Quote of the Day

Would Christianity, as regards truth and peace, faith and charity, fare worse, would it not fare better, without any Church at all, than with a thousand Churches, scattered through the world, all supreme and independent?

-Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman

Stealing Sheep

Like Fr. Longenecker, I have great love and respect for my Evangelical friends and family. I will be forever grateful for the foundation that I received in Christianity from my upbringing. But, there is one aspect that, quite simply, enrages me. It’s the constant missionary efforts in Catholic lands. They operate under the assumption that Catholicism is not Christian. Granted, there are a whole lot of “cultural Christians” in Catholic countries who don’t know their faith at all, but if Evangelicals considered Catholics truly their brethren, then shouldn’t they be pushing us to get our act in gear?

554 years ago today

The New Rome fell. Go read Paul Cella’s moving account of the fall of Byzantium.

One thing he wrote is particularly apt in this age of schism upon schism:

A mass was said at Holy Wisdom on Monday, May 28; at last, in this final hour, Catholic and Orthodox joined together in worship of the Risen Lord. Greeks who had sworn oaths never to darken the doors of a church contaminated by Romish heretics heard liturgy next to Italians who had declared the Orthodox more loathsome than the infidel Turk. There, in that last agony of the Roman Empire, Christendom was unified, and the Church breathed with both her lungs. There, in the person of the ragged remnants of Constantinople’s defenders, the sons of the Church Universal joined in true fellowship. There, in this greatest of tragedies, and only at the bitter end, was a true Christian brotherhood of Greece and Rome.

Only when all material hope was lost did East and West reconcile. In the heat of battle, in the midst of struggle, petty divisions (and some not-so-petty ones) have a way of disappearing. I wonder if it will take more serious persecution again for us to realize that what we share–the Christian faith–outweighs disputes over the procession of the Holy Spirit, the charism of the Pope, or the nature of Original Sin.

Back to Beckwith…

Bangs head on desk.

We are not relying on the authority of private interpretation but upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Give thou me a break. The author really doesn’t get it. The crux of the Catholic critique of the Reformation is that “ministry of the Holy Spirit” inevitably devolves to private interpretation. There is no third option.

How not to convert run-of-the-mill Protestants

Classic rant by the Great Favog:

The little tips were good, too. Get ‘em to mass a lot, so they will know what they are missing.

The short theological exegesis of that “helpful tip” is as follows if you live in one of the great majority of Catholic parishes in these United States: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHA! HAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The long version is as follows: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHA! HA! HA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HOO HOO HOO HOO!!!! HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE!!!!!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAA!!! GAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!! (Thud.)

Now, I will admit to having gone to, for example, Presbyterian (sorry!) services and telling Mrs. Favog afterward that “There’s no there there.” But that’s because I buy into the whole Catholic thing already.

How can a church service not seem lacking when you believe that, even at the crappiest, most rote, most non-reverent, Haugen-ditty-filled Catholic Mass, you have seen the priest make Jesus Christ — Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity — truly present on the altar? When you, despite all the worst modernity has wrought upon my suffering Church, still get to — as Walker Percy would say — “eat Christ,” doing exactly what Jesus, in John 6, said we must do to have life within us?
LIKE I SAID, I know what I would be missing because I’m already Catholic. I’ve already signed up for the Roman Life Assurance policy.

Your woebegone Protestant conversion target hasn’t yet. Get it?

All your average evangelical probably sees is a lackluster homily, music that’s at least as bad as their “praise and worship” stuff, most of the congregation going through the motions — at best — and little to no fellowship after all is said and “celebrated.”

Such as it is.
THE JOURNEY into Catholicism for many today is a journey precipitated by marriage or a relentlessly seeking intellect homing in on the Original Source Material of Christendom. Both are good things, very good things. Fine reasons to join the Church.

But you’ll probably end up frustrated if you’re really on fire for Christ. After all, how many converts are touting the vibrance of Catholic parish life or the extraordinary witness of most lay Catholics as being this mysterious, mighty, irresistable riptide that pulled them out into the Living Waters and toward that far bank of the Tiber River?

