Friday, March 04, 2016

The One True Cult

The standard slam against Protestants is that we have so many denominations. You have Catholic apologists who inveigh against "ecclesiastical consumerism" or even "ecclesiastical promiscuity". 

That's set in invidious contrast to the notion that Christ established a single visible church–which just so happens to correspond to the church of Rome. 

But let's consider a basic problem with that alternative. If you think there is only one church, which happens to be your particular denomination (e.g. Rome), then that commits you in advance to defending that institution no matter what. You are struck with that denomination regardless of what it's leaders say and do. You swear it your unconditional fealty. You become soldiers for your denomination. You will stick up for your denomination no matter what actually goes on in your denomination. If there's only one true church, then it's that or nothing. Rome or bust. 

Yes, you may offer throwaway concessions about wrongdoing, but that can never lead to you to question your totalitarian allegiance to your particular denomination. It can never become too bad for you to walk away. It can never become too evil for you to stop defending it. It's classic fanaticism: my church right or wrong. That's because they have no fallback. 

We see this in how Catholic apologists respond to the never-ending stream of new revelations about the priestly abuse scandal. Or how they constantly make excuses for Pope Francis. They will not allow anything to shake their faith in Rome. If the pope performed a weekly child sacrifice at St. Peter's basilica, they'd assure you that does nothing to discredit the institution. 

Catholic apologists have no moral independence. It's like a stark version of divine command theory. Good and evil are whatever Rome says. There's no external check. Rome itself is the standard of comparison. Catholic apologists have trapped themselves in the unbreakable circle of cultic authority. You can never leave the cult, for the cult-leader defines what is right and wrong.  

10 comments:

  1. This post is spot-on. Another way you see this is when it comes to private interpretation. The Council of Trent, Vatican I, and even Vatican II forbid the use of private interpretation. RC apologists will counter that they can use private interpretation so long as it doesn't lead to interpretations that are counter to RC teaching. But this is silly - it's not really private interpretation if you're only allowed to come to magisterial conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Led,

    That's no more silly than Christ and the Apostles condemning private judgment/interpretation of OT scriptures by Jews and non-believers that ran counter to their teaching. RCC sets parameters and boundaries via its dogmatic definitions; if all private interpretation was outlawed then there could never be doctrinal development and theological/spiritual discussion and literature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are entering the phase of "development" now when homosexual marriage is approved, there ARE exceptions to the "no exceptions" rule on birth control, divorced and remarried people will be re-admitted to communion, "the Church" will soon be ordaining married men -- all with papal approval. Exciting times! Great to have such a front-row view of how "development" actually works.

      Delete
    2. Cletus, if you wish to retain the privilege to leave comments at Tblog, don't repeat stale arguments from the Beggars All thread that I refuted in detail.

      Delete
    3. Christ and the Apostles didn't condemn their "private interpretation," but in fact putting their man-made tradition on par with divine revelation (Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:9).

      Delete
  3. John,

    You are arguing against a straw man. Please provide evidence for your claims: "homosexual marriage is approved, there ARE exceptions to the "no exceptions" rule on birth control, divorced and remarried people will be re-admitted to communion". Beware becoming a mouthpiece for the secular media. Also, there are now and have been for many centuries married Catholic priests. The Eastern Rite Catholic Churches and Anglican Ordinariate allow such practice. Please better appreciate the distinction between dogma and discipline before making such fallacious claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean Tracey, you obviously don't understand the difference between my "making an argument" and my "laughing at you". Your Good Pope Francis is himself allowing himself to be THE mouthpiece for the secular media. As Vincent has outlined below, the official distinction between dogma and discipline is being ignored by many in the Roman "Church" who have far greater official rank than you have. You need to be protesting at them, not at me. And by the way, you have provided the perfect illustration here of Steve's OP.

      Delete
    2. It is much more difficult to make reasoned arguements supported by evidence than to spout pedantic diatribes. "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect" How does making false and unsubstantiated claims lead one further to truth or draw to Christ through love those you intend to debase? If your intent is self satisfactory slander, you succeed, if truth, you are keft wanting.

      Delete
    3. Sean Tracey -- for example:

      http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/03/same-sex-civil-unions-in-italy.html

      The approval of homosexual pseudo-marriage in the Senate on February 25th 2016, with 173 in favor, 71 against and 76 abstentions is the last stage in the process of dissolution of Italian society which began with the introduction of divorce (1970), then the legalization of abortion (1978) and has as its next, imminent step, the legalization of euthanasia. With that in mind, we understand the exaltation of the secular press: “In the long and tortuous history of sexual liberation in Italy – writes Francesco Merlo in “La Repubblica”, February 26th – this law has the same epochal importance as the law on divorce and the law that regulates abortion”.

      What these three events have in common is an act of betrayal committed by men in Catholic government. Divorce passed under a centre-left government presided over by the Christian Democrat, Emilio Colombo. Abortion was passed by a Christian Democrat government, presided over by Giulio Andreotti. The Christian Democrats were brought down, yet the principal figures responsible for this new law, Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi and the Minister for Internal Affairs, Angelino Alfano depict themselves as practicing Catholics just like Colombo and Andreotti.


      What these things have in common is the tacit, if not the explicit approval of "Good Pope Francis", as Rorate also notes: "Pope Francis doesn't get involved in Italian politics. So, as the pope hid inside the Vatican, the Italian Senate passed a homosexual 'civil union' bill, all but ensuring it becomes law."

      Now, what can this pope's actions indicate, other than "development" in the permissibility of all of these very clear Roman Catholic distinctives? After all, we protestants, who don't have the papacy, also don't have "a principled means" to determine the hard edges between "divine revelation" and mere human opinion.

      Pope Francis is moving in very definite directions, and he himself has been "the mouthpiece" for these things.

      When it comes to "defending my faith", I do that with gentleness and respect. When it comes to watching how the this pope, this "visible head", is shooting the Roman Catholic Church in the foot, well, then, laughter is an appropriate response.

      Delete
  4. The number of Catholics defending Francis has dropped radically. Very few are still defending him at this stage. Many Catholics want him to resign or be deposed for the scandal he is causing. Its only Jimmy Akin and ETWN/ Catholic Answers crowd that are still playing make believe with Francis. Sites like the remnant and onepeterfive are calling them out for refusing to call a spade a spade when it comes to Francis. When it comes to private interpretion one can believe almost anything these days and still remain a RC in good standing. You can be a universalist like Rahner, an Arian that denies the trinity like Kung, or you can support gay marriage or abortion and Rome will still not get rid off you. Orthodoxy is hardly enforced in Rome these days. Look at all the liberals in Boston College that still remain good RCs. The concept of heresy or orthodoxy has become meaningless in the current post-Vatican II church.

    ReplyDelete