I Agree, Let's "Stand to Reason"!

A kind reader wrote to me recently:

source

I understand that in Catholic teaching one can't work their way to salvation, however on Greg Koukl's radio show podcast, "Stand to Reason," on 10/15/2012 at 24:40,  he and a caller talk about how "modus tollens" proves that the Catholic view of justification is "justification by works." They assert the following based on 1 Corinthians 9:27: 

If I do not work, I will be disqualified.  

I don't work, therefore I'm disqualified.

My question is, are they using "modus tollens" appropriately and if they are using it correctly, how is it not justification by works? I know from reading that initial justification can't be had by works. However, after initial justification we have to do works, but if we are still being justified then how isn't it "Justification by works"? I hope this makes sense and doesn't take up too much of your time.

Good question, and graciously put.

So, I replied:

There is nothing in the Catholic position that denies the force of a valid inference (modus tollens). Moreover, Koukl's argument is not modus tollens. It is modus ponens. And the conclusion does not follow from the premise, because "I will be" is future tense and "I am" is present tense (ht: Bryan Cross). Therefore, what is wrong is his formula, because it is an incomplete formula.

"If I do not work, I will be disqualified. 

I don't work, therefore I'm disqualified." 

This construal would be to make the Catholic position Palagian. Which would seem to construe all theological positions that required works to be Palagian. However, that is not true. What is missing is the kind of works. Without grace, no work can be efficacious and no failure to work would disqualify you. However, when one has grace in his soul (i.e., participation in the divine life of God through His Son, Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit), one must respond to that grace. In the words of Sacred Scripture, you show me your faith, I will show you my works. 

So let's consider a new argument: 

If I do not work, I resist grace. 

If I resist grace, therefore I'm disqualified. 

What would have to be shown is that there is no special, qualitative, difference between works of the flesh (i.e., simple human effort) and works wrought by the Spirit. Of course, there are. 

If X, then Y. Y, therefore, X. This is true. What Greg is missing is the syllogism that arrives at the premise. In this case, if one has works he does not ipso facto have grace. Therefore, the thrust of his argument fails because he fails to make a crucial distinction between different kinds of works.

Consider the inverse of Mr. Koukl's argument:

If I do work, I will be qualified.  
I don't work, therefore I'm disqualified.

This formulation shows how sophistic the original construction was. If "works" are not qualified, then the premise above must be true, but it is not true. Let me explain further:

If not-A, then not-B.
Not-A, therefore, not-B.

However, that is not the same thing as saying:

If A, then B.

Just because "not-A, then not-B" tells me nothing about A. Which demonstrates why Koukl's original construction is simply incomplete. And that, my friends, is "standing on reason".

Note: A modus tollens would look like this:

I do not resist grace, I work.
I do not work, therefore I resist grace.

Some Thoughts About the Canon and Participation

A Fragment of The Dead Sea Scrolls

Let's place ourselves in the 1st century, and do a little thought experiment.

If...

1. There is no such thing as Sacred Tradition -- the Bible is the sole rule of faith

AND

2. The Jews had the right to canonize the Old Testament -- and they did

3. Therefore (from #1), the canon of the New Testament (not a particular book) is a tradition of men

4. If it is a tradition of men, it makes the word of God of no effect (bearing in mind a first century Jew hearing and believing the words of Christ about tradition could come to this conclusion later)

5. If #'s 2-4, then the first century Jew would be right to reject the New Testament canon

6. Therefore, there is no New Testament canon

Now, thinking like a first century Jew and a Protestant Christian, a Protestant must admit #1, #3, #4. A Protestant may not admit #2, but then would have to admit to a Catholic canon -- which they do not. Since they do not admit to either a Catholic canon or #2, they would have to vest the Reformers with the authority to close the Old Testament canon.

If they admit to #2, then they admit that there is no New Testament canon.

Option 1: No New Testament canon
Option 2: The Reformers were graced to close the Old Testament canon

Note: This is a thought experiment. Any objections, rebuttals, etc. are appreciated and should be noted in the spirit of dialog not in a condescendingly pedagogical tone that assumes this was not a thought experiment. 

Thank you. - Staff

____________________________________

Theological Aside

I notice when discussing the canon, that some Protestant views of the canon necessitate a kind of dictation theory regarding the inspiration of Scriptures. I notice this because of the resistance of the Protestant to admit to human agency, as if human agency diminishes the work of God. I find this is troubling (read the Old Testament).

I argue that Christian Scriptures are equally predicated on God's action and the author's action. In other words, Scripture is an expression of both God's logos and the author's unique logos. Through the diversity of authors, God communicates His will and plan and in so doing demonstrates His incredible power to use fragile creatures like you or I to relay the very words of God. Far from equivocal, each writer uses his unique style, experiences, and vantage to tell God's story. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, earthen vessels pour out heavenly wealth.

Did you know that Muslims reject Christian Scriptures for just this reason, and that they also reject Christ as God for the same reason? They see humanity and divinity as being incompatible. The Incarnation is scandalous. But we know that is not the Christian story...

