Monday, September 12, 2005

Pondering Protestantism: A Rant

First off, I want to emphasize that this isn't aimed at all Protestants, and not even at all of those who engage in theological debate with Catholics. Some of the best and most informative discussions I've sat in on regarding Catholic/Protestant issues have been with Tim and David Bayly, Tim Challies, Tim Enloe, and others like them. We don't agree on a large number of things, and some of those are very important, but they've always treated individual Catholics kindly and respectfully, even while deploring our "heresy" in general and "heresies" in specific. Most importantly, they discuss those areas of difference with the underlying assumption that holding to Catholic teaching does not (necessarily) mean being either a fool or a blackguard. Even among Protestants who do not believe Catholics may be saved, there are many who can discuss and debate like gentlemen.

And then there are others who cannot. Those for whom no charge is too strong, no superstition too silly, to lay against the "Church of Rome." For whom it is simply axiomatic that anything espoused by the "Great and Abominable Whore" must be not only incorrect but damnably so. For whom, in short, it is of primary importance that any argument show the Catholic Church in a bad light, and whether the facts and logic are true is secondary.

Some of the worst is what I call "Kachunk Logic." Ever seen a bicycle chain that's just a little too loose? You pedal along for a few feet, and the loose spot on the chain rides up the sprocket, and suddenly, KACHUNK! The chain slips back. That's the way some of the debates go. You can explain a point until the cows not only come home, but crack a cold beer and turn on the news, and when you stop to catch your breath, you find that it hasn't made the slightest difference. A still equals B, and no amount of demonstration that it doesn't can make any dent in their complacency.

I'm not going to link to anyone in particular; most of them seem like decent guys outside of this hot-button area, and I don't want to vilify anybody. Besides, some of them genuinely desire to see us "escape from the clutches of Rome," and it's hard to pick on somebody whose motives are that beneficent. This post is meant to be more cathartic than combative, really. But I suspect somebody will point a few of them here anyway, and I'd like to clarify a few things for the record.

1. Who's just wild about Mary?
Protestants who want to show the Roman Harlot in all her whorey glory usually start with the Blessed Virgin. Why? I'm not really sure, but I suspect it's simply because it's so easy to blow out of proportion.

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!" Kachunk!

You have to understand, the Catholic Church today does not place a whole lot of emphasis on Marian devotion. It's not a central factor of our faith. Yet we are often approached as if we were the Church of Mary, with Jesus as just a footnote. But in the centerpiece of our worship, the Mass, she's barely mentioned. Once in the Eucharistic prayer, where the priest expresses a hope to share heaven with her and all the other saved, and sometimes once in the Penitential Rite, in an optional form. That's it. If you don't believe me, see for yourself.

Beyond that, all Marian devotion (the Rosary, apparitions, etc.) is optional. There are a couple of matters of dogma about her that the Church has declared true, but even those don't have much bearing on the faith. It's like Mary is only there to make Protestants hyperventilate.

Honestly, Protestants make a far, far bigger deal out of Mary than we do. It's time you got over her.

2. I can read, thank you.
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?

Being a convert, I'm not necessarily a good example. I got my training in a Baptist Sunday School, and from my mother and grandmother, a preacher's wife and daughter respectively. I attended a pretty well-grounded Christian college. My Lovely and Brilliant Wife, a cradle Catholic, learned hers in CCD and Bible-study groups, and she knows her Bible as well as I do, and probably better. 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.

God said it, I believe it, that settles it! Kachunk!

Augustine of Hippo. Thomas A Kempis. Ignatius of Antioch. Thomas Aquinas. They were clergymen, well-educated ones, not just illiterate peasants. All these men taught Catholic doctrine, and what's more, all of them believed it. Do you really think they had never read the Bible? Do you think Pope Benedict isn't familiar with the Bible? My pastor went to twelve years of seminary before he ever headed up a parish. (Twelve years! How long did your pastor study in his "Bible College?") Do you really think a seminarian could have gone that long without ever cracking open the covers of a Bible? Puh-leeze!

Yes, I know about "call no man father" and "forbidding to marry" and "traditions of men" and all the other verses that supposedly prove that various (usually trivial) Catholic practices are an abomination before the Lord. I also know about "not by faith alone" and "whosesoever sins ye shall forgive" and the other verses that they somehow missed in my Sunday School. Contrary to myth, the Catholic Church has never kept the Bible from us. Heck, back when literacy was rare, it was read to the people every day. All of it, including the verses that get flung against us. Many passages admit of more than one interpretation; why must the only possible one be the one that contradicts tradition?

Incidentally, I've found that an ordinary Catholic Mass, daily or Sunday, has more Scripture in it than a Protestant service. Yesterday's Mass (September 11, 2005) included an OT reading (8 verses), a sung psalm (8 verses, plus chorus) an Epistle reading (only two verses; a short one) and a reading from a Gospel (14 verses). And that's not including all the regular fixtures of the liturgy like the Agnus Dei and the Sanctus that come straight from the Bible. At the Baptist church I grew up in, there would be a reading of three or four verses, a series of hymns, and 30-40 minutes of the pastor sharing his personal wisdom about something – sometimes the reading, sometimes not. So which service is for the "Bible Christians" again?

3. It's not a conspiracy.
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. My pastor is a Jesuit, one of the most scapegoated segments of the Church. He's probably intelligent enough to seize global power, but if he ever did, he'd forget where he put it. No, right or wrong, we really are what we appear to be: ordinary people who love the Lord and believe what he says in His word. Not unlike you. Now take off that tinfoil hat; it clashes with your tie.

4. Have you ever actually read the Council of 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. That's what ecumenical councils do; they discuss questions and determine what is true in light of the Bible and tradition. Some Protestant doctrines were found consistent with those things, and some were not.

But its first purpose was to address the abuses that drove Luther to nail his brain to the cathedral door in the first place. See, the Church really didn't want simony running rampant. They didn't want uneducated priests and slithery con artists fleecing the people out of their money and teaching false doctrine. Trent was primarily about correcting those things, and it did a jolly good job of it, too. In that regard, Trent was mostly a matter of the Church leadership listening to Luther, and doing what he wanted.

Of course, the line from Trent that gets quoted most often is Canon IX:
If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

There you have it, shouts the Protestant! Anybody who believes in justification by faith is cursed by the Catholic Church! They believe they have to earn their salvation! Kachunk! Trouble is, the "anathemas" are mostly just a summing-up of the Council's findings, and if you read the description of what's actually being anathemized, you'll find it's not the same thing as most Protestants hold to. (In fact, the first anathema in that session is for people who believe they earn salvation!) Go ahead, read the Sixth Session on justification. Then go read the rest of the documents of Trent before you go flinging snippets at us.

5. There is no trademark on the word "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. The Eastern Orthodox, being just as old, could try to make an exclusive claim to the title of "Christian" (although they don't), but you can't.

Debate between Protestant and Catholic is not between Christian and non-Christian. It's a discussion between two Christians over certain aspects of our common faith. If you don't want to share the Christian umbrella with us, then get out from under it. We were here first.

Or, to phrase it a little more irenically, let me finish by pointing out that doctrine is not what saves us; Christ does. If one of us gets some piece of knowledge wrong, that's not the dividing line between heaven and hell. And someday, I look forward to the chance in heaven to sit down and discuss theology where we will see it all clearly, and to laugh at which things we got wrong. I hope you'll be there, too. In fact, brother, I'll save you a chair.

No comments: