They might point to two passages that look completely contradictory. For example, I have never heard of an adequate explanation of the apparent contradiction between 2 Kings 10:30 (God rewards Jehu for the slaughter of Jezreel) and Hosea 1:4 (God punishes Jehu for the very same act). Ok, so with the limitations of my own human mind, I can't give a satisfying explanation against this so-called defeater. But it doesn't erode my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. Why? Because the problem with this approach is that it ignores the overwhelming Positive evidence in favor of the inerrancy of Scripture. In that light, the defeaters are insufficient to explain away the positive evidence. It's the same methodology scientists use in their analysis. If you adopt this approach to investigating Catholic teaching as a whole, you might be more open to embracing it. Anyway, that's my two cents.
4.21.2011 | 11:08pm
Trillium says:
Thank you, Devin Rose. So elegant and succinct was your response to my need. Of course John the Baptist was the greatest of the Prophets proclaiming the coming of the Savior, but he certainly is not more incredible than Blessed Mother. As we commemorate tomorrow, Jesus, from the cross gave Mary to us to be our own mother. John, the Beloved Apostle stands at the foot of the cross in our stead, in stead of ALL lovers of Christ. He gives us his Mother!!! Joe, Joe, Joe...can't you wrap your heart around that????? Joe, you are in my prayers tonight as we travel through the Triduum. The Protestant revolt tears me up.
4.22.2011 | 9:52am
Mark VA says:
Mr. Carter wrote:
"Many evangelicals suffer from a mild case of Marianphobia—the fear that any appreciation of Mary will be viewed as a sign that we’re closet Catholics."
This is an interesting statement, especially since the word "fear" was used. One, it seems to suggest that there is some level of self, and group, censorship;
Second, if it is only the fear of being viewed as a closet Catholic, and not an outright hatred of Christ's Mother, then that may suggest that for some evangelicals there may be an inner conflict regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary. A simultaneous repulsion and attraction;
Third, it would be fair to ask if there are any other similar areas of evangelical inner conflict where fear is involved, for example, as regarding the role of the rock upon which Christ builds His Church?;
Fourth, if such inner conflicts do exist, then to what extent is the cultivation of them part of the evangelical identity, or to put it more bluntly, can it be maintained without them?
Last, I would like to commend Mr. Carter for being courageous enough to ask such difficult questions.
"Many evangelicals suffer from a mild case of Marianphobia—the fear that any appreciation of Mary will be viewed as a sign that we’re closet Catholics."
This is an interesting statement, especially since the word "fear" was used. One, it seems to suggest that there is some level of self, and group, censorship;
Second, if it is only the fear of being viewed as a closet Catholic, and not an outright hatred of Christ's Mother, then that may suggest that for some evangelicals there may be an inner conflict regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary. A simultaneous repulsion and attraction;
Third, it would be fair to ask if there are any other similar areas of evangelical inner conflict where fear is involved, for example, as regarding the role of the rock upon which Christ builds His Church?;
Fourth, if such inner conflicts do exist, then to what extent is the cultivation of them part of the evangelical identity, or to put it more bluntly, can it be maintained without them?
Last, I would like to commend Mr. Carter for being courageous enough to ask such difficult questions.
4.22.2011 | 11:22am
John Mark says:
What ever--if any-- temptations Joe Carter might have to 'swim the Tiber' would certainly be ended from the kind of discussions following this article. Unity that the Catholics long for (everyone, including, I assume the Eastern church coming back into the fold) and the Protestants long for (open and non-combative dialogue which would hopefull result in a better church on both sides of the river) will never happen. The comments here may not be ultimate proof, but they are close enough for me.
4.22.2011 | 2:27pm
Mike D'Virgilio says:
Looks like it was just far too tempting for the infinitely convinced among us to not use Joe's article to keep trying to convince others of the absolute rightness and truth of their convictions. One of the benefits of the Reformation was that it requires Christians to love other Christians they happen to disagree with. I used to be terribly dogmatic in my earlier days, but as I've gotten older, and hopefully wiser, the more absolute dogmatism becomes distasteful to me. Much of this discussion only confirms that for me. We have far more important battles to wage than trying to convince our fellow believers in Jesus Christ that our views of the Church or justification or baptism or the sacraments are absolute truth. As for me, I choose humility in my finitude and total dependence on the mercy and grace of God, my only hope.
4.22.2011 | 5:35pm
andrew says:
john mark,
respectfully, whether mr. carter ever swims the tiber, it should be for the right reasons -- namely that he agrees with catholic doctrinal positions and thinks them to be true.
as for other people being nice in the comments section of his article, i'm not sure why that is even relevant to mr. carter's possible conversion. surely mr. carter knows that ideas are not false -- or true -- simply because they are held by obnoxious -- or sweet -- people.
even though (1) others will know we are christ's by our love and (2) correct theology by itself is not in the least salvific, the question of which church to belong to is one that should be answered on the basis of doctrine alone. and even though sin divides us through and through, the walls that separate christian communions are primarily made up of ideas.
incidentally, if mr. carter cares to know, the time i spent studying calvin and the reformers within the context of reformed presbyterianism prepared me for honest consideration of catholic claims. if i weren't catholic, i'd be reformed -- where else in protestant circles would you find such high -- and partially true -- views of church authority, the sacraments, the special (if not real) presence of christ in the eucharist, infant baptism, the seriousness of sin, and healthy respect for history and tradition? i, for one, remain amazed at and very grateful for the reformed tradition -- loraine boettner notwithstanding.
respectfully, whether mr. carter ever swims the tiber, it should be for the right reasons -- namely that he agrees with catholic doctrinal positions and thinks them to be true.
as for other people being nice in the comments section of his article, i'm not sure why that is even relevant to mr. carter's possible conversion. surely mr. carter knows that ideas are not false -- or true -- simply because they are held by obnoxious -- or sweet -- people.
even though (1) others will know we are christ's by our love and (2) correct theology by itself is not in the least salvific, the question of which church to belong to is one that should be answered on the basis of doctrine alone. and even though sin divides us through and through, the walls that separate christian communions are primarily made up of ideas.
incidentally, if mr. carter cares to know, the time i spent studying calvin and the reformers within the context of reformed presbyterianism prepared me for honest consideration of catholic claims. if i weren't catholic, i'd be reformed -- where else in protestant circles would you find such high -- and partially true -- views of church authority, the sacraments, the special (if not real) presence of christ in the eucharist, infant baptism, the seriousness of sin, and healthy respect for history and tradition? i, for one, remain amazed at and very grateful for the reformed tradition -- loraine boettner notwithstanding.
4.28.2011 | 6:13pm
Meg says:
Mr. Carter,
First of all I would like to commend you on your openness to other theologies. That is really awesome and will ultimately lead you to truth. You cannot find truth unless you are unafraid of listening (with caution of course) to the reasonable ideas of others.
Thank you for your appreciation of the sanctity of human life and of the Blessed Mother. A hatred of Mary is absolutely opposed to a love of Christ. She is his own flesh and blood, and he certainly loved, respected, and obeyed her. And it is his footsteps in which we are after all called to follow.
"Ecclesiology: One of the first principles of Reformed ecclesiology is that there is but one holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Because this principle is difficult to square with the existence of over 10,000 different Protestant denominations, we claim that this refers only to the invisible church. I don’t disagree, but I do wonder: What about the church that is visible? After all, it is Jesus’ desire to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:51-52)"
This is an amazing recognition. But, I have some criticisms to put to this. Yes, the Catholic Church is one, as we have one head (Christ), and his appointed human head (the Pope) who under the Holy Spirit guides the Church of Christ as his one Bride, his very own Body. You said that Jesus' desire to gather into one the children of God, yet you affirmed the need of the reformation. Do you think that the Church really should have split into millions upon millions of churches, fracturing Christs mystical Body into various sects and denominations? Reform was needed. Sinners needed to be admonished, heretics needed to be corrected. But reform would take what needed to be corrected and correct it, not break away and make new churches. If Christ passed on the Church to his Apostles, and they to the present Pope, clergy, why would Christ want people to flee from those he appointed, as imperfect as they are?