The Participants

The Christian story is one of participation. A story where God asks Adam to garden, Noah to build a boat, and Moses to raise up his staff, all culminating in the ultimate participation: God becoming man. In this way, humanity is now forever in the God-head. So, through Christ we have been invited to participate in the Divine life of Love of the Holy Trinity. In the Holy Trinity there is no jealousy. That is why the Church being necessary for knowing the canon is completely compatible with God receiving all the glory. The Bible's description of God's jealousy was about us not giving Him all our love, not about His quantitative priority issues. He is not petty.

Instead, He invites the the Church He founded to participate with the Holy Spirit in leading the Church into all truth. Unlike the Old Testament, the spirit is in the Church not just with Her.

What is the canon, you ask?

Ask, the Church.

When you ask the Church, through her divine participation in the work of the Holy Spirit, you receive the mind of Christ who is the head of the Church.

Glory be to God!

Simplifying the Simply Simple

"Take this and eat it. This is my body."

this apologetics moment brought to you by:

Jesus Christ.
"I am the king of the universe and created the world,
so why don't you think I can do that up there?"

Man Made Traditions

"Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do." - Mark 7:13

FOR EXAMPLE:

1. Baptism that does nothing on the inside. - 1 Peter 3:21

2. A Eucharist that is a mere symbol. - Luke 22:19

3. Marriage that confers no grace. - Verses

4. Pastors without Holy Orders. - 1 Corinthians 11:24

5. Singles struggling without the religious life. - Matthew 19:12

6. Ministers who will not hear confessions. - John 20:22

7. Prayer without the belief in healing. - James 5:15

8. Demoniacs without a rite to deliver them. - Mark 16:17

Just to name a few...

Blog Idea Light: The Saints. The Bible.

I am working on a larger version of this post (in-between battling all manner of illness, working my tail off, and enjoying college football season and a really cute two month old), but I wanted to leave you a small tidbit to think about. One of the central tenants of Protestantism is that the Bible deserves to be with the people. It is the common man's Book. This little meme is meant to contravene certain clerical notions of Catholicism. The short question I have for my Protestant friends, is where is their St. Theresa of Avila?

Doctor of the Catholic faith

Seriously. I have recently become aware of the fact that all "leaders" of the Protestant faith are trained theologians. Even groups that use to disavow education now proudly announce their academic credentials. Then there is St. Theresa of Avila.

"We Prots believe the Bible is for the everyday man!" - Dr. Albert Fisher, Dean of the School of Theology

Enters St. Theresa of Avila.

Awkward moment.

St. John on the Eucharist

The Bible we use

Last night, before my children dove into their respective beds and attempted to stay there, I read aloud St. John's short account of Jesus walking on the water. My two oldest children, now fully alive with inquisitiveness, could not help but wonder both how and why Jesus did it.

Because you do know, don't you, that walking on water is a real miracle?

While my children were taken in by this small but grandiose detail, I was struck by the context of the story. If we truly believe that St. John had a purpose, and that the purpose was divinely inspired, then we can see that there is a lot more going on than just Jesus deciding to take a mid-night, stormy stroll across Lake Kinneret. Instead, God wants us to notice something. He wants to give our carnal eyes the horizon of the Spirit. Namely, He wants us to see what He is capable of doing, so we will believe what He says He will do.

You see, the story just before the mid-night stroll across the top of the lake would seem out-of-place if there were nothing right after that starry night lake walk. However, there is. Thus, the almost incredulous story of Jesus feeding the five thousand with a few loaves and fish makes perfect sense. We would not expect it, but given its context we can understand it.

The Biblical Context

As we enter John 6, let us remember from where we have come. In the beginning of John 5, Jesus re-writes the rules of the Sabbath to include miracle working (vv.1-17). Then, we find out that He is claiming to be God, and that He has authority (vv.18-29). Jesus ends this chapter with a sharp rebuke against those who do not listen to Him. Here's the re-cap: He's God, He has authority, you should listen to Him. Got it? So, as we turn the page to chapter six, we can hardly imagine what will come next, but what comes next does not disappoint.

"Do what?
Are you serious, Jesus?"

Jesus performs what would be by any account two very gratuitous, almost superfluous, miracles: the feeding of the five thousand and walking on water. For my purposes, I will simply ask the question: did anyone see how Jesus multiplied the loaves and the fishes? Notice in the story that no one says, "Look! My loaf is growing," or, "Wow, that fish just multiplied!" No, instead the people just know that it has happened. I'm not saying there is not any physical evidence, but the point is that the people's reaction is not to emphasize it as if they could understand the "how" of the miracle. 

Fresh off-of putting Walmart out of business, next Jesus decides to turn to Evinrude -- He's going to walk on water. Again my question: did anyone see how Jesus walked on the water? Notice in the story that no one says, "Look! I can see that Jesus's feet are just slightly over the water, he is clearly hovering." There was no physical explanation, although there was a tangible miracle. Also, it was dark, and no doubt the disciples' fear was justified. Yet there only response upon hearing that it was Jesus and not a ghost?

They were glad. That's it.

Joy.

The Bread of Life

The flesh will not help
you understand this

And then we get to The Bread of Life discourse -- equally gratuitous and seemingly superfluous. The Protestant objector, more than once, will be quick to point to verse sixty-three:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all."

