If a reformed person visits sedevacantist websites like MHFM [“Most Holy Family Monastery”], I think such a person would be hardened more against the current RCC and the chances of converting to the RCC will drop. Reading sedevacantist/traditionalist arguments was one thing that kept me from seriously considering the RCC.
Roman Catholicism has lots of high profile ins-and-outs. Here are just a few of them:
The former Roman Catholic priest Addison Hart said:
Second, as an Anglican priest who, with high ideals but considerably lower savvy, "poped" back in 1997, all I can say to those who may be thinking likewise is this: Unless you know in your heart you can believe in such super-added dogmas as papal supremacy and infallibility (very late inventions), that Jesus did not need to possess "faith" during his earthly years (to which I respond, was he or was he not fully human?), and that the bread and wine physically change into his body and blood during the Eucharist without any palpable evidence of it; unless you can believe in Mary's "Immaculate Conception" (an unnecessary and unverifiable belief, if ever there was one), her bodily assumption, and so on, then I would urge you to stay put. You already have everything you need, and, what Rome would add to you, you not only do not need, but should positively avoid weighing yourselves down with. Anglicanism is doctrinally sound and blessed with great forms of worship. Rome is neither. As for Rome's claims to a vastly superior moral authority -- well, I would venture to say that after such revelations as clerical sexual abuse on an international scale and their bank's money-laundering, the lie has been put to that.
No, don't make my mistake. I wouldn't make it again myself, and, as it is, I'm making my way out the Roman door.
Just a word to the wise.
There are other “big name” converts to Roman Catholicism in recent years who have “slipped out the back door”. These include:
Rod Dreher: a former writer and columnist for the Dallas Morning News, he became Roman Catholic with some great fanfare in 1993. His Wiki says:
He wrote widely in the Catholic press, but covering the Roman Catholic Church’s child sex abuse scandal, starting in 2002, led him to question his Catholicism, and on October 12, 2006, he announced his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy. Dreher is married and the father of three children. At the time, Dreher had argued that the scandal was not so much a "pedophile problem", but that the "sexual abuse of minors is facilitated by a secret, powerful network of gay priests" referred to as the Lavender Mafia.
On April 10, 2010, Dreher blogged about the abuse scandals (italics in the original):
They all did it -- by which I mean, virtually the entire hierarchy is complicit to a greater or lesser degree in shuffling child-molesting priests around, or keeping them in some way in a position to commit their crimes. Why? Clericalism. The clerical class is what mattered most to these people, not the children and their families, to whom they were functionally indifferent... if anybody thinks Pope Benedict should resign, they should sober up and understand that there is almost certainly nobody under him who is untainted by this thing. This was the way the hierarchy operated for a very long time. At least this current pope seems to have at long last been enlightened about the scope of this catastrophe. But he is not doing enough to make it right. What is it going to take?
Alvin Kimel: Wrote a now-defunct blog called “the Pontificator” and was a well-regarded staple in a number of Roman Catholic discussions. Steve commented on him in 2005:
In disputes like this, it is appropriate to invoke the solemn authority of Pontificator’s First Law: “When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses.” Perhaps Pontificator needs to formulate a new law: “When an interpretation of Scripture violates Pontificator’s First Law, it just can’t be right.” Hmmm, I need to give that some more thought before putting it in stone.
As the image nearby shows, his old “Pontifications.net” is unused and now carries ads for, among other things, “natural sex lubricant”. Hmmm...
Gerry Matatics: Matatics was a Catholic Convert before my decision to leave Rome was even a twinkle in my eye – there are Gerry Matatics debates at aomin.org from as early as 1992. He has given up on Vatican II Catholicism, and he says things like this:
At each venue I speak on “Counterfeit Catholicism: Why Vatican II, the New Mass, and Benedict XVI Are Not What They Claim to Be.” I try to provide everything necessary to help the audience understand the magnitude of the current crisis in Catholicism, the worst ever in the 2,000-year history of the Church.