God Bless,
Meg
First of all I would like to commend you on your openness to other theologies. That is really awesome and will ultimately lead you to truth. You cannot find truth unless you are unafraid of listening (with caution of course) to the reasonable ideas of others.
Thank you for your appreciation of the sanctity of human life and of the Blessed Mother. A hatred of Mary is absolutely opposed to a love of Christ. She is his own flesh and blood, and he certainly loved, respected, and obeyed her. And it is his footsteps in which we are after all called to follow.
"Ecclesiology: One of the first principles of Reformed ecclesiology is that there is but one holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Because this principle is difficult to square with the existence of over 10,000 different Protestant denominations, we claim that this refers only to the invisible church. I don’t disagree, but I do wonder: What about the church that is visible? After all, it is Jesus’ desire to “gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:51-52)"
This is an amazing recognition. But, I have some criticisms to put to this. Yes, the Catholic Church is one, as we have one head (Christ), and his appointed human head (the Pope) who under the Holy Spirit guides the Church of Christ as his one Bride, his very own Body. You said that Jesus' desire to gather into one the children of God, yet you affirmed the need of the reformation. Do you think that the Church really should have split into millions upon millions of churches, fracturing Christs mystical Body into various sects and denominations? Reform was needed. Sinners needed to be admonished, heretics needed to be corrected. But reform would take what needed to be corrected and correct it, not break away and make new churches. If Christ passed on the Church to his Apostles, and they to the present Pope, clergy, why would Christ want people to flee from those he appointed, as imperfect as they are?
God Bless,
Meg
5.14.2011 | 1:27pm
James says:
Joe, thanks for the good and respectful article. Regarding your answer to Trillim's question, 'Who else is in [The Virgin Mary's] league and why?', which was 'John the Baptist. Why? Because Jesus said so. ; ) "Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist." (Matthew 11:11) [Matthew 11:11]' I would offer the following response:
If we take Jesus at his literal word, then He would be saying that John the Baptist was greater even than Jesus Himself, as Jesus Himself was no doubt 'born of woman' (as the ancient creeds, and even the Reformers, have all affirmed).
However, if Jesus was making a reference to those who would be, under the New Covenant, 'born again' from 'water and the Spirit', after the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, then we see a distinction between those 'born of woman' and those 'born from above' (those baptized into Christ--i.e., not by John's baptism, which was a baptism of repentance, but by Christ's baptism). This makes sense when we look at the *complete* verse 11 in Matthew 11, 'whoever is least in the Kingdom is greater than He.' I suppose we could say here that John was the one 'ushering in the Kingdom', yet John was not 'in the Kingdom', which hadn't come fully until Christ's body was broken on the cross, and the veil of the Temple rent in two.
Mary was with the Apostles when the Spirit descended and birthed the Church--so she was on that day 'born [again] from above'. Jesus of course was not *merely* 'born of woman'; He was also 'born from above' (God the Father is His direct Father). However, as Christ's brothers, we share, by adoption, in becoming 'born from above' when we become born by the Spirit in our Baptism.
In Christ,
James (a Catholic who is thankful to have been raised the son of a Protestant Preacher Man)
*I defer to official Catholic teaching in any unintentional errors of Christology represented here (Catholic layman convert blanket disclaimer!)
If we take Jesus at his literal word, then He would be saying that John the Baptist was greater even than Jesus Himself, as Jesus Himself was no doubt 'born of woman' (as the ancient creeds, and even the Reformers, have all affirmed).