And I agree but for just the opposite reasons. The objector to the Catholic Eucharistic doctrine, citing this passage of Scripture, fails to appreciate what Jesus is communicating. He is not saying that His flesh and blood are not true drink. He just said that (v.55)! He is saying that by the flesh, you will not understand this teaching. A carnal mind will be of no help at all in understanding the Eucharist. It is the Spirit who gives life.

And this makes perfect sense given the context. In the mind of God, before all time, it was well pleasing to have the story of His Son feeding the five thousand and walking on water just before His Son's words to "eat his flesh and drink his blood". Who can believe that Jesus can do the other two miracles? Really, how could He? Certainly, the flesh is no help at all! While one can put the fish and bread to his lips, and see that Jesus walked upon the water, I say (and someone else does too) it is more blessed for those that believe who do not see (hint: Eucharist)! Moreover, neither do we, as Catholics, know how the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

It is a mystery. Yet, like the disciples, we do not see that it is Jesus, we hear that it is Jesus. And upon hearing, what is our response?

Joy.

We have seen the loaves and fish. We have seen Him walk on water. Why should we doubt Him now? And so I ask you, who would you expect to follow our Lord onto the water? None other than the one, who upon hearing the "hard saying" of our Lord, said:

"Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”

And if He's the Holy One of God, then I say the Eucharist just makes perfect sense.

Impossible, Awkward, Protestant Moments

Sorry, man. You ain't Prot
enough. Nice beard, though.

I'm a former Protestant. I'm not some cradle Catholic imaging what it is like to be a Protestant. I was one. I know to some, I was not Protestant enough. I was, in their view, born into a community at maybe (to borrow a Catholic phrase) no fault of my own, that wasn't Protestant enough. Oh foolish man that I was, born into a tradition that wasn't Protestant enough!

Luther, Calvin, where art thou???? Save me from this wretched sect that is not Protestant enough!

I was Pentecostal. Not like this, but kind of sort of. Then again, I did really like Reformed theology, especially the doctrines of sola gratia, fide and scriptura. Does that make me Protestant enough? That has to count for something, even if I didn't worship in a place like this. It is all so confusing.

I don't know.

"Go collect all the symbols of fish you can find"

Anyways, I want to now consider some passages of Scripture and some scenarios that are what I call "Catholic ghosts in the Protestant machine." Or, as my title states: impossible, awkward Protestant moments. In other words, a Protestant rendering of Scripture makes these passages awkward if not impossible. Let's first consider John 6 (the way it should read on a Protestant view of the passage):

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the metaphorical flesh of the Son of Man and drink His metaphorical blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My metaphorical flesh and drinks My metaphorical blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true metaphorical food, and My blood is true metaphorical drink. He who eats My metaphorical flesh and drinks My metaphorical blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me metaphorically, he also will live because of Me. This is the metaphorical bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died real bread; he who eats this metaphorical bread will live forever.”

These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult metaphorical statement; who can listen to it? I mean, we can barely understand the metaphor.” But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this difficult metaphorical teaching, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? It shouldn't. Remember, it's only a metaphor! It is the Spirit who gives life; my real flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are metaphorical! 

As a result of this incredibly obtuse metaphor, many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have metaphorical words of eternal life.

And at the Last Supper:

"While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Even though I spoke the entire world into existence, don't be confused. Take, eat; this is merely the great symbol My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Again, do not be confused that I am changing anything with the power of my words. Drink from it, all of you; for this is merely the great symbol of My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

And Matthew 16:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter which means rock, and upon this rock, the rock of your confession not the name I just gave you, sorry if that is confusing, I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you, as in all believers who have the same faith as you not to be confused with the you you, the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Let's also consider some other awkward aspects of Protestantism in light of history, theology, and Scripture:

3rd Century Bishop making the
sign of the cross

Question: Why did Protestants get rid of the sign of the cross? If sola scriptura includes tradition as many Reformed Protestants claim, why throw out the sign of the cross? This seems to me to be a glaring example of throwing out the baby with the bath water. If, in fact, Protestants threw out the baby with the bath water in this example, what else did they throw out?

Question: Many Protestants like to claim St. Augustine as a kind of Protestant church father. How does a Bishop of Hippo becomes the heir to bishop-less churches?

Question: When Jesus breathed on his Apostles, he said "the sins you retain will be retained." Where does the practice of retaining sins happen in Protestantism?

Question: Why did Protestants take the corpus off of the cross? I get it. Jesus is no longer on the cross. However, that does not mean that we should not reverence Christ on the cross. It is through His sacrifice on the cross that we receive our redemption. So, again, why take the body of Christ off of the cross?

Question: Since Protestants believe that they can be the rightful heirs to Christianity by simply following the Scriptures, that being Apostolic is merely acting a certain way, why couldn't or didn't someone in the Old Testament take the Old Testament Scriptures and claim to be the true Israel?

Just some thoughts. What do you think?

Understanding the Hierarchy of Knowledge

Resident Genius

Recently in a combox at Called to Communion, Dr. Mike Liccione (who blogs at Sacramentum Vitae) made this comment. Instead of leaving my comment there and muddying up the dialogical waters, I thought I would just share my thoughts here.