Robert Sungenis was another old-timer who made Roman Catholic converts swoon back in the day. But James Swan has been tracking him, and the trajectory is not pretty:
I, [Robert Sungenis], being an independent Catholic theologian, am able to penetrate a little more deeply and be much more critical, as I have always done in this apostolate. Although some still regard me as a "Catholic apologist," unlike Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers I no longer consider myself an apologist for the modern Catholic Church. When compared to the Catholic Church of tradition, I have resolved that the modern Catholic Church will be required to stand on its own, for I simply cannot defend it any longer. There are simply too many doctrinal aberrations and moral laxities in today's Catholic Church that are indefensible.
Let’s don’t forget the recent Pew Survey that noted that “roughly one-third of those who were raised Catholic have left the church, and approximately one-in-ten American adults are former Catholics”. And as James Swan has written, among those who are staying “fewer than 20% attend Mass on Sundays”.
And in the appropriately funny line of the day, he says: “Perhaps calling their fellow brethren to actually attend communion would be a more consistent use of CTC's bandwidth.”
Sure would be interesting and fun if one of the CTC guys left Roman Catholicism.
ReplyDeleteI'll start taking the RCC seriously when they actually get around to disciplining even one of the many high-profile pro-abortion and pro-homosexual politicians in their midst.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'd take them seriously unless they made it a strict policy and we could watch them observing it for a long, long time.
DeleteBut maybe I wouldn't even take them seriously at that point.
If a reformed person visits sedevacantist websites like MHFM [“Most Holy Family Monastery”], I think such a person would be hardened more against the current RCC and the chances of converting to the RCC will drop.
ReplyDeleteAMEN! AMEN! AMEN! AND AMEN!!!!
I always thought the same thing because it shows the internal inconsistencies of (modern) Catholic claims. And the hallmark of truth is consistency. That's why the inconsistencies of Catholicism found by people Gerry Matatics, David Waltz, Jason Engwer et al. are so useful. The average person can't understand deep theological reasons for why Catholicism is false. But the average person can understand inconsistencies and errors. One can shelter themselves from the truth by using the profundity of theology/philosophy (e.g. Stellman). But the same can't be said when they are confronted by and required to address clear contradictions or inconsistencies.
Having said that, there is still an *absolute* need for refuting Catholicism using theology, history and philosophy. That's what I so love about your contributions John (Bugay). No need for you to comment on my commment John. You do so much and are so busy. So don't waste your time commenting on my two cents worth for this or any other future comment of mine unless you feel you have to.
Let’s don’t forget the recent Pew Survey...
ReplyDeleteAnd
James Swan has written..
Those added to the fact that fewer and fewer Catholic men are entering the priesthood, I think there's a real possibility of finally destroying Catholicism in the next generation or two. Or at least eliminating Catholicism as an influential force that must be reckoned with in the areas of religion, theology, and politics as has been the case for past thousand years or so. If Catholicism were destroyed, most (admittedly not all) of the good and great things in Catholicism can continue to be used and promoted by Protestants as they have been these past 500 years. Protestants could continue to glean wonderful things from Catholic theologians, liturgy and tradition.
There's a lot of good in Catholicism, but their goodness don't depend on (i.e. supported by) the errors in Catholicism. I love Catholics. I think one can be saved as a Catholic but it's very difficult. Because while there's enough truth in it for one to be saved, there's so many errors and traditions of men that nullify, make void, and dilute the truth of God. A man dying of thirst might keep from dying by drinking from a dirty polluted pond (i.e. human tradition). But it's better to drink from a crystal clear flowing river whose purified water melted from the mountaintops (i.e. Holy infallible Scripture). Ad Fontes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hi Annoyed -- I was recently in a RCC for a baptism for a relative, and they had up a poster showing all of the local seminarians. There were more than I would have expected. So I don't think "destruction" is in the cards.
DeleteMy hope is first of all, to help individual people see what they're dealing with. To slow down the Stellmans and to perhaps ease the travels of those who are leaving. I would also hope that cumulatively, such things would at least be visible and put pressure on those in Rome, although it's hard to know if anyone "important" reads Triablogue. Maybe they've seen some of the stuff we've written in the bowels of some Ecumenical outreach department.
But I do see what I do here as a long-term effort. I know from personal experience that it can take years to decide to leave Rome. There's just that sense, "they're so big, they're so old, they just can't be as bad as Bugay says they are".
