Why I am no longer a Protestant

Michael Spencer (aka, the Internet Monk), has a post titled, "Five Questions on The iMonk and Catholicism (where I also discuss some of my thoughts on how various kinds of Christians should appreciate and love one another.)" Michael seems like a great guy and has said some very kind words about this blog, so I hope he doesn't misunderstand this post, which is not meant to make light of his disagreements with various points of Catholic doctrine, or to be triumphalistic or uncharitable. But, frankly, his response to the question, "What’s your issue with church authority?", once again remind me of why I became and remain a Catholic:

Basically, I can’t affirm any kind of infallibility other than scripture itself (and even there I don’t use the word “inerrant” in the sense most evangelicals do.) I’m quite comfortable with the statements of the authority of scripture in the Second London Baptist Confession or The New Hampshire Confession of Faith.

What I would add is something along the lines of D.H. William’s view of the catholic tradition and the dangers evangelicals have incurred by seeming to be opposed to the place of tradition. Our RC friends are, in my opinion, generally correct to ask us questions about authority, because most evangelicals have a distorted view of Christian history and a very distorted view of the origin of scripture itself. I think evangelicals would do well to go to those Protestant traditions- such as Lutheranism and Anglicanism- and learn how to talk about tradition again in a positive way.

Where I come down differently than my RC friends is that I believe once scripture is canonized, then scripture becomes the judge of tradition and the primary source of authority. I see Luther being the conservative and the RCC as the innovators going beyond a legitimate use of tradition. Popes can err, councils can err, churches can err, and scripture is the final authority over them all. I understand that scripture must be interpreted, but I don’t see an infallible interpreting person or body as necessary.

I’d describe my view as James Leo Garrett’s “Prima Scriptura” as opposed to “Sola Scriptura” as Catholics understand it. (But I believe that the reformation idea of Sola Scriptura WAS Prima Scriptura.)

I would rather have 20,000 “little popes” with their Bibles, all believing they can err and be corrected by scripture, rather than one pope who cannot err or be corrected by scripture.

I’m not under any illusions about the appeal of the RC view of authority and its simplicity and power to unify. I sense that and I understand why so many Protestants are drawn to a community where debates and arguments are almost unheard of and the answer to every question is in the catechism! On the other hand, I’m quite a fan of the Protestant experience of constant reformation, listening, digging, discussing and savoring the Bible. I appreciate Catholic Bible scholars who help me in that process, but I can feel the constraints on them, even in their best work, when scripture and tradition part ways (such as in the Marian dogmas.)

I think that all Christians, as they have departed from the simple faith of the New Testament, have a lot to answer for and many reasons to pray for constant reformation and unity. But I’m under no illusions: the churches of the Reformation are in disarray, and Rome looks wonderful on many days for many appealing reasons.

Much could be said, but here are a few things that don't makes sense to me:

"I believe once scripture is canonized, then scripture becomes the judge of tradition and the primary source of authority."

• First, what is this belief based upon? Where does Scripture indicate that once the New Testament canon was established, that the authority that established it—the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit—loses that authority.

• Secondly, why the need to put Church authority, Scripture, and Tradition in competition with one another? It would seem that this is only done because either a person doesn't believe that all of them are given by God, or that a person realizes that they don't posses one or two of them, so must make allowances for wha is lacking.

• Third, the canon of the Christian Bible wasn't established, at least at local councils, until the late 300s/early 400s. Does this mean that prior to the 400s it was understandable for Christians to look to Church authority when it came to certain doctrinal questions (such as occurred at the Council of Nicaea in 325, or the Council of Constantinople in 381)? But once the canon was finally settled, the authority the Church had possessed for, say, 400 years, was taken away and given instead to 20,000 "little popes"? How it is this logical, and how does it make sense of the historical record?

2. "Popes can err, councils can err, churches can err, and scripture is the final authority over them all."

