Caleb and Parson Howe suspect that I am either embracing a lowest common denominator Christianity or crossing the Tiber completely and embracing Rome.
They have misunderstood my intention. I remain a Protestant of the dappled and speckled variety and have no interest in Mc-Christianity or Wal-Church.
So what’s with all the Rome love? My intent is not to water down our theology but to help define who are friends our. My thesis is simple: Geneva is closer to Rome than it is to Wheaton (or Colorado Springs, or where ever the epicenter of evangelicalism is found).
First, it has always been my contention that the Reformed Church was part of the catholic church, not a pottage of squabbling sectarians. I have held this position despite all experience to the contrary (but that is a different matter). If Reformed and catholic are two different things, I would prefer the latter description for myself.
Despite my belief in the catholicity of the Reformed branch of Christendom, it appears to me that the Reformed churches are farther removed from historic catholic orthodoxy than they were in the days of Bucer and Calvin. We are more tribal than ever.
On the other side of the coin, when we start talking ecumenicalism, we start talking about evangelicalism. It’s too bad. Evangelicalism is a sad story. A-historical, anti-traditional, generally silly, evangelicalism will, in the long run, either return to more historical forms of the faith or will descend into liberalism. The Reformed churches have an uneasy relationship with evangelicalism. Darryl Hart and others press the thesis that the Reformed are NOT evangelicals. Protests to the contrary, the experience proves that the Reformed churches ARE a branch of conservative evangelism and this is a lamentable historical development.
Not that there have not been attempts to strengthen Reformed roots in greater evangelical soils. A century ago John Williamson Nevin and his partner in crime, Phillip Schaff were about the work. In our own day we find the Federal Vision trying to scratch the itch. Hartian High Church Presbyterianism is scratching the same red spot. I am not sure that either have found the balm that will solve the problem. An honest dialogue with other branches of historic, traditionalist orthodoxy may be useful.
I have not left Geneva… but I can see Rome from my front porch. It does not exactly look like home but it does seem familiar. Wheaton seems a bridge to far.
I am with you about 95% on this. I might quibble that we high protestants sometimes are too hard on evangelicals, and that we need also to be wary of making an -ism of the prudent and laudable disposition to respect tradition. But those are minor points. My main concern is that we see the tensions out there in the real world, and that we take pains to hold together both sides of beliefs that the reformers kept together. I freely admit there is plenty to like about the RCC. We can learn from the good there is in Rome, and we should not hesitate to embrace our Roman Catholic brethren in Christ. At the same time Rome gets certain things quite seriously wrong. Happily, some of the more grievous errors in doctrine have, in practice, become blurred with the passage of time. This has come at the price of inconsistency, or a consistency that plays games with history. In any case, the old offending dogmas have not been repudiated. The Tridentine canon that approves of rendering latria to the consecrated host remains binding (see, e.g., 55ff here). If we have reached the stage where we are content to wink at this, then I think we perhaps need to consider whether we might be over-correcting for the polemical excesses of earlier generations.
Iohannes,
As a Catholic I wonder, by what authority do you proclaim that the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Eucharist is wrong?
Greetings in Christ,
I believe doctrines can in principle be seen to be apostolic or not both before and apart from the Magisterium’s pronouncement. Church tradition is public, as St Irenaeus was keen to stress, and because it is public the Church’s teachers can be held to account for their teachings.
Tradition clearly supports belief in the real presence. But as Mozley shows, tradition does not bear out the peculiar features of the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist. The RCC has augmented the original tradition, and if the Church has no power to augment, then this move ought not to be accepted.
Pax tecum,
John
You’re a brave man, Pastor Chellis. Keep up the good work as a Reformed Catholic and resist anyone who tries to pull those two terms apart.
Thanks Christopher.
John,
Greetings to you as well.
So how can you be sure that Mozley is correct? Perhaps he missed some key aspect in his analysis. How would you determine if this were the case? What standard are you holding against the teachings of the Magisterium?
Hi Kevin,
I believe the Church’s tradition is open to all who wish to look into it. No one has a privileged ability to see what the deposit of faith contains. As a consequence, when the Church’s teachers decide a doctrinal question, the fact that their decision gets enforced does not put it beyond the possibility of scrutiny. For no standard is available to the rulers that is not also available to the people; any reasonably informed person can look at the case for a teaching and compare it to the historic tradition to assess the correspondence.
Whatever its difficulties, some ordinary, common sense reasoning of this kind seems inevitable. After all, no super-magisterium validates the authority of the Roman Magisterium. AA Hodge observed that it takes a private judgment to resolve to submit one’s judgment to the Church. So how do we judge that the Church of Rome is what she professes to be? It is by the like standard, I think, that Protestants find the Roman claims wanting.