Until you get acclimated — and I really don’t know whether acclimated is a good thing or not — the serious convert barely may be restraining himself from jumping atop the pew (and be careful about this if you’re in a parish with chair-pews or movable pews) and screaming at his fellow parishioners.

“WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH YOU PEOPLE!?! Don’t you realize the riches this Church possesses? Don’t you know that’s JESUS on the altar there? And with 2,000 years of Gregorian and Byzantine chant, and hundreds of years of classical hymnody, WHY ARE YOU SINGING THIS ST. LOUIS JESUITS S***?????

“Oh . . . pardon my French, Lord. Please forgive me.” (Slinks silently out of the sanctuary as people stare and Father shakes his head.)

ON THE OTHER HAND, I quite literally have been brought to tears of joy by the Holy Spirit at the most humble of Masses, liturgies unremarkable except for the humility and love with which they were celebrated.

This is in the midst of a tirade against a book published by Ignatius Press on how to convert Protestants. I must say that the whole idea of taking your Evangelical friends to Mass sounds wonderful, but Favog nails it. Most of my friends, if they didn’t already “buy the Catholic thing”, would cringe at our half-hearted worship, awful music, and milquetoast homilies. The Mass as celebrated in the vast majority of American parishes, without believing in the Blessed Sacrament, is not an evangelism tool. It’s a sure-fire turn-off.

Heck, my parents would probably be closer to being Catholic if I didn’t know that my musically-trained mother and hymn-loving father would simply laugh at our music, so therefore, I cringe at the thought of them attending the closest two parishes to their house…

Dr. Beckwith’s Interview with CT

Go read–right now–Francis Beckwith’s beautiful interview with Christianity Today. What good he is already doing.

(HT: Amy Welborn)

The dangers of apologetics

In the comments section of my post on the reaction to Dr. Francis Beckwith’s conversion, an interesting topic came up that I want to expand upon. I mentioned that I have essentially stopped doing Catholic apologetics because it has been harmful to my spiritual life. That is true, and I will expound on that, but I want to make a broader point: apologetics has a place, but it cannot be the primary focus of Catholic evangelism.

Back a couple of years ago, before I was actually received into the Church, when I was intellectually convinced but not emotionally ready to leave the Baptists, I helped moderate a discussion board run by a prominent ex-Evangelical Catholic apologist.* I think I’ve heard–and made–every argument known to man for Catholicism and against Protestantism, particularly in its fundamentalist variety. I’ve probably seen every prooftext thrown at Catholics by our separated brethren, and every Bible verse with which to reply to them. To use an analogy from popular film, I felt like Neo at the end of The Matrix when he realized he could control the Matrix, and fought an Agent with one arm, nonchalantly and serenely.

But, after stepping out of the world of apologetics, I realized something. After all those arguments, all those airtight syllogisms that proved the Fundamentalists wrong, I don’t remember ever hearing anyone say, “You know, Ed, you’re right. I’m wrong. I guess I should join the Catholic Church now.” Our blows did not pierce their armor. In my own case, I was already open to the Church before I ever started arguing with Catholics. That, I think, is the key: openness. If an opponent does not have a self-inflicted chink in his armor, he will not be convinced.

And, conversely, all these triumphalistic arguments that I and others made for the Church only served to create smugness. I had friends very concerned about me because of my sudden air of arrogance. I knew the Truth; I knew how to argue it; but, all I was doing is pushing people away. It hit me like the proverbial ton of bricks when one of my best friends forced me to step back and look at my behavior. I stopped trying to convert everyone by argument; I started trying to be an example of living out the Faith instead of (or in addition to) arguing for it. My convert zeal had turned me into a Pharisee. I had replaced theological error with pride and arrogance; I’m not sure which one is worse.

So, is there a place for apologetics in the service of the Church? Absolutely. We’re surrounded by people who don’t understand the Church, and have created an absurd caricature in Her place. But, apologetics outside the context of friendship and relationships will fall on deaf ears. We will be more successful at drawing people into the Fullness of the Faith only if we are their friends first, only if we love them and serve them. Our arguments for the Truth are good, and are effective, but only he who has ears will hear.

Imagine, instead, an alternate scene in The Matrix where Neo and the Agent go out for coffee and discuss what humanity can offer to the robots. Wouldn’t that have been a different ending?

