1

Joe,

Great post. Perhaps we can persuade Jimmy Akin to write a catholic appreciation of Protestants. I would do it, but as a Protestant I think it (rightly!) wouldn't be taken very seriously.

Incidentally, as I read your thoughts about Mary, I wondered whether the resistance to thinking hard about Mary stems from the neo-gnostic strain that seems to afflict much of evangelicalism. It seems that Jesus' humanity (including his corporeality), Mary, and a robust ecclesiology are interconnected. After all, the Church is (on some accounts) the "hands and feet" of Jesus on earth now. Mary reminds us that he had real hands and feet--neglecting her may cause us to forget that.

2

"Oddly, while we are quick to defend the virgin birth, we are often hesitant to praise the virgin mother."

The doctrine of the 'Miraculous Incarnation' is 'indefensible.' It is an invention of the Graeco-Roman church fathers who had no psychological stomach for the fact that the New Testament states plainly that Jesus of Nazareth was born out of wedlock.

They were also ignorant of Hebrew modes of thinking and expression, and this ignorance, together with a predilection for their own national religions, facilitated the creation of 'Jesus Christ', a new god-man, born of a virgin, fashioned according to their image, their likeness, their values, and their delusions of grandeur.

The New Testament writers did not try to hide the facts about the 'humble' birth of Jesus - they were committed to 'truth.'

Matthew provides a genealogy to demonstrate that Jesus was not the son of Joseph (for a very compelling reason) while Luke's genealogy provides the name of Jesus' biological father to prove his descent from King David, one of the criteria for 'messiahship.'

Out of the necessity to explain away the birth of Jesus was born the entire doctrinal structure of Christendom.

After promulgating the 'virgin birth,' the said fathers subsequently encountered scriptural problems which could only be addressed and answered by promulgating yet more false teachings - divinity, trinity, etc.

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, these 'cover' stories continued all the way to the 19th Century and the adoption of the doctrine of the 'Immaculate Conception'.

The Roman Catholic Church is not only the great defender of this unscriptural teaching but also the great proponent of the idolatrous 'marianology.'

3

vynette,
Um, which New Testament are you reading? In mine, when the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will give birth to the "Son of the Most High," she asks, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" Gabriel replies, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." (Luke 1:34-35) Matthew writes that Mary was "found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit" (Mt 1:18). As far as I can tell, that is the New Testament "plainly stating" a virgin birth. You're free to disagree with belief in the virgin birth, but claiming New Testament support for your argument is a bit much.

4

Joe: great post. Blogged something similar recently, concerning more temporal debts we owe them. Namely, while we evangelicals were busy "praying down" the Berlin wall, it was John Paul who gave Ronald Reagan the blueprint. Also, Catholic leadership--especially on issues like abortion and gay clergy-- is virtually the only existing check against a complete leftward free fall in Europe.

5

That was a good selection of attributes to admire of our Catholic family.

"How can we not be in awe of this woman when we realize she held God in her womb? Our Catholic friends remind us that Jesus wasn’t just the son of God; He was Mary’s son too."

Around Christmastime, during a sharing/testimony time at our small church, I shared about how Mary said "Yes" to God to bear Jesus into the world through her womb and how we should do likewise in bearing Christ as a Light to the world. My emphasis was on the saying Yes part to God. Well, my pastor got up right after I finished and then gave a disclaimer to the effect, "If Mary hadn't said yes, God would have found someone else. Mary as a particular person was not that important."

I was a little bruised over the comment but realised it was just a symptom of the Maryphobia. Hmmmph, I wonder if those who discount Mary would say something similar about Paul or any of the apostles?

6

I agree with you Joe that Catholics have a more consistent position on pro-life issues. Catholics reject IVF mostly for the reason that it creates 'surplus' embryos that will effectively be flushed down the toilet (a tiny fraction will be 'adopted' and most others will sit in frozen containers so long that they will become less and less likely to survive if ever implanted). I find it amazing that the pro-life industry attacks IVF in only the most gentle ways when it is, in fact, a entirely optional procedure AND it probably has no protection under Roe.v.Wade.

7

For another view on ecclesiology, see Phil Johnson's excellent series of posts on unity. I think Phil would say that the kind of unity Christ prayed for was spiritual and based on a common recognition of revealed truth, rather than organizational and based upon worldwide submission to the chair of Peter. So, before you pray for an organizational and hierarchical unity, consider whether Christians should be identifiable by their common submission to God’s word, or by their common submission to a certain fallible human bishop.

I add that if you think the doctrine of an invisible, spiritual unity is a mere reaction to embarrassment over denominationalism, then you have an impoverished view of a doctrine clearly attested to by scripture and shared by many notable early church fathers.

8

What Catholics Owe Evangelicals: An Appreciation
(by no means an exustive list)
#1. Keeping direct Biblical references alive in American culture.
Sometimes we Catholics get so sidetracked into the reason portion of “Faith & Reason”, become so immersed (and unduly proud) of our ne0-thomist natural law traditions, that we forget that going directly to the source of revealed truth has tremendous value.
If it had been left to us, direct biblical citation and invocation would be dead letter within American culture. We all owe a debt of gratitude to evangelicals for consistently invoking the Gospels and Biblical Texts. The Word of God has tremendous moral authority, as well it should. It invocation should not be reserved to Papal encyclicals – We can thank evangelicals for keeping His Word alive in public debate and common parlance.

9

Another thing you Evangelicals owe us Romish Papists:

The only reason you have a Gospel to preach is the bishops of my Church stopped the local Shirley Mac Laines from rewriting it in their image back when calendar years AD were in the low three digits.

10

Mike, there is no New Testament support for 'virgin birth.'

(Luke 1:34-35) Joseph was descended from King David through a line debarred forever from any claim on David's throne. A knowledge of this genealogical background is critical to an understanding of the most misused and abused question in scripture.

When Gabriel told Mary of the future greatness of her son-to-be, especially that "the Lord God would give him the throne of his father David" the question that immediately leapt to Mary's mind was...

"How can this be seeing I don't know a man?"

Mary did not know a man who could father a child entitled by birth to sit on David's throne...who was not 'disinherited', as was Joseph. In essence, Gabriel responds to this question by telling Mary that God will take care of everything...a way will be found...she will protected

(Mt 1:18) This verse from Matthew cannot be used to justify a 'virgin birth'. Luke records that John the Baptist was 'filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb.' (Luke 1:15) He also records that a few months before John was born, his mother Elizabeth was 'filled with the Holy Spirit.' (Luke 1:41)

We learn from the Old Testament that the word of YHVH came to the prophet Jeremiah saying: "Before I (YHVH) formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jer 1:5)

A consistent biblical theme is that the 'Holy Spirit' is the agent of every human birth. To use this theme in a 'particular' or 'exclusive' way only where it refers to Jesus is to wrest the words of gospel writers who were just availing themselves of commonly understood terminology.

As I stated in my previous comment, it was through an ignorance of Hebrew modes of thinking and expression that the doctrine of 'virgin birth' came into existence. It has always been 'unscriptural.'

11

Stumbled on this through a link, sorry to hear you won't be crossing the tiber. I'm sorry but I disagree with sola fide. it is unscriptural and goes against the Bible.
Romans 2:13
James 2:24
James 2:20
Matthew 7:21
Matthew 19:16-17
Hebrews 12:14
Philippians 2:12-13
Ephesians 2:10

12

The warming relationship between Evangelicals and Catholics is truly remarkable in view of their long history of antagonism. Protestants and Catholics engaged in open warfare from about 1520 to 1648. Intense anti-Catholic bigotry persisted in the UK and the US through the nineteenth century. A softer anti-Catholic bigotry continued well into the 1950s. It is really only since the 1960s that most Evangelicals and Catholics could even think of each other as fellow believers.

Still today, many conservative Protestants do not consider Catholics to be Christians, while many traditionalist Catholics do not consider non-Catholics to be Christians. Southern Baptists send more missionaries to Brazil, the world's most Catholic country, than they do to any other nation.

I'm curious, Joe. Do you consider Catholics to be saved and fully Christian - that is, in no need of conversion to your version of "true Christianity"?

13

Joe,

Great post. I don't think people realize what a great leader Pope John Paul II was, especially when you consider that he appeared on the historical scene at the same time many fundamentalists Christians were still trying to figure out if the civil rights movement was a good thing or a bad thing-(and I say that as a fellow Bible believing evangelical Christian) Not too shabby from a man representing a Church that carried out the Inquisition in the not too distant past.