I do think you are right about "the average person" will see the inconsistencies - although for Jason Stellman, he was definitely impressed by the "star power" of the PhD's over there. I think ultimately, it was an intellectual inferiority complex on his part that lured him over there. As if he was thinking he would pick up some of their "intelligence" by hanging out with them.
But it's better to drink from a crystal clear flowing river whose purified water melted from the mountaintops (i.e. Holy infallible Scripture).
DeleteAs interpreted by..?
Good points John.
DeleteBut I do see what I do here as a long-term effort.
John [and to all the Triabloggers], be encouraged that it's not uncommon for the majority of the results or our spiritual efforts to happen much later or even after our passing. That's the nature of sowing and reaping. There's always an interval of waiting for the harvest. For example, I think of how Cotton Mather and his generation prayed and planted the seeds for revival and how the Great Awakening hit just after his death. Or how St. Monica's years of praying produced the greatest post Biblical theologian in the first millennium of the Christian era. Or how A.W. Pink was relatively unknown or rejected during his lifetime on account of his sticking to his convictions. Yet his writings have had far greater impact posthumously. Authors often don't realize just how important an impact their writings will make while they are writing their works. I'm reminded of how surprised Richard Baxter was by the fruit resulting from his writing The Saint's Everlasting Rest and A Call to the Unconverted. Another great example is when an Augustinian monk nailed 95 theses in Latin (not the vernacular) on the door of a Castle Church for his fellow scholars to discuss in their Ivory Towers. ;-) Examples could be multiplied.
Crude, as interpreted by the person who reads the Bible with the illumination of the Holy Spirit and in light of past Christian tradition and interpretation.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCrude, as interpreted by the person who reads the Bible with the illumination of the Holy Spirit and in light of past Christian tradition and interpretation.
DeleteSounds like something a Catholic would say.
Really though - alright. Is there a group of people who have pulled this off? A church you can point to? Clearly the Catholics are doing it wrong. How about the Anglicans? Presbyterians? Baptists?
Crude, rather than look for a particular denomination, I'd think the "group" you are looking for is much more subtle. And I would place an important locus of this group (not "the" locus) in and around confessional Protestantism the first two centuries of the Reformation. I think we can learn a lot from those groups.
DeleteAnd in answer to your question "As interpreted by..?", the answer has to be Christians of good faith -- among “the fixed number of the saints predestined before the foundation of the world”. That's Luther and Calvin, but also Augustine.
The Roman Institutional church showed us of the pure ability of an institution to rot, but the people still heard the Scriptures and turned to Christ within that world. And to a lesser degree, other institutions have certainly failed ("mainstream" Protestants) -- but there are always renewal efforts because God is still cranking out that "fixed number of the saints".
Wow, you are a Traditionalist Catholic? Which flavor are you?
DeleteI am not a Roman Catholic of any type. I think the "traditionalists" are as bad as the post-modern Vatican II types. May they continue to work to cancel each other out.
DeleteCrude, rather than look for a particular denomination, I'd think the "group" you are looking for is much more subtle. And I would place an important locus of this group (not "the" locus) in and around confessional Protestantism the first two centuries of the Reformation. I think we can learn a lot from those groups.
Delete"Groups we can learn a lot from" wasn't the standard. I was asking what crystal clear flowing river whose purified water melted from the mountaintops (aka Holy Scripture) cashed out to. Where is this interpretation? Who has it? Point me at it.
But no one will point me at it, beyond vague, broad gestures - 'Christians of Good Faith', who I suppose have no disagreements among themselves. You won't give me the pure standard, because you either don't think it exists, or you know that if you do think it exists, just about every other anti-Catholic will come to (virtual) blows over their disagreements on that point. You're bluffing, and I'm calling your bluff.
And, Catholic as I am, I'm not here to convert you all to Catholicism. My point is to argue that strident anti-Catholicism is silly, and the idea that Catholicism is some kind of horrendously muddied sewage-source compared to a "pure, crystal water" or the like falls apart the moment you look at it. The best you can say is that, much like the various protestants you lot disagree with, they get some things wrong in your view, and they've had crappy people in positions of power.