However, if Jesus was making a reference to those who would be, under the New Covenant, 'born again' from 'water and the Spirit', after the Baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, then we see a distinction between those 'born of woman' and those 'born from above' (those baptized into Christ--i.e., not by John's baptism, which was a baptism of repentance, but by Christ's baptism). This makes sense when we look at the *complete* verse 11 in Matthew 11, 'whoever is least in the Kingdom is greater than He.' I suppose we could say here that John was the one 'ushering in the Kingdom', yet John was not 'in the Kingdom', which hadn't come fully until Christ's body was broken on the cross, and the veil of the Temple rent in two.
Mary was with the Apostles when the Spirit descended and birthed the Church--so she was on that day 'born [again] from above'. Jesus of course was not *merely* 'born of woman'; He was also 'born from above' (God the Father is His direct Father). However, as Christ's brothers, we share, by adoption, in becoming 'born from above' when we become born by the Spirit in our Baptism.
In Christ,
James (a Catholic who is thankful to have been raised the son of a Protestant Preacher Man)
*I defer to official Catholic teaching in any unintentional errors of Christology represented here (Catholic layman convert blanket disclaimer!)
5.15.2011 | 2:55am
Stratman Plans says:
At the same time, I hope FT will commission an essay on the topic, "What Catholics Owe Evangelicals: An Appreciation." Maybe an ex-Evangelical like the Catholic writer Mark Shea, who looks with real appreciation on his Evangelical past, would be a good writer. I saw far too many times in my years as a Catholic a disdain for Evangelicals, especially among Catholics who ought to know better (conservative intellectuals). It's very easy for Catholics to snicker at the ill-informed emotionalism that characterizes much of American Evangelicalism, but the truth is, Evangelicals, generally speaking, are much more engaged with their faith than Catholics are -- especially when it comes to knowledge and love of Scripture. There's a reason Catholics like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida supplement their mass attendance by participating in Evangelical congregations, and if thoughtful Catholics were to really examine the good in American Evangelicalism, they would recognize that there's a lot to learn from them. As Christopher Adams points out, the list you suggest is not a very good one. You'd didn't specify what you were a convert to or from, but I'm guessing it's not to Catholic. The list should really come from a Catholic, as we'll better appreciate where we're lacking and where evangelicals are leading the way.
5.29.2011 | 9:28pm
Jaden Rosencrans says:
I am late on responding here unfortunately. But as I read through the article and the comments I would just like to throw in a few personal sentences.
The article is great first and foremost. It's the comments that need some comments. It always surprises me how much people have to say about other's religions but don't have anything to say about their own.
So in the defense of my church, the Roman Catholic Church, I say this... Most of your other Christian denominations, were founded by Lay members of other faiths. For example, Lutheranism was founded by a member of the Catholic Church. Anglicanism, founded by a member of the Catholic Church. Mormonism, (in my opinion) was only successful because it was fueled by hatred for the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church, was founded by Jesus Christ. On Saint Peter the rock, who's tomb is under the Holy See the center of the Church. The oldest Christian Denomination, other than Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, is Lutheranism which still is middle-aged compared to it's parent.
In addition, there are few nations around today that have run under the same Government for more than 100 years. Maybe, five but i'm not a Political scientist... However, the Roman Catholic Church has been run the EXACT SAME, elected it's leader the EXACT SAME, and kept it's doctrines nearly the same for 2,000 years!
The Catholic Church is all of your faith's elder, and it should be treated with dignity and respect.
Plus to all of you who say that Evangelicalism "loves the scripture" you all took something from us. The Scripture says that the Sabbath day is Saturday. It was the Pontiff, the man your faiths say is not the successor of Saint Peter, who changed it from Saturday to Sunday. And your denominations all took it with you. If you trust the Pontiff enough to change the Holy Day of Resting! You should trust him enough to guide you in life. The Pope can change anything, everything he binds on earth, becomes bound in Heaven. For those who love the Scripture.
The only reason that people broke off from the Catholic Church, was because they were having sissy fits. The best examples of that are the Anglican Communion, and the Lutheran Church.