14

Idol worship. Bible banning. Indulgences. Salvation by works. Inquisition. Institutional transfer of molesters. Complicity with totalitarian regimes. Baptismal regeneration. Denial of half the sacrament to their people. Pronouncing anathemas and killing many of the greatest Christians that ever graced this fallen earth.

No, I'm not feeling a connection.

15

Interesting how many people decided to jump on Joe, and who seem to prefer division, factions, and majoring on negatives. But the values, history, and scholarship that Catholics share in common with the rest of Christendom far outweigh our differences. I'm thinking of the Beatitudes, Matt 5 "blessed are the peacemakers". I didn't see anywhere "blessed are the righteous crusaders for truth justice and condemnation of people"

16

Next Joe will be saying the Democrats have good ideas....

17

As a Catholic, I don't like Fitz, an alleged Catholic, saying that the Church has anything against the Bible. The Vulgate Bible was translated from Hebrew to Latin in the 5th Century. The Douay Bible used by English- speaking Catholics
came about the same period as the King James Bible. Old and New Testament quotations are used in all Catholic services. The primary difference with Protestants is that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not believe in the concept of "Sola Scriptura." This is something developed by Luther, Calvin, and others, in recent centuries, especially Protestant Fundamentalists in the U.S. Catholics don't believe that the Bible is only source for Christian theology, and they don't take a literal intepretation of all biblical passages.

18

Mike...

You should read my statement again. We don’t have anything against the Bible (of coarse not) However we don’t tend to quote it as much (chapter & verse) and invoke its authority (chapter and verse) as much as evangelicals do. (out side of mass)

I was complementing their rigor in keeping a CULTURE of scriptural authority alive in popular parlance. (Not making a slight at Catholicism...I am one also)

If you want to hop on someone - Hop on Mary's warmed over archaic view of Catholicism (above)

19

About the whole ecumenical thing...
What about the Orthodox churches? They have just as strong of a claim to be the "original" Christian church as the Catholics do. The only reason that the Christian Church was split in the first place was because the Roman bishops (popes) were arrogant enough to claim complete supremacy over all other bishops (The Great Schism of 1054). The Catholic Church continues to believe that popes have divinely sanctioned authority over all Christians. Wanting a united church isn't quite as praiseworthy if it is intended just to bring all Christians under the pope's control. If that's ecumenical, then count me as against ecumenicism.

20

Mary,

Putting aside the arguments about the history, numbers, proffered justifications, etc. for the Inquisition, your focus on it in the here and now sounds a little like Muslims' obession with Andalusia.

21

Interesting and thought provoking post. I left the Roman Catholic Church in my teens because, frankly, I was introduced to Christ only outside of it. I was led to a saving relationship with Jesus by a non-Catholic and was dismayed that as a Catholic in good standing, I was completely unaware of the possibility of such a relationship. After a sojourn through some of the more anti-Catholic hinterlands of evangelical Protestantism, I am coming back to what I consider equilibrium. Christians are defined not by their relationship to any human institution, but by their relationship to God. Like any church or denomination, the Catholic church is essentially a religious club. Being a member neither assures nor denies one salvation. Based on my experience, I wouldn't recommend that anyone join. But I certainly know, love and deeply appreciate my Christian brothers and sisters who are part of that institution.

22

Thanks Joe - great post. This is my heart. For Catholics, like myself, to learn from Protestants and Protestants to learn from Catholics. As one who grew up Catholic, left for 7 years as an Evangelical Christian (mostly Baptist Gen. Conf.), and then was led back into the Catholic Church, I see clearly how much both sides could benefit from the other. When we look at Jesus' last prayer before the crucifixion, we see unity is very central to His heart as well.

In addition to what Fitz wrote, I'll add a couple of things I really value about my life in the Protestant world:
1) Emphasis on evangelism
2) Music
3) Encouragement and opportunity for lay missionary work or local outreach
4) Taking big "steps of faith" and trusting in God to bless the work.
5) Separation of Church & State - which was good for the first 200 years or so, but it might be turning into a bad idea after all in the next century.

A note to any fellow Catholics that might be defensive about my list: There are caveats to the above, obviously, there is beautiful music in the Catholic tradition, there are more and more opportunities for lay activism or lay "ministry" apostolates in the Catholic world, Catholics have evangelized entire nations in the past and are regaining that skill in the western world once again. But, in my time, in my place, I've been blessed by Prostestants in these ways.

23

Boonton:
"Catholics reject IVF mostly for the reason that it creates 'surplus' embryos that will effectively be flushed down the toilet ...."

I wouldn't say that is "mostly" the reason. That's part of it, but even if it could be guaranteed that all embryos were successfully implanted in the mother, the Catholic Church would still be opposed.

The primary principle they teach is that the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace should not be divided. So both contraception and IVF are frowned upon because they both break that bond. Contraception removes the procreative aspect from marital lovemaking, IVF removes the "one-flesh union" aspect of lovemaking from procreation. There is no doubt that God designed those two aspects to go together when He first came up with human sexuality/reproduction. The Catholic Church, some might say is erring on the side of caution, but maintains that it is not up to man to separate them. I've never read this verse in connection before, so don't take it as a proof text to be shot down, but it just came to mind "What God has joined together, man must not separate."

What's interesting is that many of the logical arguments currently being used by homosexual lobbyists and embryonic stem-cell research advocates cannot be used against the Catholic ethic (for those few that follow it, even within the Catholic Church). In fact, if it wasn't for the IVF industry, would the embryonic stem cell industry even exist?

Granted, even if America had not changed course and accepted contraception in the 1930's - 1960's, abortion itself would still happen in America, but Big Abortion industry would not exist either. Heck, most of us would probably never have heard of that wonderful organization Planned Parenthood which performs so many abortions.

The sad fact is that contraception, abortion, IVF, embryonic stem-cell research are all linked in a linear fashion.

24

Thank you for your carefully concidered post. Who'd a thunk it? Catholics who invented the inquisition and protestants from whom sprang the "Know Nothings" being able to appreciate each other. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is up to something.

I am struck by the fact that the things you appreciate about us are the things that the our liberal elements ignore, disent from or seek to abandon. Should any of them read your post, I hope they find it thought provoking.

Pax vobiscum.

25

Great post. :-)

Am a new reader and would like to second what Fitz said. I actually appreciated the Bible more through Protestant friends--- that appreciation made me more Catholic though!

God bless..

26

As a Catholic, I want to say thanks. This is a great post, Joe.

27

Admiration is very important in the spiritual life.

St. Thomas Aquintas argues that a person, when he sees something greater and superior to himself, and loves it for its greaterness and superiority, he is baptized.

I can only hope this admiration for the Catholic Church, will one day turn into a complete love for the Church aquired by the Holy and Adorable Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

In Jesu et Maria

RG

28

If the Blessed Mother Mary is the Mother of Jesus, if she is the creation of God the Father, and finally if she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Then does not she deserve a little love, respect and admiration?

29

Joe,
Thank you. And may your tribe increase.

As a Catholic, I have to say that my favorite comment so far is that of Marie. Marie, may God bless you. May his love always and ever penetrate your heart, deeper and deeper, until that great Day.

Praise to Jesus Christ, King of endless glory!

30

Wonderful post! I am a Catholic and have Protestant in-laws. I try to find common ground to discuss the faith and this article provides some additional points to discuss. :)

31

Thank you, Mr. Carter, for your generous and very gracious remarks regarding the Catholic Church. As a first generation Catholic on my father's side (My family was Lutheran going back to the Reformation) I appreciate the differences that divide us ecclesially and doctrinally but also know that Our Lord Jesus Christ desires that we may be one. You give me hope that the love for the Lord that we share as brothers in Christ far exceeds the differences that keep us currently apart. God bless you!
Yours in Christ,
Brian John Schuettler

32

And what we Catholics appreciate about our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, are their zeal for the faith, and their love of the Lord. Having been raised by a convert to Catholicism (my mother grew up Presbyterian), I grew up with that zeal, and wish more Catholics demonstrated it.

One note: I could be wrong, but as far as I understand it, we are actually in agreement that salvation is by grace alone (Sola Gratia). Where we differ is on the subject of justification and sanctification.

33

Thanks for this thoughtful post.

I was raised an evangelical Protestant, as well, and our backgrounds sound similar in regard to the Roman Catholic Church.

I DID swim the Tiber, however, and what I found was that as a Catholic, I did not cease to be an evangelical, or a Bible Christian, or anything. In becoming a Catholic, all I lost of Protestantism was the protest.

The Catholic understanding of Sola Fide is articulated very well by Jimmy Akin in his book The Salvation Controversy, which I recommend you read. The Protestant and Catholic understandings may not be as far apart as you imagine.