Mike said:

That’s because truths of faith are supernatural, not natural, so that by definition they cannot be shown to be factual by any method of human reasoning, no matter how reliable that method may be. For that reason, our epistemic access to the revealed truths of faith must ultimately rely on authority–specifically, divine authority. And given as much, the central task for the apologist is to show that accepting some agency’s claim to divine authority is reasonable, even though he cannot prove, by human experience and reasoning alone, that such a claim is actually true.

Bravo! I think I have tried to make this point a thousand different ways. This is the crux of the matter. What is interesting is that I understood this distinction before I converted -- in fact -- before Catholicism was on my radar. Then, it was Catholic apologists who showed me that it was reasonable that such a claim (the authority of the Catholic Church) was true (apologists like, Blessed Newman, Scott Hahn, Jacques Maritain and Edith Stein, to name a few). Before their efforts, I nearly despaired the possibility of theological dogma.

Notice that theology doesn't even make it on this "chart"

You guys really messed
this up

Let me just add, and for the benefit of the interested reader (not Mike), that in the history of philosophy (the history of ideas, even), theology used to be at the top of the epistemic pyramid -- the hierarchy of knowledge (scientia). It (theology) was that for which we could be most certain. Through a laundry list of historical, philosophic moves, that pyramid has been turned on its head, and today, men think that the natural sciences give us the most certain knowledge (which used to be at the bottom of the pyramid). Thus, I'm led to believe that many brush aside Mike's distinction because they have no tacit, visceral, or even primitive grasp of what is at stake. "Of course we know the earth is round," they say, "but of theology, we know not what." To the modern ear, this sounds right. However, to the Christian of times past, this is profoundly wrong, since the knowledge of theology rests upon God's movement toward us -- not man's movement toward God. So, while the tentative nature of other species of knowledge is acceptable, such should not be the case for the divine science. If there is anything that God wants us to know, it is that for which he has made known in His Son. That is why His Son promised, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26)

Who is getting taught "all things"? Is it John Calvin? Jimmy Swaggart? Me? I can hear the immediate objection:

"Brent, don't you believe that God speak to the hearts of individual Christians?"

You bet, I do!

However, that is not the Catholic question. The Catholic question is to whom is God speaking to speak on behalf of Him to His Church? Has the voice of the prophet died -- a gift given by Christ at His ascension? We cannot have faith unless we hear, and hear unless someone is sent. Are there no "sent ones" anymore? What is the relationship between faith and the Church? Which is why I ask all my Protestant brothers and sisters to look at their theology and realize that cessationism -- the doctrine that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit ceased with the death of the last Apostle -- is cart-for-the-horse with Protestantism. That is why any non-Reformed, non-cessationist Christian must come home to the Roman Catholic Church. Now. Before Protestantism destroys your faith or you become a total and complete heretic and give up all Christian dogma in favor of some inner light.

That is where the train is chugging. 

Coming Soon! A New CARM Ecumenical Series

In the spirit of ecumenical joy, I will be starting a series of posts in response to articles published at the "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry" (CARM) website. Let me start off by saying one good thing about CARM: they have many decent articles on topics other than Catholicism. (There. I did it. I did my intellectual duty to say something nice. Back to the regularly scheduled blog-post.) Many Catholics believe that Protestants think of them as their brother or sister in Christ, and, in fact, many do. However, this is not always the case. In the section on "Roman Catholicism", CARM founder Matt Slick explains why he included a section on the Roman Catholic Church (with comments in blue):

It is necessary to write a page on Roman Catholicism because there are significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines (and various Protestant sect's doctrine is insignificantly different?). Protestants accuse the Catholics of being unscriptural and the Catholics state that the Protestants do not have the true faith carried through the centuries by the Catholic Church. On which ever side you fall, the real issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is representing true Christianity.

If you are a Roman Catholic, please understand that this site is not meant to offend you in any way (let me define offensive as a poor attempt to understand the position you are arguing against -- let's see if this holds). This site is dedicated to examining the truth, all truth, and comparing it to the Bible. No matter who it is or what group is proclaiming truth, we know that the Bible is the Word of God (I will test that theory, specifically regarding the "Bible" as canon) and that no truth from God will contradict it. I urge you to examine what is here on this site and see if what is being taught here is true. If you do, you will be doing exactly what the Bible commands: to examine all things (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11; Jude 3). Since the Catholic Church holds the Bible to be the word of God, I am putting Catholic doctrine to the biblical test.

If you are a Protestant, you will probably (unless you believe to the historic doctrine of baptism regeneration) feel more comfortable browsing these pages since they will, essentially, confront Roman Catholic teachings. It is apparent that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture ("apparent" only begs the question, but let's proceed). This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is vital.

In reference to the Catholic reliance upon (gasp) "Tradition", Mr. Slick goes on to say:

Matt Slick

Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible, but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition. Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church.