• Yet this statement is made by a single "little pope," and it only follows, logically, that he can also error. So, upon what authority does he make this infallible but fallible statement?

• If councils can err and the Church can err (and I'm assuming the "churches" mentioned here aren't Protestant, since they came along a few years after the establishment of the canon), then how do we know that the 27 books of the New Testament belong in the canon? Because of the fallible statements of Catholic bishops and theologians? Do we, as Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul once said, possess (at best) "a fallible canon of infallible books"? Or, more accurately, fallible interpretations of a fallible canon of books we hope are infallible, but have no decent grounds upon which to assert they are infallible?

• While Scripture never asserts sola scriptura, it does assert that the Church is "the household of God . . . the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). What does one do with such a verse?

3. "I understand that scripture must be interpreted, but I don’t see an infallible interpreting person or body as necessary."

• The statement was made, emphatically, if not infallibly, that Scripture is the judge of tradition, the primary source of authority, and the final authority over the Church. Yet it follows that such judgment and authority must be interpreted in some way, especially against misinterpretations and misrepresentations. And that, in fact, is what we see for the most part at ecumenical councils: the defense and definition of understandings of Scripture, especially as they relate to key doctrinal issues: the person and natures of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, the person of the Holy Spirit, etc.

• It is strange how infallibility becomes such a monster, as though it so horrible to think that God, having revealed Himself in the person of the Incarnate Word, who in turn has established the Church and announced the Kingdom of God, has no interest in providing His family and household the means to preserve and define who she is and what she believes. It's as though we are only allowed to think of two possibilities: an authoritarian Church that answers every single question regarding doctrine and practice (a typical stereotype of the Catholic Church that is wildly inaccurate), or an unsettled body of believers who are in a state of "constant reformation, listening, digging, discussing and savoring the Bible." This is like saying that a human family can only exist in two forms: a rigid and authoritarian type that allows for no discussion, individuality, or personal choices, or a type that has no structure and few rules. But most people of good will agree that the best family structure is one in which both authority and freedom are oriented to the same end, namely the good of the family. That is the Catholic ideal and that is also what can be seen in the Acts of the Apostles, time and time again.

4. "I sense that and I understand why so many Protestants are drawn to a community where debates and arguments are almost unheard of and the answer to every question is in the catechism!"

• A straw man, and a very unconvincing one at that. Chesterton was given to hyperbole, but he isn't far off the mark when he writes: "Catholics know the two or three transcendental truths on which they do agree; and take rather a pleasure in disagreeing on everything else." There is plenty of vigorous argument and debate among Catholics, even while there remains plenty of agreement. But, of course, a community must agree on some essential matters, or else there is no community; perhaps this is why there is such continual splintering among Protestant groups? I, for one, did not become a Catholic because I wanted answers to every single question; rather, I became Catholic because the Catholic Church had answers to several essential questions. We shouldn't mistake the quantity of ongoing arguments with quality, as though continually asking questions is a valid substitute for finally settling on answers. But perhaps the most emphatic contradiction to the straw man is found in Church history, which reveals the Catholic Church continually engaging with the most difficult and varied of questions and, as needed, providing answers. Or, to put it more bluntly, if there had been 20,000 little popes at the Council of Nicaea, where would we be today?

5. "I think that all Christians, as they have departed from the simple faith of the New Testament..."

I have no idea what that means. And, believe me, I've heard it hundreds of times. Frankly, I think it might just be a meaningless cliché. Especially if one man's "simple faith of the New Testament" is another man's fallible opinion.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Interviews, Excerpts:

• Answering The Call To Full Communion | An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith
• Has The Reformation Ended? | An Interview with Dr. Mark Noll
• Evangelicals and Catholics in Conversation | An Interview with Dr. Brad Harper
• From Protestantism to Catholicism | Six Journeys to Rome
• Thomas Howard and the Kindly Light | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Objections, Obstacles, Acceptance: An Interview with J. Budziszewski | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Thomas Howard on the Meaning of Tradition | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick | Mark Brumley
• Surprised by Conversion: The Patterns of Faith | Peter E. Martin
• Reformation 101: Who's Who in the Protestant Reformation | Geoffrey Saint-Clair
• The Tale of Trent: A Council and and Its Legacy | Martha Rasmussen
• What Is Tradition? | Yves Congar, O.P.
• Tradition | Thomas Howard
• Motherhood of the Entire Church | Henri de Lubac, S.J.
• Approaching the Sacred Scriptures | Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch
• How To Read The Bible | Peter Kreeft
• The Bible Gap: Spanning the Distance Between Scripture and Theology | Fr. Benedict Ashley, O.P.
• The Divine Authority of Scripture vs. the "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" | James Hitchcock
• Exploring the Catholic Faith! | An Interview with Diane Eriksen
• What in Fact Is Theology? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
• Understanding The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L.

Comments

[Mark Brumley]

Thanks.
I think I can put at least one reason why I am no longer a Protestant relatively succinctly:
Because I am convinced that the Church as depicted in the NT was a concrete community of disciples, constitutively one in the Spirit, to be sure, but also constitutively visibly one in faith professed, in sacraments (however embryonically understood and manifest these were at the time), and in apostolic authority (notwithstanding the occasional conflict among leaders that is bound to happen), with a special authority possessed by Peter as touchstone of apostolic communion. Now either the Church of the NT has ceased to exist, in which case I have to think Jesus was wrong when he said the gates of hell would not prevail and that he would be with the Church until the end of the world, or the NT Church continues to exist, however developed it may have become beyond the original ecclesiastical mustard seed. Yet only the Catholic Church fully fits the picture of the Church we find in the NT. So either Christ was wrong and the Church is gone, or Christ was right and the Church of Christ exists today in the Catholic Church. Since being a Protestant conflicts with being in full communion with the Catholic Church, I am no longer a Protestant, even though much good exists within Protestantism, etc.

[Mike D'Virgilio]

You argue your point very well, and if I was inclined toward Catholicism you might have me convinced. But just because it was the Catholic Church that established and perpetuated the faith for 1500 or 1600 hundred years doesn't necessarily mean it is the one true church. A Sovereign God will use what he will. The reason I am not a Catholic (well there are many) is just that I don't see the NT Church the way Mr. Brumley does. So if I don't see the same definitive structure as he does, then his conclusions do not follow (for me).

When I became a non-Catholic many years ago I was virulently anti-Catholic. I am not any longer. I see why the Catholic Church is so appealing to so many people, and I root it on in our spiritual and temporal battles in this world. I remember the first book I read after I was "born-again". It was called "Knowing God" by J.I. Packer. He made a statement in that book that has always stuck with me and seems more true to me than ever as I get older. Basically he said we would be surprised at how much of a person's theological outlook is determined by their personality. Some people are inclined to the safety and authority of the Catholic Church, others are not. God uses a fractured Protestant Church as he does a unified Catholic one. The genie's out of the bottle and will stay so until Jesus comes again. We can argue and debate, some will be convinced others won't, but we're all in this together.

[Chad Toney]

Mike, any relation to Nick D'Virgilio, drummer for Spock's Beard?

Ah, looks like there is, considering you have them linked on your blog!

[padraighh]

There are a couple of points that are apparent here

1) The admission that the Catholic Church has the power to unify
(also the fracturing of the Protestant Churches). But this is precisely what
Jesus prayed for to his Father.

2) Contempt for legitimate authority. Jesus taught his disciples to obey
legitimate authority. If the Protestant ethic is so free to choose, then can
they choose a faith that denies the divinity of Christ? Why not? Because the
Catholic Church settled that question early
and it has been accepted by Protestants.
The list goes on and on.

3) The emphasis on salvation by works in the sense that individual
interpretation of the scripture is the means to salvation.

[James D.]