* I will not name him because of the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the departure of me and almost all his other moderators/administrators. We’ve all moved on, and it’s not worth going back to.

On obeying fallible humans

Wonderful quote from ‘Decker2003′ from Zippy’s combox:

You can’t avoid obeying a fallible human, because even if you reject everyone else’s opinion and do what seems right to you, you are simply another one of those fallible humans.

So, the question becomes, given that I have no choice but to follow the opinion of a fallible human, has God selected any particular fallible human for me obey in certain matters?

Mull that over a while…

Serviam, or Non Serviam

Silly me. I thought that we’d gotten beyond the puerile anti-Catholicism of previous generations; I assumed that the nutcases in the fringes of the Internet were, well, on the fringes. Perhaps that’s true; maybe they just all left their cells at once and descended upon Dr. Francis Beckwith en masse. But, after reading three days of venomous comments on his blog, I’ve come to a different conclusion. Philip Jenkins was right: anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.

Let me cut off one criticism with a quick comment: I am not going to defend Catholic triumphalism here. I admit I’m rather pleased that Dr. Beckwith has returned to the Church, but I also think that many recent converts to Catholicism look at the foibles of our Church through rose-colored glasses. Some of them may end up like Bill Cork, returning to their roots. Maybe I will, too; I have no way of knowing what the future holds. But, I rejoice with Dr. Beckwith and I’ll leave it at that.

Now, about the Evangelical and Reformed folks who take issue with Dr. Beckwith’s decision. On the one hand, I’m glad they take issue; they wouldn’t be true to their own traditions if they didn’t disagree with him. But, the sheer arrogance is breathtaking. Let’s take a sampling of the more egregious offenders:

We all know Dr. Beckwith is a well respected man, a good thinker, etc. But, like Greg Koukl says at times, good thinkers make simple mistakes. This is certainly one of them for Dr. Beckwith.

This past week I taught Luther’s “Bondage of the Will” to my son’s home school co-op class, prompting my observation as a longtime ETS member that it seems apparent ETS today would roll out the red carpet for Erasmus, but would give old man Luther the boot. Those tempted to cast a longing glance after Dr. Beckwith would do well to read “Bondage of the Will,” themselves. It’s a perfectly Scriptural cure for Tiberculosis.

As an ex Roman Catholic, and as one who strives to reason with my unsaved Roman Catholic family held captive to its bogus claims, I feel nothing but shame toward people like yourself.

You may well be a respected theologian and smart guy, a great philosopher and all that, but to me, you are a traitor and a stumbling block for the truth of the gospel.

I am grieved in my spirit regarding this decision.

I don’t hold RC’s in ill-will as people, and I do believe that it’s possible for RC’s to be saved. However, it would be in spite of the stated dogmas of their church. I hold them and their church anathema specifically because of Galatians 1:6-9.

I will keep you in my prayers b/c ultimately it is your soul that is on the line before Christ and if you wish to stand behind Rome in your defense before the Father instead of soley behind Christ’s finished work on the cross than you really do need my prayers.

These commentators are stunning. I really don’t know if any words can do justice to how spectacularly wrong they are. But, I’m going to try. Do they really think that all us relatively intelligent people who examined the claims of Rome and decided to leave our Evangelical roots are deluded? That our logic failed us when we left the “Bible alone” behind?

I expect them to disagree with us, but at least give us a little bit of credit. I spent two years studying and arguing with myself and others before I converted. My friends will attest to the agony I went through; the last thing I wanted to do was leave my Baptist church family behind. But, I had to follow my conscience.

There is one simple error of logic that Evangelicals make, that underlies all these comments and prevents the unity of Christianity. That error is that the Bible is formally sufficient for salvation. This position cannot be justified from Scripture itself, because the Bible does not itself define what books it contains, and it is painfully obvious that it does not interpret itself. We must rely upon an external authority, if only to determine the Canon. To claim to follow the Bible alone is to fall into circular logic.