God bless you. I certainly appreciate my faithful Protestant brothers, too.

34

Elwood,

That is just about the most succinct, and articulate, explanation regarding birth control, that I think I have ever seen. Hope you don't mind if I keep a copy.

35

Joe,

I'm here via a link on Jimmy Akin's blog. I was raised Protestant (ELCA Lutheran) and "crossed the Tiber" in 2003; however, I still have and always will have a deep appreciation for my Protestant background.

Thank you for this blog entry. Many of your list items were aspects of the Catholic Church that drew me to Catholicism - especially the Church's continuous respect for life. It's nice to know that the Church is appreciated by some our seperated brethern, even if they can't quite yet "cross the Tiber."

To those of you who wish to debate Catholic theology, I really don't think that Joe's comments box is the appropriate place to do so - especially given the spirit of ecumenicism in which this post is written. However, feel free to drop on by the Catholic Answers forums (http://forums.catholic.com) and I'm more than happy to engage in a spirited debate about any facet of my faith. :)

36

(not to be confused with DGS above!)

I was raised Evangelical and Reformed, and while I have become thoroughly Catholic to my bones, my Evangelical heritage is still stamped on my DNA, as it were.

My debt to Evangelicalism is incalculable. It was as an Evangelical that I learned to love Jesus and the scriptures, and to be able to communicate this love to others. Of course Catholics love Jesus, but they aren't always able to communicate it in the ready way that Evangelicals are. (Sadly, this has led to a communication gap between Catholics and Protestants in which Evangelicals perceive tongue-tied Catholics as "not saved" because they can't articulate their faith with the same fluidity.)

It was as an Evangelical that I learned to sing in church. We Catholics really stink at this. At least at the parish I currently attend we have great hymns that we don't sing. At a lot of Catholic parishes they have tuneless 1960s pablum that they don't sing. It's the worst of both worlds. You could go to a trendy Bible church and have cotton-candy praise tunes, but at least they would belt them out.

Having said that, of course I believe that I have gained enormously by becoming Catholic. Far from losing anything essential, I've found the fullness of what I always believed and loved as an Evangelical.

But I appreciate this appreciation because I think it's important to recognize that the Catholic Church and Protestantism are not simply separate, rival alternatives. Historically, theologically, culturally, we are linked. Protestantism, one might say, exists in relation to Catholicism.

Although the two cases are far from parallel, Protestantism can no more be understood apart from Catholicism than Christianity itself can be understood apart from Judaism. Let me repeat, the two cases are far from parallel; one could even draw the opposite parallel in some ways. As an Evangelical turned Catholic, I feel not unlike a Jew who has discovered Jesus the Messiah.

But this makes me value my Evangelical heritage all the more, not spurn it. And I'm grateful for appreciation of the Catholic Church from the confessional tradition of my upbringing. It's only a small taste of the unity we're called to, but even a little taste is sweet, and may spur us on to press forward toward greater unity.

37

Thank you, Joe, reaching out to us Catholics. We very much appreciate it. God bless you. I pray that we would all follow God's will to seek unity as you have done. I very much respect and admire faithful Protestants who are filled with the Holy Spirit, immersed in the Holy Scriptures and on fire for the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you to all my Brothers and Sisters in Christ for your daily witness.

38

Thanks for the nice words about Catholicism. Jimmy Akin was right to speak well of you.

39

Great post!

I was raised in the Evangelical Protestant tradition with a Bible Church/Plymouth Brethren emphasis and came into the Catholic Church this past Summer. The writing of Thomas Howard was quite helpful, and I'd highly recommend him.

During the week of Christian Unity, I wrote a similar piece from the other side of the Tiber.

40

Mary said: Idol worship. Bible banning. Indulgences. Salvation by works. Inquisition. Institutional transfer of molesters. Complicity with totalitarian regimes. Baptismal regeneration. Denial of half the sacrament to their people. Pronouncing anathemas and killing many of the greatest Christians that ever graced this fallen earth.

No, I'm not feeling a connection.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said: "There are not one hundred people on the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are thousands who hate what they think the Catholic Church is."

Oh, and Joe, thanks for the commentary. I don't know enough about your brand of Evangelical Protestantism to comment, but I believe we have more in common than different.