Carl: As usual you have some stimulating, collegial and thoughtful ideas, and I need to go back and re-read them to get the full import.
Mark: I like your idea that what we see in the Roman Catholic Church today may well be what was seen embryonically in the early church, but I think you would have a healty debate on your hands proving what we see in the R.C.C. today is what existed in the New Testament. The framework shown in Acts and the epistles is hardly conclusive. In order to lend support this view, one must to go to uninspired histories which like scripture can become two-edged debating swords.
Mike: Your quote from Packer probably has more truth than most people realize. I think that God makes more provision for man's fallen individual psychology than we realize. Furthermore and more importantly your comment about God using a fractured non-catholic church as well as an organizationally unified Roman Catholic Church is right on the money. The reforms of Trent would not have occured had it not been for Luther and friends. By the same token mainline Protestantism's inevitable slide into heresy would not appear as grievously apostate (as it actually is) were it not for the bulwark of basic Roman Catholic orthodoxy in creedal matters.

[Jenny Bluett]

"Some people are inclined to the safety and authority of the Catholic Church, others are not"

So... what did those poor, mature, independent of mind and strong in faith folk do for that long, dark millennium and a half who were not inclined to thwere sweet, cushy, little security blankie of the pastoral care of their bishops unified with the Holy See?

Sorry about my spelling errors, seems I accidently tripped over Il Papa's cassock as I tried to suck my thumb, carry my blankie and hold his hand all at the same time. He was kind enough to pick me up and carry me on his shoulders though. Oh, and he happened to be wearing his pallium and it kept me warm. You know, it kindof reminded me of that parable...

[Mike D'Virgilio]

Chad,Indeed I am. Nick is my little bro and it was because of me he has such great musical taste. Unfortunately for me, he got most of the talent.

This is so great to see Protestants and Catholics in healthy non-vitriolic debate. I wonder if we'll ever see that between the Sunnis and Sheits.

I'll be visiting the site lots more. Thanks.

[Bruce Hollenbach]

I'm a Bible translator working and living down in southern Mexico. I've got RC friends here and back home in the U.S. I could almost become one myself, that is, if I had never left the U.S. Down here one sees a different RC church, where Marian devotion virtually displaces proper worship of God and where empty formality is apparently thought to suffice in a context almost devoid of morality or moral teaching. No thanks.

[Carl Olson]

Bruce: If you think Mexico is bad, you should have been in Corinth in the middle of the first century. That church was a mess: arguments, divisions, incest, sexual immorality, power struggles, idolatry, snobbery, and a host of other ills. And don't even get me started on the church in Galatia.

My point is that Catholics, in various times and various places, have failed (often badly) to practice and live the Catholic Faith as they should. There are also cultural divides, which may or may not lead to theological/doctrinal error, or to a misunderstanding on the part of those from another culture. Growing up, I knew plenty of Catholics who not only didn't live a Christian life, but knew next to nothing about Jesus, the Bible, and so forth. But I chose to study what the Catholic Church formally teaches and to look at both the bad and the good, the latter including John Paul II, Mother Teresa, and a myriad of other Catholics who lived in such a way that there was no doubt about their love for Jesus Christ. And--surprise!--it turns out that those folks are usually the ones the adhere to Church teaching and who understand that theology, spirituality, and morality all go together, working in a unified, catholic whole.

[MMajor Fan]