I think I understand why at least some people fall for this error. It is not in our nature to submit to external authority, so we appropriate that authority for ourselves. A common sentiment in Evangelicalism is that the Holy Spirit guides us to the correct interpretation of Scripture. I’d like to think that is true, but the evidence speaks to the contrary: if it were the case, then to whom is the Holy Spirit truly speaking? Those who interpret Scripture to allow one thing, or those who interpret it differently? Ultimately, we appeal to some tradition or another to define the “correct” interpretation. But then how do we determine which tradition to follow?

It is admirable, however, to admit that we follow the tradition of our fathers, in solidarity with them. But, one has to understand that others’ fathers might have followed differing traditions. If relativism is OK with you, then perhaps you could leave it at that, but I couldn’t stop there. I remain convicted that Jesus (in John 17 in particular) and St. Paul (in 1 Corinthians 1 in particular) demand unity in the Church. This is not some invisible unity, but real, visible, tangible communion. The answer to the question of which tradition to follow cannot be answered by examining the present, but only by looking to the historical record of 2,000 years of Christianity. When you do that, as Cardinal Newman so aptly put it, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

So, then, we’re left with two choices: either remain in a magisterium of one, following one’s own whims under the pretext of following the Holy Spirit, while He is leading others who follow their own inner voices to different conclusions, or submit to some external human authority. Submission is terribly difficult; it requires humility, which is not a common virtue. The humble man admits that the sum of human experience is greater than his own. The humble man seeks to understand the other through the other’s eyes, not his own. If you want to understand Catholicism, learn about it from Catholics. If you want to understand the early Church, read the Church Fathers. Then make the decision to submit.

Discover for yourself that the old myths about Romanism and Popery aren’t true. The evidence is all there, if you just take the time to look:

• We don’t believe in salvation by works. We believe in salvation by the grace of God, which will be manifested in good works. As St. James put it, faith without works is dead.
• We don’t pray to saints in the same way we pray to God. We ask the saints, who are in heaven, to intercede for us to God, much as we ask friends to pray for us here on Earth.
• We don’t worship the Blessed Virgin Mary in the same way we worship God. We honor her for her example, for her purity, and for her constant intercession with her Son, but we know that she isn’t God.
• We can’t buy our way into heaven with indulgences. Indulgences, which can’t be bought or sold, are means of reducing time in purgatory.
• And speaking of purgatory, it’s simply a place beyond space and time where we who are saved will be cleansed before entering Heaven. Nothing impure can enter the presence of God, and a snow-covered dunghill is still a dunghill. Indulgences are earned by actions that increase our purity here on Earth, therefore reducing the amount of cleansing needed.
• We don’t re-sacrifice Christ every Mass. We re-present the one Sacrifice.
• Infallibility doesn’t equal impeccability. The pope, unless he’s declaring something of faith and morals, in a specific manner, is just like you and me. He’s a sinful human being.
• Yes, we’ve done bad things in the past, but we’re sinful, too. It may not have been a good idea to burn Protestants at the stake, although if you take heresy as seriously as we do–and by your comments, I know you do–then to keep someone from infecting others with their salvation-denying views is perfectly understandable. There were bad popes and good popes, there are bad bishops–lots of ‘em. But, that does not take anything away from the preaching of the Gospel.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Please don’t bother reading some hysterical anti-Catholic to learn what Catholics believe. Ask us. We are not the members of a vast conspiracy designed to preach a false Gospel; we were preaching the Gospel before the Canon was set.

And once you’ve learned from us what we believe, then maybe, just maybe, in a spirit of charity, you’ll realize that we seek the face of Christ every bit as fervently as you do. And if we do that, then surely, He will not turn us away.

UPDATE: With sadness, I see that Dr. Beckwith has resigned from the ETS completely, to avoid the public conflict that his presence in that organization would cause.

Something happened on the way…

I discovered that Luke Rivington’s classic work on the early Church and the Papacy (1894) has been scanned into the Web Archive–so, while eating lunch, I decided to browse it a bit. The introduction by the then Archbishop of Westminster, Herbert Cardinal Vaughan, blew me away. So, I cut and pasted the first page and a quarter for discussion:

The clarity and simplicity of Cardinal Vaughan’s words stand in stark contrast to a lot of what we hear today from our clergy when asked about conversion and the truth of our Faith. I wish I understood why.

(HT: Fr. Kimel)