Joel, Roman Catholic author of On the Other Foot--a blog we've watched with some interest since Joel started blogging earlier this year, writes a post about Protestant apologetics from the viewpoint of a Roman Catholic.
Listed in the entry are five Protestant fallacies about Roman Catholicism Joel has come to recognize over the years. Those five, abridged from Joel's post, are these:
1) Mary--"It's simple: We don't worship Mary. Period. How hard is that to understand? I can't count the times I've gotten into the distinction between dulia and latria, typed until my fingers bled, and still been told, 'But it's still worship!'"
2) The Bible--"I've seen repeated examples where somebody will line up doctrine under the heading of 'What Rome Teaches' and proof-texts under 'What the Bible Says.' For cryin' out loud! Do you really think we don't have Bibles? ... We have a bookcase loaded with Bibles in different translations and commentaries on Scripture. Yet some yahoo is always convinced that being a Catholic, I must not know what's in the Bible, and if I would just read it, I would immediately see the error of my ways."
3) Conspiracy Theories--"Believe it or not, there's no great plot by the fabulously wealthy and powerful Vatican to subvert Christians into a Satanic cult. We're not sworn to secrecy at confirmation. Frankly if the Vatican were as powerful and sinister as some of the wilder theorists say, they would have been eliminated long ago."
4) Trent--"Trent is every Protestant's nightmare, an articulation of anathemas in which Protestant truths are blatantly denied and Biblical Christians condemned. Right? Wrong, actually. The Council of Trent was called (secondarily) to consider - not to condemn - the doctrinal issues raised by Luther and the other reformers...its first purpose was to address the abuses that drove Luther to nail his brain to the cathedral door in the first place.
5) "Christian"--"These days, 'Christian' is too often used as a synonym for 'Protestant,' as though Christianity began in 1517. 'Christian' bookstores, 'Christian' magazines, 'Christian' music... they're invariably Protestant-oriented, which only reinforces the meme. Believe it or not, we were there already. We're not 'sub-Christian,' we're certainly not 'anti-Christian,' and we're not 'non-Christian.' If we're not Christians, then you're not either, because like it or lump it, you came from us.
I would offer the following brief comments in response, taking Joel's points in order.
1) Mary. It's not enough to make a non-biblical distinction (point 2, we both go the Bible for authority, right?) between dulia and latria to win this argument. When your priests and people are bowing to a statue and praying to it, they're doing exactly what the Philistines did with their statues of Baal. If that's not worship, then I'm not a resident of Ohio because back in the 1800s, my region of Ohio declared independence and attached itself to Michigan. But the truth is, the lesser does not define the offense against the greater. Man does not define idolatrous worship. God does.
Joel is just wrong on this one. I'm concerned that Protestants aren't concerned about their image worship, and ours is less blatant than this one.
2) Scripture. Yes, Roman Catholics have the Bible. But Joel is approaching this as a relatively recent Protestant convert to Roman Catholicism. Even just thirty years ago the Roman Catholic attitude toward common people studying the Bible was markedly negative. I was asked as a Protestant seminarian to lead a Bible study in a Roman Catholic nursing home by a Renew-movement Roman Catholic in the mid-1980s explicitly because I was Protestant and would actually teach the Bible. The attitude of Roman Catholicism toward laity and the Scripture has been changing, but not entirely and only relatively recently. And, if we're honest, one of the primary reasons for this change has been the influence of Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism from Cardinal Newman on through some of today's prominent Roman Catholic apologists.
Finally, however, the great shibboleth remains: tradition is of equal authority with Scripture in Roman Catholicism. And thus, I would suggest, no Roman Catholic has Scripture the way a conservative Protestant has the Word.
3) Conspiracy. Right, it's no human conspiracy though the devil is this world's prince and where the devil works there is a diabolical scheme and systematic. But this is quibbling; the devil is equally at work in vast swathes of Protestantism.
4) Trent. Well, yes and no. Yes Trent dealt with other issues than justification. But no, the entire context of Trent is the Reformation and we must look at its anathemas in that light. It's a counter-Reformation document from start to finish, both in its positive teaching and its anathemas. It anathematize those who hold to classic Protestant theology in more areas than just Canon 9, but at Canon 9 it's a flung gauntlet.
Honestly, at the point of Trent, I'd rather not try to bridge the gap. Bridging the gap hurts Roman Catholic theology as much as Protestant. Attempts to reconcile the two positions (such as the joint Roman Catholic-Lutheran declaration on justification of several years ago) have been repudiated as strongly by the magisterium of Rome as by staunch Protestants. Let's hold our positions as they're clearly stated in our foundational documents.
5) "Christian". I'll grant you "Christian" if you'll grant me "Catholic." Is it a deal?
and read the essays comparing the work of husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. You'll never again think big thoughts about business and small thoughts about motherhood. Chesterton will have given you a lifelong innoculation against such stupidity.
(Tim, w/thanks to Ben) Well, 
. If you’re a Titus 2 woman, a pastor, or an elder and you haven’t read Clark, you should know that this book written by a Roman Catholic layman is indispensable. Traditional complementarian literature such as Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood can never be more than a stopgap measure. Although helpful, such works are only a hodgepodge of viewpoints and perspectives, never approaching a theology of sexuality. Why?
Recent Comments