41

Barbara,
I first heard the explanation of the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace belonging together from a lecture by Dr. Janet Smith called "Contraception, Why Not?" She is at University of Dallas. If you search the web on her name or the name of the lecture, you'll easily find somewhere you could order the CD. It's widely distributed.
She also described the unitive and procreative aspects as "babies and bonding" for alliteration.
Feel free to use my summation though, I just can't take credit for the original discourse which she got from the church.

42

I am 17 and I want to become a priest. I will never accept Protestants!

43

Joe,

I just came over to reassure you that, contra your note to Jimmy Akin, you DO have Catholic readers. I read your blog regularly.* So regularly, in fact, that I get sad when there are no new posts. ;-)

* I probably don't count, though. Staunch Catholic though I am, my husband is a Presbyterian, so I could be said to have a vested interested in understanding Reformed Evangelical perspectives.

44

Pars,

I invite you to see that the Eastern Orthodox churches are not the "original church" just as much because the beliefs that set them apart from the Catholic Church were not held in the early church. Study of the Early Church Fathers is a must for any self-proclaimed Reformed Christian if they are truly interested in getting back to the purity of the Apostolic faith.

http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html

Mr. Cartner, I'd like to thank you for your fairness. Since you respect Jimmy Akin enough to share this post with his readers, I'd second the recommendation of his book, "The Salvation Controversy". In his book, as always, Mr. Akin is a gentle man in the best sense of the word and writes with admirable clarity.

45

Great post Joe. God bless you for your charity and thoughfulness. I took Matt Anderson's suggestion for Jimmy Akin to heart and wrote a Catholic response:

http://thecrawfordfamily.net/blog/?p=364

46

Joe, excellent post! Certainly all Christians have far more in common than at odds, and we should all be praying for actual unity. At least we're united in most political issues!

Marie, a bit of good news: the Catholic Church never has banned the Bible or tried to prevent the laity from reading it. This is one of the great "Christian myths" -- if you try to find an instance where any Pope forbade reading the Bible, you come up with nothing. It's like George Washinton and the cherry tree.

47

As a Catholic I must say how grateful I am to Joe for this thoughtful article. We need to be reminded sometimes that we have much more in common than we often realize. As Christian brothers and sisters we need to come together to re-evanglize the western world and be the light that Christ asks of his body, the church. Thanks again, Joe.

48

"I am 17 and I want to become a priest. I will never accept Protestants! "

Some Day,

This is neither the place nor the hour for such talk.

Joe, I'd like to thank you for an awesome post, and your readers (most of them, anyway) for the respectful comments about the Catholic Faith. God Bless!

49

Mary said: Idol worship. Bible banning. Indulgences. Salvation by works. Inquisition. Institutional transfer of molesters. Complicity with totalitarian regimes. Baptismal regeneration. Denial of half the sacrament to their people. Pronouncing anathemas and killing many of the greatest Christians that ever graced this fallen earth.

And what measuring stick does Mary use to measure this? "Scripture (TM)"? i.e. a canon that was originally established by Councils and Bishops of the Catholic Church? Protected from error by those Councils and Bishops from being rewritten in the image of some Shirley Mac Laine of the time? Not dropped pre-printed and pre-bound from Heaven (in Kynge Jaymes Englyshe) and protected from error by some sort of miracles?

Chesterton has an example of somebody watching a Catholic ceremony -- priests in robes and vestments, some swinging incense burners, some carrying holy books, chanting in an ancient tongue, holding high various ritual objects (like processional crosses) as they pass in procession.

And asks if the atheist's conclusion -- heckling from the side saying "All of this is bunk!" -- does not make more sense than the Protestant reaction: rushing into the middle of the procession, ripping the holy book out of the priest's hands, then holding it up and proclaiming "THIS IS *THE* WORD OF GOD! WORD FOR WORD! AND IT SAYS ALL THE REST YOU PRIESTS DO IS OF SATAN!" (Using the words of *the* holy book taken from the same procession he denounces.)

50

I'm not a Catholic (or a Christian for that matter) but it's obvious to me that Protestants either don't know what the Catholic Church really teaches or they willfully misconstrue what the Church teaches. Probably a healthy mixture of both and are not responsible for it up to a point, I guess you can't control where you're born & what influences you. And, to cut both ways, I don't think members of the Catholic Church have proven worthy role models. But to the point, I think Protestants are in the wrong for essentially blowing up the Church with the Reformation. Hardly what Christ had in mind when He prayed for unity in the Gospel of John.