One of the things that hurt and disturbed me the most that is related to this subject is how Catholic commentators totally ducked, as if with embarrassment or lack of real faith, the role of the Holy Spirit in the papal conclave. During the visibility of the death of the Great Pope John Paul II and the election of our Pope Benedict XVI, they had ample opportunity to explain how the Holy Spirit guides the process. Yet they all had to become the wily political insiders, commenting as if this was a political election. For example, they would discuss if a “Latin” or “African” bloc of cardinals would vote a certain way. They would ignore that each cardinal in that bloc, in addition to such secular concerns, would also be personally informed by the Holy Spirit as a factor in the intensity and formation of his views. Catholic commentators had a world stage to explain how the Holy Spirit works in pragmatic “voting” matters, and how this is how the Church is protected, and yet they mentioned not one word about the Holy Spirit. It is the same with the subject of papal infallibility. If Catholic commentators cared less about looking like a media maven during the conclave and more about educating how the Holy Spirit guides, they could have laid a foundation for understanding the belief in papal infallibility. Ironically Protestants who understand the Holy Spirit would understand this explanation better than apparently some Catholics. To this day I cannot understand how that opportunity was missed. Or rather, I do. Papal infallibility (and it is used very rarely, not as a day to day given) is very easy to understand for any Christian who believes that a given person “has got the Holy Ghost” and Catholic commentators could have used the conclave as a way to show our belief and the Holy Spirit’s presence. The selection of Pope John Paul II would have also been an opportunity to explain that as a look back. I’m increasingly aware of how embarrassed too many Catholics are at acknowledging the Holy Spirit in their own Church. I hear more about the Holy Spirit in my praise and worship CD’s than I do from Catholic apologists. So the misunderstanding about papal infallibility is part of that overall failure in proper faith formation and communicaton.

[Cristina A. Montes]

"Basically he said we would be surprised at how much of a person's theological outlook is determined by their personality."

If you look at the lives of the saints, you'd be surprised at how different they are from each other, and yet, they all are part of the Roman Catholic Church. You'd also be surprised at the diversity of spiritualities within the Catholic Church, all of which are united in worship, faith, and authority.

[Carl Olson]

I hear more about the Holy Spirit in my praise and worship CD’s than I do from Catholic apologists.

I hope you mean "some Catholic apologists." After all, I did write, above: "Where does Scripture indicate that once the New Testament canon was established, that the authority that established it—the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit—loses that authority?"

But your point is well taken. However, my experience is that some Evangelicals never (and I mean NEVER) mention the Holy Spirit. And I've known some Pentacostals who rarely mention Jesus. One thing I appreciate about Catholic doctrine and liturgy is the Trinitarian reality is continually emphasized and brought to the fore, as it should be. For what it's worth...

[Jackson]

MMajor, I heard Fr. Neuhaus mention the Holy Spirit several times during the conclave.

One thing that both Catholics and Protestants need to do is read this sermon from John Henry Newman:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume1/sermon4.html

[Jackson]

Mr. Spencer is quite upset and feeling deeply sorry for himself because of Carl's "fisking." Look at his site. Among other things, he's getting rid of his Catholic books. Perhaps it's time to ask himself, "Might I be wrong?"

[Carl Olson]

His reaction is curious. And the accusation of fisking merely obscures that all I did was respond fairly and squarely to several of his points. Is that so hard to handle?

[Carl Olson]

Mike: Many thanks for your comments and kind words. They are appreciated. Although it appears that Michael Spencer has taken my comments in the wrong way, I am thankful that you and others are open to healthy and respectful discourse about these important issues.

"But just because it was the Catholic Church that established and perpetuated the faith for 1500 or 1600 hundred years doesn't necessarily mean it is the one true church."

Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church was the true church for 1500-1600 years, but then lost that position? Does this mean (as Mark Brumley points out above) that the gates of hell did prevail? Did Jesus establish more than one church, at different times? If the Catholic Church wasn't the one true church established by Jesus, what church did he establish? And how? I ask the questions sincerely, because the statement, if followed to logical conclusions, raises them.

"Basically he said we would be surprised at how much of a person's theological outlook is determined by their personality. Some people are inclined to the safety and authority of the Catholic Church, others are not."