What is interesting about his list is:

1. All the elements of the The Mass come explicitly from Scripture (e.g., consecration, altar, Scripture reading, sign of peace, etc.), setting aside a few phrases and gestures that harken back to both Christian and Jewish traditions. See also The Mass in Scripture.

2. Penance. Boy this is awkward. "No, I say to you: but unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish." Luke 13:3

3. Veneration of Mary- "Every generation will call me blessed." This is a complicated issue, but to say that veneration is "clearly not taught in the Bible" is a hermeneutic decision not the result of a clear-as-day proof-text. If a distinction between veneration and worship can be made -- and there is, then there is nothing in Scripture even approaching a disapprobation of venerating Mary.

4. Setting aside the rest of the list for time's sake, the great irony is that the phrase "implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition" could be replaced with "implicit within its text and elucidated through evangelical-Protestant tradition" as an explanation and/or apology for Mr. Slick's particular doctrinal commitments. Especially considering that he denies baptismal regeneration. In other words, no man is a tradition-less island unto himself.

At this point, I am starting to gather that CARM is not inviting me to write a guest article. Anyways, remember they are a "research" ministry. In an attempt, I guess, to bring fellow Protestants into the illuminati of the inner circle of Roman Catholic theology, Mr. Slick kindly offer his reader a "terminology section". Since the term "Tradition" plays so heavy right out of the gate in his contention with Roman Catholic doctrine, I was interested to find out how he defines that term.

Tradition - handing down through the centuries from mouth to mouth of the teachings of Jesus. It began with the apostles and continues unbroken to the present bishopric of the Catholic Church.

Nice try.

For starters, Tradition is not exclusively oral. In fact, most of the Traditions of the Church can be found in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Tradition does include the teachings of Christ as handed off to the Apostles. These teachings and way of life and worship are preserved in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church. They are not only preserved but grow -- being active, living and dynamic -- in Christ's Church through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In the spirit of outreach (I gather), and just below the "copy and paste" section on the Catechism whereby Mr. Slick enjoys an out-of-context-extravaganza, there is a section that is a kind of "Coming Out Network International". In this case, and unlike the Coming Home Network, the "outers" are former priests. Many of the original Protestants were former priests, thus, there is nothing really sensational about a few priests defecting. However, what is amazing, according to Mr. Slick, with regards to their stories is:

"As you can see, even Roman Catholic Priests can discover the truth found in God's word and escape the error of the Roman Catholic system of works righteousness.  To God be the glory." (source)

Not so fast...

In an effort to improve the Google meta-associations between Mr. Slick's articles and the truth, I will be periodically writing posts in response to published CARM articles. Let this post serve notice, and may my personal conversion story bare witness, that even a Protestant can discover the "ground and pillar of truth" and escape the error(s) of Protestantism. (Hint: 1 Timothy 3:15) 


Glory be to God. 

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic

What does it mean to be "Apostolic"?

One of the most confusing things about modern day Christendom, dare I say an unintended consequence of the Reformation, is the ubiquitous use of the term "Apostolic".

What does it mean to be "Apostolic"?

Obviously, the plumb-line for "Apostolic" in the mind of the modern day Protestant is all over the map.  "Apostolic" can just as easily be swapped for "Bible believing" in these communities, and given the doctrine of sola scriptura, we should pause to ask ourselves why the swap? If the Bible is the alleged singular authority for the Protestant, why claim Apostolicity? It really would add nothing, right? On their view, the Apostles could err, and in fact many of them probably did given that not all of them wrote a book of the Bible. Thus, why present yourselves or market your Christian brand as "Apostolic" if in your paradigm that does little to distinguish you as uniquely orthodox? I mean in the Protestant paradigm there is no apostolic succession, so who cares if you are "Apostolic"?

Ah, but we do care. They care. And, as you examine what is implied by the word and how it is used, let me offer for you a definition of "Apostolic" in the Protestant world:

Apostolic: (adj) To be like the Apostles. A Christian denomination who believes that their teaching is in conformity to the Apostles' teaching. Example: Johnny believes in Jesus only baptism, and shows Sarah where it is in the Bible. He explains that the Trinity is a made up religious term, and asks Sarah to find the word in the "Apostolic" writings. She cannot. He explains that his church is "Apostolic", and that she should leave her church that believes in "man-made traditions". 

Notice that "Apostolic" does not mean you have a real relationship to the Apostles. It just means that the Apostles, the people themselves, purported a theory that if you think you more or less hold on your view, voila apostolique! It's just that simple! Of course, in no way do I mean to imply that what the Apostles taught is not important, but I'm trying to tease out the implication of the alternative to the Catholic approach. If a real relationship to the Apostles is irrelevant -- if the Apostles really did not follow the example of Christ and draft disciples themselves and pass off their ministries -- then the Apostles themselves (the ones who sit on 12 thrones of judgment in heaven -- Matthew 19:28) are irrelevant. 