I stopped going to church about 20 years ago but have maintained a fascination with religion and have read widely on the history of Christianity, the Reformation, etc. From what I can tell, the split basically boiled down to pride, ego and a land grab by the opponents of the Church all wrapped up into one big pile of trouble. Plus Luther's editing the Bible to suit his own purposes just goes to show he wanted it his way or no way in the end (a fitting motto for Protestantism from my perspective). Additionally, without the C.C., there wouldn't be any Bible for him to edit, and that's a plain fact. And, really, to prey for God's Kingdom to come but bristle and buck when He sets His Church up like a hierarchy? Seems a contradiction.

As for me, I'm not sure if religion is true or not or if people are just hardwired to believe in "something". All this "my tribe versus your tribe" mentality somehow falls short of any glory of God. What is it that St. Paul said: don't get mixed up in a debate over words for they lead to division. And that leads me to what St. Francis said: Preach continually, and use words only when necessary.

Best,

John

51

"I am 17 and I want to become a priest. I will never accept Protestants! "

Some Day,

Please, tell me you did not really write this!

It is intolerant, intemperate, and just rude. The man has gone out of his way to give the Catholic Church some props on HIS blog, and you drop a bomb like that?

52

Some Day's statement is consistent with RC teaching. Unless I am mistaken, all the Protestant churches are officially "anathema."

My comments about the history of RC theology are not made in hatred. I think the history is important and should not be washed away with a general "feeling" of good will. There is serious doctrinal error in the RC church which has resulted in terrible suffering for, I'd say, probably millions of people.

That doesn't mean they do everything wrong. They read the Bible (now), although they read the Apogrypha, too. They have performed untold acts of mercy. They are consistently pro-life. I won't deny any of these things. I think they are positive and of great value.

I just don't believe all that seriously bad doctrine should be looked at as inconsequential.
I am also disturbed that when these issues are brought up, instead of being addressed, they are ignored. Was the reformation at all necessary, my fellow Protestants? Did Zwingli, Cranmer, Wycliffe die in vain?

53

Given the history of the Catholic Church and the Reformation, consideration for the sensibilities of commenters just cannot be measured against the necessity to speak on matters of grave import and consequence for Christians past and present.

Ken, you said: "And what measuring stick does Mary use to measure this? "Scripture (TM)"? i.e. a canon that was originally established by Councils and Bishops of the Catholic Church?"

The earliest churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times were in possession of the various letters and 'gospels' which form our present canon.

The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.

No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events. The council decrees have the form: "This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical".

It would therefore be more accurate to say that the canon selected itself, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, than that any Church selected it.

As regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convoked by the Emperor from Constantinople.

At these Councils, where the 'Nature of God' was defined and determined for all generations, Latin bishops were numerically insignificant and made an insignificant contribution.

For example, out of a total attendance of 318 at the Council of Nicea, the Latins could boast of only 7 representatives.

54

Unless I am mistaken, all the Protestant churches are officially "anathema."

You are correct in that you are mistaken. See here:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

55

vynette, in #53, says:

"[Some things]", many of which are true, some of which are a stretch, many of which are irrelevant, none of which (necessarily) lead to the conclusion to which he/she aspires.

But this is neither the place nor the time.

56

Marie,
As a Catholic, I agree. Our disagreements should not be swept under the rug. But perhaps a better place to start is where we find agreement, and to better understand what each other REALLY believes.

Pope Benedict agrees with you about ecumenism not being about just a general feeling of good will. This is from an address to Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics in Germany:

"Among Christians, fraternity is not just a vague sentiment, nor is it a sign of indifference to truth. As you just said, bishop, it is grounded in the supernatural reality of the one baptism which makes us all members of the one body of Christ (cf. I Cor 12: 13; Gal 3: 28; Col 2: 12).
Together we confess that Jesus Christ is God and Lord; together we acknowledge him as the one mediator between God and man (cf. I Tm 2: 5), and we emphasize that together we are members of his body (cf. “Unitatis Redintegratio”, n. 22; “Ut Unum Sint”, n. 42). "

He went on to say in this address that we should not deny one's own faith history. "Absolutely not!" he says.

In another address, he says something challenging to me, but in line with what your point is, Marie:

'"Ecumenism is certainly a slow process, sometimes even discouraging when one gives in to the temptation to hear, but not listen, to mumble rather than to proclaim with courage" the truths of the faith, Pope Benedict said.'