There is some truth to this notion, but it only goes so far. For instance, I am a former Evangelical who became a Catholic ten years ago, and I know many (dozens) of former Evangelicals who are now Catholic. The range of personalities among even that relatively small group is tremendous: outgoing, introverted, studious, not so studious, emotional, stoic, insecure, confident, blue collar, white collar, artistic, etc., etc. What is fascinating is that the Catholic Church appealed to each of them in varied ways, but they were each ultimately drawn to her because of historical and theological assertions that they deemed to be true. For many of them, becoming Catholic was not a "safe" thing to do, nor was it easy, in many cases, to acknowledge the authority the Catholic Church claims to have been given by Jesus Christ. Oddly enough, when I was becoming Catholic, a Fundamentalist pastor (then a good friend of mine) told me I was doing it "for the attention." Yet others accused me of becoming Catholic because of a need for security. One long time family friend mused that I was attracted to the artistic aspect of Catholicism; another friend told me he figured I was taken in by the scholastic, logical elements of Catholic theology. Only a few of them took seriously my persistent claim that I became Catholic, in the end, because I believed the Catholic Church had been founded by Jesus Christ, had been guided and guarded for 2,000 years by the Holy Spirit, and that the Catholic Church is an essential part of the Father's plan of salvation for mankind.

Another problem with the personality argument (in addition to the fact that among 1 billion Catholics there is a tremendous range of personalities), is that when it is extended beyond Christianity, it can be used by some to say, "Well, some personalities are drawn to Buddhism, others to Islam, still others to Hinduism" and so forth. It can become, in other words, a way to deflecting attention from the fact that while our personalities are certainly drawn to certain types of experiences, ideas, arguments, and so forth, they cannot be used as excuses to ignore the truth.

Finally, we should always keep in mind that theology is not just man's theories about God, but man's engagement with divine revelation, with the final goal of knowing and understanding God to the degree granted by His grace. In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). 'Theology' refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and 'economy' to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life." (par 236)

This is significant because although there can be a variety of theological approaches, theology presupposes that God has revealed Himself in certain ways, and that He can be understood in certain ways. And that, in turn, points to the necessity of authority in order to define, clarify, and defend this divine revelation, which God did not simply pipe into everyone's PDAs, but revealed through His Son, who in turn entrusted it to the Apostles and the Church, who were given the Holy Spirit in order to continue on, throughout time, this authoritative work—again, the work of Christ—of defining, clarifying, and defending.

"The genie's out of the bottle and will stay so until Jesus comes again."

Which brings us back to the question of what happened between, say, A.D. 30 and A.D. 90. If Jesus established a single Church—assuming that He has a monogamous relationship with His Bride (cf., Eph. 5), what was that Church? Now, the Catholic Church readily acknowledges that Protestant communities possess many elements of grace and holiness, and Catholics should happily admit to that fact. But if Jesus desired unity and prayed that we would be one, would He establish a model of church that lacks an essential unity and is constantly fragmenting? Analogously, even when Old Testament Israel failed (and it happened often), did God repeatedly establish a different Israel? Or did He renew the one People of God that He had already established? Likewise, the new Israel, the Church (cf., Gal 6), is continually undergoing purification and even seeming death (see Chesterton's The Everlasting Man for a brilliant take on that notion), but always remains the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, founded by Jesus upon the Rock of Peter and entrusted to the Apostles and their successors.

There is much more, of course, but I hope that suffices for the moment as an attempt to further flesh out thoughts that I expressed in my post.

[Pastor Astor]

I long for a time where we can learn from each other, hear one another out, see each other as brothers and sisters instead of as members of the opposing team.

[Mark Brumley]

What a bunch of interesting posts. Of course I didn't expect my summary of why I am no longer a Protestant to be a comprehensive statement of the case.

Keep up the discussion.

[Jackson]

Here's the post I was referring to when I said he's feeling sorry for himself:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/a-better-writer-gets-a-turn

[Wolf N. Paul]

Carl:

You dismiss Mike's comments about the Catholic Church not necessarily being the one true church by suggesting that in that case Jesus would not be monogamous. That does not lack a certain humorous quality, but in view of the fact that the Catholic Church herself recognizes SOME bodies as "sister churches" it falls a bit flat.