Blessings in Christ,
John
I would agree that Christian tradition is open to all and that no individual can claim privilege regarding truths of the faith.
The Catholic Church does not rely on “enforcement” of beliefs to claim their validity and the Magisterium is not composed of “rulers”. The Church proclaims Her beliefs because they have been revealed to Her and She knows that they lead to Christ. Any person who wishes to be in union with the Church, and thus in union with Christ, should follow the teachings of the Church because they believe. The belief comes first. Obedience follows from the belief and in turn strengthens our belief.
The irony in your reasoning is that private, individual judgment of doctrine leads away from the freedom offered by Christ through his Bride, the Church. It places the focus of your belief on the self, which is always subject to the problem of sin, rather than on the standard, which is Christ through the Church.
The “super-magisterium” which validates the authority of the Catholic Church is Christ himself! Who said: “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. 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, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16-20)
If you find wanting the Catholic Church’s claim to be the inheritance of this proclamation made by Christ to Peter, then I would ask, what is the source of your suspicions? Are you beginning with the historical record of the Church? The Roman Catholic Church has documented evidence of all of the Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI. Do you dispute this?
It would seem that the Protestant understanding of the Church begins with the presupposition that the Catholic Church must be wrong. It’s where the word “Protestant” originates. If you are really searching for the truth then it is necessary to be sure that you are not beginning with a disposition toward discounting Catholicism.
Hi Kevin,
I have discussed these matters at some length with Dr Liccione. If you are cuious about my thoughts, you can look into the archives at his Perennis blog. Suffice it to say, I am not an apologist out to do battle against Rome. I rather like churchly, traditional, sacramental religion; my upbringing was as a Roman Catholic, and to that church most of my family belongs. Ill-disposition does not blind me to the truth of the doctrines like papal supremacy or infallibility. History simply does not provide straightforward support for these beliefs. Serious RC theologians–not just the liberals–have recognized this for years. They lose no sleep at night because they vindicate the weakly attested teachings through theories of development. If, like Protestants and Orthodox, you find these theories flawed, the case for Roman distinctives will not be very appealing.
God bless,
John
John,
Fair enough. I won’t ask you to recount your previous arguments (I realize that I’m a bit late to the table here).
How then do you, as a Protestant, understand the passage from Matthew 16: 16- 20?
My views on the passage are not strongly held. St Augustine in the Retractationes famously left open the question whether the rock was Peter, or the Christ whom Peter, representing the Church, confessed. Both interpretations seem reasonable to me. Indeed, we can agree that here and elsewhere Peter is seen at the head of the twelve.
Regarding the keys, there are various glosses. Isaiah 22 is often cited, and though it bears directly more on Revelation 3 than on Matthew 16, it does show the key in general to be a symbol of authority. Also relevant seem to be Luke 11:46,52 and Matthew 23:4,13, where we find language suggestive of binding, as well as talk of keys and of entrance to the kingdom of heaven.
From these passages it appears that the power of the keys includes the idea of solemnly opening the God’s kingdom to men by bringing them true knowledge of the way of salvation. If this is right, there is a natural reason why the keys should be especially associated with Peter. For it was by the apostle’s preaching that the kingdom was first opened with power to the Jews at Pentecost, and to the Gentiles at the conversion of Cornelius. God chose Peter for this role, something noted later at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:7.
Of course, I do not put this forward as the final word on the passage, but only as an illustration of how it might plausibly be read in light of the rest of holy scripture. Although Peter’s role as leader of the twelve is clear in the New Testament, it is a long journey from this to the package of doctrines Rome has adopted about the papacy. That is why the development theory treats the text in Matthew not so much as a proof of the papal office as rather a point of departure for process (guided by the Spirit) that led to the emergence of the papacy.
There is much to be said about the idea of papal primacy, and this is probably not the place to go into the details. FWIW, one distinction I think helpful is that of auctoritas, or weight of character and influence, and potestas, or formal, juridical authority. A person who is first among equals excels others in authority but not in power. In view of texts like Matthew 18, such a primus inter pares arrangement seems to approximate Peter’s status among the twelve. It also resembles the kind of primacy enjoyed by the Church of Rome in early times, a primacy in love for which there were several other causes besides incipient notions of a unique Petrine succession.
Anyhow, for an introduction to development thesis in relation to the papacy, I would recommend Klaus Schatz’s short book Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present. Schatz is a Jesuit and studied church history in Rome at the Gregorianum. He nicely summarizes the historical record, and there is little in his account that Protestants and Orthodox would dispute. The real disagreement is revealed to be about interpretation of the tradition, and as my friend Frank (Kepha) can tell you, that topic gives the thoughtful Christian much on which to reflect.