Moreover, on this view, Christ is the one who came to establish the true theory of Christianity. It is a family centered on a common creed, and while that last clause is not entirely false, it is an incomplete view of what Christ did. If Christ gave us the Apostles only to be the purveyors of the right propositions, then I argue that this view of Christianity comes closest to Gnosticism. In fact, well before I was Catholic or even thinking about Catholicism, I had an epiphany along these lines. If Christianity is merely a set of true propositions, and those propositions only exist in my mind, then Christianity is a subjectivist religion. Of course, the rejoinder is that the propositions are not in my mind, they are in the Bible. However, my analysis of that rejoinder was that while the source of the content was Scripture, the intellect and subsequent teacher of that content was always and everywhere me. I was reading the book and writing the lesson plans. What started to emerge, if only but as an impression, was a creeping suspicion that the Protestant paradigm supported a relativist view of truth. For our purposes, the word "Apostolic" being a solid case study for the phenomena.

How does Catholicism escape this dilemma? Isn't it true that I would still have to hold the true statements the Church teaches, and would not those propositions be similar to the propositions I held from Scripture as a Protestant? No. For starters, the entire paradigm is different, and when a Protestant levels this critique, he is thinking about Catholic dogma from within a Protestant paradigm. The Protestant has no teacher. The Church, certainly is not his teacher because if his "conscience" tells him he disagrees with the Church, he will simply find a "church" that does agree with him. Thus, he is the teacher: he reads the book and writes the lesson plan.

On the contrary, the process of "source" + "intellect/teacher" = "teaching" is modified significantly under the Catholic paradigm. On the Catholic view, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition represent the dual sources of the deposit of faith. The Teaching Office of the Church (Magisterium) possesses in a unique way the "mind of Christ" (intellect) and is empowered by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth. The subsequent "teaching" is different in species than the source of the theology. That is why the infallible teaching of the Magisterium should not be confused with the inspired source of that teaching. Some Protestants believe that Catholics hold Church teaching in the same way they hold Scripture, therefore, subjugating Scripture to the Church. That is not true. Church teaching comes from Scripture (and Sacred Tradition), and therefore is always indebted to it. So, the Catholic who affirms Church teaching affirms the Sacred deposit of faith and acknowledges the divinely protected agency of the Church. 

"Now you are getting it!"

The Catholic is not in the same position regarding doctrine as the Protestant because in the intellectual brou-ha-ha, the Church always wins. She writes the lesson plan. That means I -- as a Catholic -- can point to doctrine "x" and always say it comes "from the Church".  This locates the propositions of dogma outside of me and in the Church. Subjectivism solved. Relativism averted. Silly uses of the phrase "Apostolic" prevented. 

So getting back to the phrase "Apostolic"...

The problem with de-humanizing the phrase "Apostolic" is that it's referent is a group of people -- not a theology. Of course, the Apostles had a theology, but let's not imagine for a moment that the people who were the Apostles are irrelevant. God did not call Apostles to be members of an elite theology club. He called Apostles to be fathers of a family. His family. That is why the ubiquitous use of the word is so misleading. Try to find even one example in the early Church (I don't know, first 1,500 years) of someone claiming apostolicity simply on the grounds that they had copy of the New Testament. It no worky. It "no worky" means that to use "Apostolic" in a similar way today doesn't work for the same reasons. Which leads us to one of the great quandaries of modern man. You see, modern man sees the world as his opportunity to create, to innovate, because there is no meaning in the world. 

Modern Man: Who am I?

He looks around his suburban apartment, checks his Twitter feed, and flips through a few pages of Bazaar. 

Modern Man: Where am I?

Fidgety, he spends the evening going back and forth between FX and re-runs of "I Love Lucy"

Modern Man: What do I believe?

He passes through the door, finding his seat in section 9-A. The music lifts his soul. It was a Friday he would rather forget. 

Modern Man: I am an Apostolic Christian.

What is stopping him?

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic

Does the Council of Florence Contradict Vatican II?

Some say the Catholic Church has changed her stance on salvation outside the Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus: "outside the Church there is no salvation"). First, let me say that changing one's position and rephrasing one's position are not the same thing. The short reply to this objection is to simply state that the Church has rephrased her position which remains the same, or namely, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Meaning:

If you are saved, you are saved by Christ, and if by Christ, you are saved through His Body, the Church.

I would now like to consider a more specific objection and give a more detailed response. I recently happened upon a Protestant blogger making the case that the Catholic Church has contradicted herself. Particularly, his claim was that the Catholic teachings in the Second Vatican Council and the Council of Florence are incompatible. Unfortunately, schismatic Catholics in various traditional-ist sects do not help the cause of the Church, for many of them promulgate this error as well.

Ut unum sint!

[Sigh]

Let us consider some true statements:

1. There are some sins that lead to death, others that do not
2. The ones that lead to death are mortal
3. There are certain conditions which make a sin mortal
4. Therefore, if the conditions are not met, the sin is not mortal
5. The sins of schism and heresy can be mortal (from 3)
6. If the sins do not meet certain conditions (4), they are not mortal
7. Therefore, there are some who may appear to be schismatics and heretics who do not sin unto death

Specific Objection: The Council of Florence taught that there is no salvation outside of the Church. Moreover, it declares that ALL schismatics and heretics will depart into the fires of hell. Vatican II taught that God can use Protestant ecclesial communities as an instrument of salvation. These two concepts are irreconcilable.

"I see where you are going
with this, and I like it!"