Apparently it is possible, in Catholic thought, to distinguish between THE CHURCH and particular churches (even ones which do not recognize the Pope's jurisdiction); the disagreement would be whether Protestant churches are such particular churches, and since Dominus Iesus and the recent clarification from the CDF all of us know what the Catholic position on that is.

Anyway, I suggest that your quip about Jesus' implied polygamy is ultimately about as funny and intelligent as the statements by anti-Catholic Protestant agitators that Catholics must be cannibals because they eat flesh every Sunday. It purposely misunderstands the other person's position in the worst possible way. I think it is particularly inappropriate because you as a former Evangelical know full well that Evangelicals do NOT believe that Jesus has MANY brides but that they believe that all Christians, regardless of their denominational affiliation, are members of the one Body of Christ.

[iMonk]

Mr. Olson,

Please note the second line of my post:

>(And let me be sure to say that Olson’s piece was not a personal attack on me or offensive. He’s more than welcome to state his faith and use my post as fodder.)

[Josh S]

According to Catholic dogma, does Scripture have authority primarily because
a) It is divinely inspired and has God as its author
or
b) Because the Church said so?

[Maddie]

I find Spencer's response totally bizarre. I understand that he doesn't care to go down the apologetics road - because enough people are already doing that, for sure. But if he spends time critiquing Catholicism, why aren't Catholics allowed to respond?

The theme of his blog sometimes seems to be "Why I am not a Catholic even though there are things I like about Catholicism."

I really don't understand why Catholics aren't allowed to say, "The things you don't like about Catholicism? Well, I like 'em - and let me tell you why" without IMonk running screaming from the room tossing his Ignatius Press books out the window as he goes.

I hope he keeps "Church and Community," though.

I've lost a lot of respect for IMonk. He *doesn't* want to be a bridge builder because he really doesn't want to listen to an deeply informed perspective from the Catholic side.

[Michael A]

I find it funny that people actually believe that the RCC had a monopoly on worship for 1500 years. I know many Eastern Orthodox and Coptic believers who would beg to differ. Despite the century or so of mutual excommunications and territorial battles, there never has been one single Church in existence since shortly after the apostolic period. That the bishop of Rome outshone the Patriarch of Constantinople has much to do with geography, economics and military might and little to do with Jesus being monogomous. Are we to conclude that God's sovereignty somehow diminishes when the power plays of men take place?

I agree with an earlier poster regarding the canon. It's laughable to say that the canon did not exist prior to 400. It was not created then - merely affirmed.

[Ted]

Yes, Michael, the canon existed in 150 AD, as we have it now, accessible to all Christians.

and as for the RCC position on the Orthodox? You need to inform yourself a little bit. Two lungs and all that.

[Mike D'Virgilio]

Hi Carl. I left yesterday and there were 5 comments and now they're are 25. I very much appreciate your certitude about the Catholic Church, and your arguments are cogent and carry some power. Very impressive, actually. A cousin of mine who I "led to Christ" became a Catholic again a few years ago and your arguments are much of what I've heard him say as well. It's stuff like this that has caused many Evangelicals to become Catholics. However, there are a whole lot of Catholics that have become Evangelical as well and they are just as persuaded in their leaving as others going.

Anyway, I wanted to clarify one point you addressed from my earlier comment that I think you misunderstood. Of course every kind of personality is represented in any church. It wasn't so much personality type I was getting at, but something deeper and more difficult to define. I guess it can be said this way. Human beings possess reason and use logic, but that does not mean that reason and logic are always utilized to reach conclusions. There are certain inclinations that are simply more powerful and cause one person to view a proposition or evidence one way and another person to come to a completely different conclusion. What seems so incredibly obvious to me simply isn't to the next person. This is part of personality, but not the whole thing. As I've gotten older I'm much less dogmatic, and I believe God's mercy and grace are much more expansive than any of us can fathom, and that he uses every permutation of his Church to accomplish his will.