But that wouldn't work for you, Bugay. You have a personal animus about the Church you belonged to (I suppose you were just the worst kind of sucker for years, eh?), and you will back any group - liberals, gay priests, etc - so long as you think it will do harm to the Catholic Church.
Take a long, hard look at what animates you, gents. It's one thing to think the Church is wrong. It's another to be a pawn in Bugay's personal vendetta, or anyone else's. Why not regard the Catholic Church like it seems a protestant - with all the protestant denominations that exist nowadays - should? Namely as a church that gets some things wrong, and some things right.
Drop the inane campaign. It's not Luther v Pope anymore.
The Roman Institutional church showed us of the pure ability of an institution to rot
Christianity and Judaism has had rot in it since the start, and that's one of the clearest Biblical truths around. Good luck on your search for the sinless, I suppose.
And to a lesser degree, other institutions have certainly failed ("mainstream" Protestants)
Lesser? Please.
Crude, you are the one looking for the "pure streams". The only pure streams come from God. The Protestants are the ones pointing people in that direction. That's the best we can do on earth. It is Rome that is pointing people away. Hiding those pure streams, mis-directing people with such things as the Marian dogmas and papal infallibility [which surely does not and cannot exist].
DeleteThe "animus" that I have has less to do with any particular Roman dogma, as it does with Rome's assertion that it has always had correct dogma, and that it will not lead believers astray. It has, in fact, screwed up its doctrines royally, then bound consciences to those screw-ups, over many lifetimes. And worse still, it has no inclination to repent from any of this, precisely because of its claims of "infallibility". It has dug itself into a rut, and we need to continue to pile on whatever earth we can use to cover it up in that rut of its own making.
Hi Crude.
DeleteYour blog says that you are a Traditionalist and Orthodox. Which flavor are you? What is your view of other Traditionalists/Modern RCC/Non-Catholic Christians?
Your blog also says that you are a Theistic Evolutionist and Naturalist. So what is your view of Genesis/Creation? Is Theistic Evolution "orthodox" according to the Pope/your church leader?
I was asking what crystal clear flowing river whose purified water melted from the mountaintops (aka Holy Scripture) cashed out to.
DeleteTo affirm the purity and infallibility of Scripture doesn't mean that humans will infallibly interpret it. Protestants have been saying this from the beginning. For example, a textbook on math that's free from error doesn't ensure that all the children who read it will come to error-free interpretations of the book. Various factors come into play as to the degree to which they properly interpret it. The same is true of when interpreting Scripture. People bring preconceptions to the Bible along with sinful biases. People read the Bible as sinners and to the degree that their sinfulness affects their reasoning they will interpret Scripture incorrectly. People read Scripture by varying intellectual aptitudes and abilities. People read it with varying degrees of education, accessible information, and at different Christian periods/eras with their attendant advantages and disadvantages. People are able to read the Scriptures with or without being able to stand on the shoulders and insights of previous generations of Christians and Christian theologians.
Where is this interpretation? Who has it? Point me at it.
Paul says in Eph. 4:13ff.
13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ..........
Protestants can also affirm a form of doctrinal development. For example, it took time for the Church to hammer out and formulate: the doctrines of the Trinity, the nature of the hypostatic union of Christ, anti-Pelagianism and anti-Semi-Pelagianism, explicitly the principle of Sola Scriptura, precisely the doctrine of justification etc.
Paul in the passage prophetically states that it would take time for the Church to fully mature doctrinally. So, there's no point in you asking for me to point out one church that has the correct doctrine on absolutely every subject. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:19 " for there must be factions ["heresies" in the KJV] among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized." Down the centuries, in the history of the Church, God providentially allows heresies and heretics to come to the forefront so that the Church can properly formulate the truth in contradistinction from error. This is a process that didn't end at Christ's resurrection. For example, even the Apostolic Church still needed to grow in it's understanding of the implications of the Gospel with respect to how it applied to Gentiles (cf. Acts 15), in it's relation and contrast to the Law (cf. the books of Romans, Galatians, Colossians and 1 Corinthians on the issues of the Sabbath, circumcision, eating meats offered to idols etc.).
It hardly needs to be said that the Holy Spirit can save someone with imperfect doctrine (cf. Luke 23:42-43). If that's the case, then God 1. could be moving in, 2. live in the midst of, and 3. approvingly bless and use doctrinally imperfect congregations and denominations.