I have nothing to say against your faiths, because we're all unified no matter what. But if you are all so willing to criticize my faith, be prepared to be enlightened about your own. Plus, the majority of these statements against Catholicism are opinions, much of my segment here has been based on facts.
Finally, in the Vatican archives are thousands of books and documents dating even before Jesus Christ. The scientists who have worked their entire lives studying the literature that we don't even know exists are also leading the Catholic Church. For all we know, everything in Catholic doctrines could be from that literature, never even seen or heard of by Martin Luther, King Henry, Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, John Smyth, and Ellen White.
This is all I have to say, I don't mean to offend anyone, but since you all have said what makes your faith right, and mine wrong... This is my statement in reversal.
Thanks,
Jaden.
The article is great first and foremost. It's the comments that need some comments. It always surprises me how much people have to say about other's religions but don't have anything to say about their own.
So in the defense of my church, the Roman Catholic Church, I say this... Most of your other Christian denominations, were founded by Lay members of other faiths. For example, Lutheranism was founded by a member of the Catholic Church. Anglicanism, founded by a member of the Catholic Church. Mormonism, (in my opinion) was only successful because it was fueled by hatred for the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church, was founded by Jesus Christ. On Saint Peter the rock, who's tomb is under the Holy See the center of the Church. The oldest Christian Denomination, other than Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, is Lutheranism which still is middle-aged compared to it's parent.
In addition, there are few nations around today that have run under the same Government for more than 100 years. Maybe, five but i'm not a Political scientist... However, the Roman Catholic Church has been run the EXACT SAME, elected it's leader the EXACT SAME, and kept it's doctrines nearly the same for 2,000 years!
The Catholic Church is all of your faith's elder, and it should be treated with dignity and respect.
Plus to all of you who say that Evangelicalism "loves the scripture" you all took something from us. The Scripture says that the Sabbath day is Saturday. It was the Pontiff, the man your faiths say is not the successor of Saint Peter, who changed it from Saturday to Sunday. And your denominations all took it with you. If you trust the Pontiff enough to change the Holy Day of Resting! You should trust him enough to guide you in life. The Pope can change anything, everything he binds on earth, becomes bound in Heaven. For those who love the Scripture.
The only reason that people broke off from the Catholic Church, was because they were having sissy fits. The best examples of that are the Anglican Communion, and the Lutheran Church.
I have nothing to say against your faiths, because we're all unified no matter what. But if you are all so willing to criticize my faith, be prepared to be enlightened about your own. Plus, the majority of these statements against Catholicism are opinions, much of my segment here has been based on facts.
Finally, in the Vatican archives are thousands of books and documents dating even before Jesus Christ. The scientists who have worked their entire lives studying the literature that we don't even know exists are also leading the Catholic Church. For all we know, everything in Catholic doctrines could be from that literature, never even seen or heard of by Martin Luther, King Henry, Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, John Smyth, and Ellen White.
This is all I have to say, I don't mean to offend anyone, but since you all have said what makes your faith right, and mine wrong... This is my statement in reversal.
Thanks,
Jaden.
7.28.2011 | 11:36pm
Jeana Lacefield says:
Really great point about what Catholics owe Evangelicals. I can't provide an essay, but as a convert I'd say the things that Evangelicals do really well at are (inter alia) Don't forget the impressive tradition of the university and learning, birthed in the Dark Ages and continued into the Oxford Movement. When the rest of the (invaded) academic world turned to utilitarianism, careerism, and fractured scientism, Catholics and High Church Anglicans stood up for the humanities and the unity of truth.
I know how it translates. I was an altar boy in the '50's and took 2 years of Latin in (secular) high school.
But what does it mean? Where does it come from? Who is the authority who proclaims it a dogma? Most personally, how does it work? Looking into my own heart, I know very well that I can claim the Christian faith (I do), and still reject salvation. (I HOPE I don't!)