[Mike D'Virgilio]

One more comment. I just read Mr. Spencer, and I feel sorry for the guy. What a shame he has to take this all so personally. The man needs to get some callous if he's going to put his thoughts out to the world.

[nick]

Mr Olson,

In responding to Mr Hollenbach, you noted that the Mexican church's abuses of Catholicism were not near as abusive as those of Corinth. Though I would certainly agree with the argument, it is difficult to do so when I don't see a Catholic "Paul" within the institutional structure of the church standing up against them.

To clarify, if the recent popes were vigorously denouncing the idolatry of Mexican Catholics, I think you'd find many Protestants finding more respect and honor for the church. Too many people see Mexican Catholicism as a reflection of the whole, merely because the whole doesn't reject it.

Finally, I would love to join the Catholic church as I recognize it in the US. But the last thing I want to do is join a US faction (differing vitally from the whole just as the Mexican group supposedly differs from the whole). Does this make sense?

[Carl Olson]

Anyway, I suggest that your quip about Jesus' implied polygamy is ultimately about as funny and intelligent as the statements by anti-Catholic Protestant agitators that Catholics must be cannibals because they eat flesh every Sunday. It purposely misunderstands the other person's position in the worst possible way. I think it is particularly inappropriate because you as a former Evangelical know full well that Evangelicals do NOT believe that Jesus has MANY brides but that they believe that all Christians, regardless of their denominational affiliation, are members of the one Body of Christ.

However flippant my comment might have initially appeared, it was not meant as a mere quip, nor was it disingenious in any way. Yes, as a former Evangelical I think I understand many of the varying Evangelical ecclesiologies quite well. But my response was specifically addressed to the implication in Mike's remark that the Catholic Church had, at one time (until A.D. 1517?) been the " one true church", but now no longer is that church. Which means there has been at least two "one true churches," (if I might abuse grammar so). As an Eastern rite Catholic who has friends who are Eastern Orthodox, I know full well the difference between the Church and particular churches; but that wasn't the topic of conversation above. Put this way: I wasn't responding to J.I. Packer, or Darrell Bock, or (insert Evangelical theologian name here), but to Mike's remarks.

As you know, Catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology is quite different from that of Evangelicalism in general (it's hard to be specific, since there such a vast range of Evangelical opinions re: the nature and identity of the Church). Yes, Evangelicals believe, at least in certain sense, in "one Church," but in reality and practice, it's difficult (impossible, I think) to reconcile that view with the fragmented and contentious nature of Protestant Christianity. To appeal to the matter of Catholicism and Orthodoxy only highlights the problem, because there is far more that unites Catholics and Orthodox (especially apostolic succession and the Eucharist), than divides (essentially, the Papacy), even if relations have often been cold and acrimonious.

Put another way, regarding Mike's remarks, my question is this: If the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Jesus established the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church was the "one true Church" for 1500 years, what happened to the marital relationship between Jesus and the Church in, say, 1517? Did he "divorce" the Catholic Church? Separate from her? Did he take another Bride?

The Catholic view makes far more sense because it asserts the ongoing unity of the Church (as indicated in the statement, from Lumen Gentium that the Church founded by Christ "subsists in the Catholic Church"), while also asserting that there are particular Churches (the Eastern Orthodox and ancient Oriental Churches) that are considered to be "sister Churches" (as you note). Yet the recent CDF document states, in that regard: "However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." And, as we all know, that document reaffirmed that Protestant communities are not, speaking in formal theological terms, not particular or sister churches, even though "elements of sanctification and truth ... are present in them".

[padraighh]

Bruce,

Strange that you are in Mexico to convert the poor benighted Catholics,
apparently you think they're not Christians. Something like
the pharisee "Thank God I am not like these Mexicans."

There are by the way many people in the world who have never heard of
Christ Jesus. You might try taking the Gospel to them
rather than cherry picking Catholics.