DeleteChristianity and Judaism has had rot in it since the start, and that's one of the clearest Biblical truths around. Good luck on your search for the sinless, I suppose.
DeleteAnd yet you ask for a doctrinally pure Church. It's Protestants who are being consistent with the realities (and impact) associated with the sinfulness of the believers that make up the Church; NOT Catholicism. For a time, Peter by his behavior implicitly contradicted the true Gospel (cf. Gal. 2:14). That's why the Catholic concept of Papal Infallibility is SO evil in that it's possible for a Pope to be extremely wicked and yet legitimately still be the "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church." Since, it's repeatedly touted that Papal Infallibility doesn't require Papal Impeccability. No Protestant requires impeccability on the part of a genuine man of God. But come on, he should at least be better than the worst of non-Christians. I cannot understand how anyone could remain a Catholic knowing that there have been extremely evil popes that have headed and lead the supposed one true Church (e.g. Pope Alexander VI, Pope Damasus I, Pope Sergius III et cetera, etc.).
John Bugay: "... although for Jason Stellman, he was definitely impressed by the "star power" of the PhD's over there. I think ultimately, it was an intellectual inferiority complex on his part that lured him over there."
ReplyDeleteStellman wasn't impressed with the Ph.D's of his Radical 2-Kingdom buddies D.G. Hart, R.Scott Clark, Michael Horton, and David Van Drunen?
Truth -- They didn't bother to try to twist his mind into knots. He could feel as if he was their equal.
DeleteBut Jason himself didn't have the intellectual goods to interact with Cross, Liccione et al. He was "awe-inspired". That's how I see his "sucker punch" line. He never figured it out, and I don't think he wanted to.
Interesting that al-Kimel has gone straight through Rome like an arrow and onwards through to Byzantium (well, Moscow, these days - the Third Rome, since the Second is under the dominion of the Turk these days). I used to follow Pontifications back when he was still Anglican and wrestling with the central question of the Christian faith, vide, which episcopally-governed church is the most Catholic? (It was not as tautologous as it might sound that he ended up Roman Catholic at that point, since a lot of High Anglicans would argue that they are actually the most Catholic of the options on the table, no pun intended).
ReplyDeleteCatholics at Mark Shea's blog (my main source of information on matters Catholic) were exulting over Pontificator's First Law when AK first promulgated it. Many received it with great eagerness it as if it were a passage of Scripture: some even went further and treated it almost like a snappy anti-Protestant soundbite from Newman Himself. I did ask some of them whether the First Law might ever conceivably work to the disadvantage of Rome (eg, the fact that the Orthodox reject papal fallibility and have done so long before Henry VIII commissioned Luther to rewrite the Scofield Reference Bible to legitimise the use of contraception by polygamous homosexual Mormons): it will not shock anyone here familiar with the Catholic apologetics blogosphere to learn that the answer was no - dissent by the Orthodox can never work to Roman Catholicism's disadvantage.
Thanks for sharing this Tom. I'd continue to bring up the Nestorians and the Copts, but they've been run over by Islam.
DeleteMoffett provides a good bit of information about the 8th century Nestorian church under the patriarch Timothy in his "History of Christianity in Asia":
"Timothy 1 (779-821 or 778-823), who came from Adiabene, the ancient seat of the earliest Persian Christians, was the greatest of all the patriarchs who served under [and debated] the caliphate. The year of his debate, probably 781, was also the year that saw the erection of the Nestorian monument in China and so may well mark not only a peak in intercommunication between Islam and Christianity, but also the height of Nestorian influence in the second half of the first Christian millennium in Asia's two greatest empires, Abbasid Arabia and T'ang China".
Moffett notes this "power of the Nestorian missionary outreach must never be attributed to the ecclesiastical center of the church, the patriarchate, as to its centers of spiritual renewal in the monasteries".
It might have been a different world, if Rome and Constantinople hadn't been so full of their own authority as to have simply cut off that whole "other lung" of Christianity in that day.
It is the claim "we have authority from God", I think, that has been the most harmful impulse to Christianity over the centuries.