Reply 1: I say that both concepts are true. To affirm the former does not of necessity negate the later. Like any sin, it is only mortal if certain conditions are met.

Reply 2: The Fathers of the Council of Florence most certainly held to this distinction. Also, we must keep in mind that all those schismatics and heretics at the time of the Council of Florence had full knowledge as to the truth of the Catholic Church. Therefore, they met the conditions of a schismatic or heretic who was committing such sin unto death. This qualification is even implied in Super Quibusdam written by Pope Clement VI, 90 years before The Council of Florence ("all who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence").

Reply 3: Today, and at the time of the Second Vatican Council, many of those who find themselves outside the "visible Catholic Church" do so "at no fault of their own" and without "full consent", but instead were born into these communities and inculcated with a type of ignorance -- invincible even -- as to the claims of the Catholic Church.

I know. I was one of them! 

"But how can Protestant communities be "instruments of salvation" if, as Pope Leo XII said in Ubi Primum: "It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members."

Because, El Presidente...

a donkey can be an instrument of salvation while also not being an instrument of salvation. What do I mean? I mean that the Protestant communities are not "instruments of salvation" in and of themselves, but only insomuch that they still retain the graces and truth subsisting fully in the Catholic Church. Remember, Pope Benedict XVI started off his pontificate with a rousing ecumenical comment just like this.

The bottom line is that God can use whatever means He wills to draw men to His Son and into His Body, the Church. I know this makes some traditional-ist Catholics uncomfortable. However, what should be more troubling is subscribing to a view of God incompatible with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition (capital-T), the teachings of the Church, the lives of the saints, and the record of history. What I mean is that our separated brothers and sisters love Christ, and if they do not explicitly reject the Catholic Church, they can be saved. In fact, in much of the western world, "Catholics" -- Baptized, Confirmed, and Communing (though probably not Confessing) -- seem to be as invincibly ignorant of the claims of the Catholic Church as most Protestants.

So, the fact remains: If you are saved, you are saved by Christ, and if by Christ, you are saved through His Body, the Church.

extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic

DISCLAIMER: If you are reading this blog, you are probably losing the "invincible" part of your ignorance.

Click Here for a following up post!

What To Do About Cultural Catholics

This one was a real problem for me when coming into the Church. What do you do when most of your friends and family think about this guy when you mention Catholicism?

"You wanna be Catholic? I'll make you an offer..."

You could always say you think about this guy when you think of Protestantism...

"Have a sip of my kool-aid"

But both images would be epic fails, and back and forth image throw-downs won't get intra-Christian dialog anywhere. All that said, cultural Catholics still present a serious impediment to the Catholic faith -- especially for faithful, Christ-loving, Protestants considering Catholicism. Because nothing makes the Catholic Church more attractive than:

Not so much. But while Mass isn't week-in-and-week-out populated with "cultural Catholics" (that's what Easter and Christmas are for), there are still thousands and thousands of people in almost any densely populated location who will eagerly admit "I'm Catholic!" when asked about their religious affiliation simply because they were baptized 2-5 decades ago. In fact, some Protestants (Evangelicals) love to call this group of Catholics "devout", especially when they "save them" on airplanes. For example:

Evangelical: "Did you feel that turbulence?"

Cultural Catholic: "What?"

Evangelical: "Did you just feel the plane dip?"

Cultural Catholic: "Yeah, so what?"

Evangelical: "If this plane went down in a ball of flame, and your body was turned into a piece of burnt toast, sprinkled about like fish food on top of the ocean, would you be with Jesus tonight?"

Cultural Catholic: "What?"

Evangelical: "Are you sure of your salvation? If you died right now, had a cardiac arrest, a brain aneurysm, a genetic defect that flared up, a hemorrhoid that hemorrhaged and caused you to lose too much blood, a"

Cultural Catholic: "Dude, what is your point?"

Evangelical: "Are you Catholic?"

Cultural Catholic: "Yes!"

Evangelical: "Then repeat after me, Jesus come into my heart..."

They are literally waiting on the wings. Then when the evangelical goes to his Bible study the next week, he will report, "Guys, I just want you to know that I recently converted a devout Catholic on a plane ride from Tucson. Can you believe he didn't know where he would be if he died from a massive hemorrhoidal hemorrhage. So sad."

And you know what? Our evangelical buddy is right! Cultural Catholics are sad. They hurt the body of Christ and bring shame to the Apostolic faith. However, I have two reasons why I can put up with them:

1. Religion creates culture

Culture is simply a set of behaviors codified by a certain group of people to maintain that which is good. Guess what? People think their religion is good; therefore, they codify behaviors which they hope will imbibe their particular religious sentiment in future generations. In many instances this can be a good thing, but it can devolve into a mere 'going through the motions'. We could call this small-t "tradition". In this way, this type of religious behavior can simply be an expression of cultural identity. "I'm Catholic" can be understand as a placeholder for "I'm Irish, not ________" or "I'm from Brazil, not ________". Such sentiment is not so much an expression of a religious attitude as it is of a cultural disposition that is religious in character.

So for starters, there are cultural Catholics because Catholicism is a bonafide religion that's been around the block for a while, and oh yeah, by the way, built all of western civilization.

Full Stop.

"But, Brent, didn't Jesus say he would rather us be cold or hot and not luke warm?"

A: Yes, but...

2. Jesus also said the Church would have tares

“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also....The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”- Matthew 13:24-30

Rule-to-live-by #1: If you would get in trouble wearing a piece of clothing to school, you shouldn't wear it to Mass.

Rule-to-live-by #2: If a dress is inappropriate for a PTA meeting, it is inappropriate for Mass.

Rule-to-live-by #3: When you pass the altar, you should show a little more respect than you would your 6th grade math teacher's desk.

Rule-to-live-by #4: The Eucharist is not a snack, and genuflecting is not a curtsey.

These random sagacious sound-bites brought to you by "Tares: At A Local Parish Near You!"

But you never know, a weed might not be a weed after all.

These flowers are often mistaken for "weeds"

By that last statement, I'm in no way implying that Catholicism is a free-for-all. I'm just saying that sometimes in the midst of all the noise, the clutter, and tares, there is a real soul really trying to reach God. That's the beauty of the Catholic faith. She's Noah's Ark, and we're all on board. The annoying barking sound won't stop until we get to heaven.

So, if you are considering Catholicism, don't be discouraged by the bad parish or the cultural Catholics. I imagine by now, you have already been taken in by the beautiful fruit of the Catholic faith as lived through the lives of her Saints. None compare to that fruit. There are also faithful Catholics everywhere who are striving by the help of God's grace to be saints. Join us! In addition, just remind yourself that it is nice to know when someone is in dissent from the Church since "the Church" in Catholic parlance -- unlike Protestantism -- is not just "that group for which you agree to agree" until of course you disagree and then go find "the Church" that agrees with you. You know, I'm talking about when Church shopping makes sense. To put it another way, obvious dissent that disgusts you is better than innocuous denominationalism.

Anyways, I thought I would leave you with this nice video. If you don't know Pomplamoose, now you do and now your life is better. I thought the mafia theme was appropriate considering the topic of this post because everyone knows that the mafia are "devout" Catholics.

Peace to you on your journey.

Click Here To Subscribe to Almost Not Catholic

The Church is Not Coke

The Catholic Church is not as we say in the south "Coca-cola". Not one of my more profound statements, I know. Well, maybe. Let me explain.

You see, some people say the Catholic Church needs a better marketing strategy. She's old, they say. She's slow, they say. Coke is fast. Coke is everywhere. Look how successful Coke is!

In reply, I say that products need marketing strategies. In fact, if you are being sold to, beware! It is precisely in the moment one realizes they are being sold to, that there has been some strategy crafted to coerce their hand to highlight the fuzzy feeling while diminishing the possibility of diabetes, they should pull back.

But we don't.

We buy.

A lot.

Of stuff.

Junk.

Coke.

But...the Catholic Church, the Catholic faith, is not Coke. The Catholic Church doesn't need a marketing strategy anymore than the ocean does. In fact, we might say that our "marketing strategies" for the ocean do harm to it. We could even say that the ocean is God's marketing strategy. Nonetheless, we ignore His message and think He needs a better one. We turn God's beautiful landscape into this:

Yet if you've ever stumbled upon this:

you know the difference. And when one finds the truth, it is always like the second image. We long for this, to be with Truth in its raw and authentic "being". Of course Coke exists and so does Miami Beach, but both exist as an object of human art, and as such subject to a passing away. Sometimes, this obsolescence can even occur suddenly -- which is frightening. Thus, we are suspicious of both and for good reason, because we were made not for the fire but for eternity.

And so too must be the faith of the Church, lived not in Mormon-esque YouTube commercials choreographed to entice and allure yet constantly communicating a "production" that wreaks of salesmanship and assumes a naivety to the whole affair. Instead, the Catholic "strategy" must remain singularly unfocused. Unfocused? Yes, unfocused, because the moment we take the wheel and imagine that we are building His Church -- we have ceased to understand the magic. The magic is that the Catholic Church is His Church, and He is building it and His marketing plan is simple yet painful: martyrdom.

Will you join him?

That's right: death. Which is a counterintuitive theme for "marketing", I might add. Can you imagine a marketing campaign centered on the phrase:

"Come, die with me!"

If "the medium is the message", then death is the medium of Christianity. Which is the message of Christianity: death to self, a giving up of ego, an existence in a constant state of "for". At first blush, this would seem to be an awful proposition. No marketing agent would take this up. Even many Christian groups fail to make this their central message, instead trading it in for a few coins.

But the fact is, the message of the Gospel is just the opposite of marketing. It is the truth that in the experience of the real solicitude of the givenness of the other, a world would come to meet the Other who died on a Cross for them. This is the Truth we long for and that no product, even for a moment, can distract us from enough to quiet the voices in our head. It is why some of us constantly listen to music, fill our lives with meaningless "activities", and so forth, because we are trying to escape the fact that we have an eternal soul. But we do, and behind every "cutter" is someone who simply wants to know they are real. 

"Am I more than a consumer?"

"Yes. But, will you join Him?"