There is a temptation to gloss over our differences. We can't do that. But in response to this movement of the Holy Spirit, we can't let those differences keep us from some tough, charitable, and honest dialogue.

Lord, make us one.

57

I just don't believe all that seriously bad doctrine should be looked at as inconsequential.

Lastly, I will also say that I don't think anyone here, least of all our host, has said that our "bad doctrine" is "inconsequential".

58

No, I'm not feeling a connection.>>

Somebody's not up on her history...Thank you for the quality post. One thing I appreciate about Evangelicals is their love of Scripture on a personal basis. While the Catholic Church has preserved, guarded, and even encouraged the reading of Scripture on a pastoral level, the sad reality is that for 40 years or more, Catholic Bibles have been collecting dust on the shelves of the laity. Evangelicals, by engaging us, have awoken a sleeping giant who now acknowledges its hunger for Scripture.

I think that Peter Kreeft had it right. Protestants will become Catholic when Catholics become more Protestant than the Protestants. In other words, when we take the realities that are Truth in Protestantism and integrate them into our sacramental body, the allure of the Church will be too great to resist. However, the Divine mail carriers cannot alter God's mail. We will all meet at the one 'place' called Christ one day. The essence of Evangelicalism is to be one with Christ and that's the best reason to be a Catholic. It's Jesus ONLY. It's always been Jesus only. He is sufficient and we both agree on this. Mary, the saints, sacraments, etc. are not an obstacle or intermediary but the body of Christ himself. The Body of Christ is not an obstacle to Christ--we're not Gnostics.

But until they see the Christo-centric nature of the Catholic Church, Protestants rightly should protest. And unless Catholic show it to them, how can they see it? And how can Catholics show it to them unless we see it ourselves? And unless we have a teacher, how can we see it? John Paul II was not only a strong man but a great Christo-centric one. Benedict is every bit the equal of John Paul II.

When Catholics are evangelized, Protestants will be sacramentalized...Peter Kreeft again.

59

Ok, I came over to this post at Jimmy A's recommendation and, while the post is thought provoking, the comments make me wish I hadn't. We've obviously got a long way to go before we can see the Lord's (whom we ALL adore) prayer to our Father for unity be accomplished! Geez.

60

From what I can tell, the split basically boiled down to pride, ego and a land grab by the opponents of the Church all wrapped up into one big pile of trouble.

Kind of reminds one of the split in ancient Israel after the death of Solomon. Some things never change.

61

"Did Zwingli, Cranmer, Wycliffe die in vain?"

Um.

Wyclif died of natural causes. Zwingli, who died in battle in a Swiss civil war, mercilessly persecuted Anabaptists. Cranmer was martyred for his Anglican faith, but not before having a hand in the martyrdom of a number of Catholics, including Thomas More and John Fisher.

This is a pointless style of argument, Marie. I believe you when you say your arguments are not made in hatred, but you must believe me that they are made in ignorance. You throw around words like "indulgence" and "anathema" when you show no evidence of having found out what Catholics actually mean by those words.

We do have differences that are important, and they need to be discussed. But understanding comes first. Until we talk to each other and make a real effort to understand one another's positions, as opposed to just accepting whatever we've been told about the other by our own authorities and mentors, we will continue to talk past each other, and think we are standing up for truth when really we are misunderstanding.

We need less heat, more light.

62

Thanks Joe. I appreciated your posting. As a former Baptist and evangelical I do understand well some of the dynamics involved in Evangelical-Roman Catholic relations.

What I valued most was your honest and sincere effort to see past the prejudice which haunts most of our dialogue and to express appreciation for your Catholic brethren.

Also, as one keenly involved in defending the unborn from being killed in their mothers' wombs, I appreciate your willingness to put their rights and safety ahead of "denominational" bias. This is absolutely essential if Christians in today's society are to secure justice for "the least of these my brothers," and so rescue them for God's purposes and also to avoid the condemnation of the Son of Man when He divides goats from sheep.

63

Hello,
I am a Catholic, and I too appreciated reading this article. I think that before we can ever have true unity again we must first respect and appreciate one another--even if we disagree. This article was a step in the right direction.

I have a question for my non-Catholic and also converted brethren though. As you've seen from the responses posted from Catholics many of them are converts TO Catholicism. They obviously still have great love and respect for their evangelical background and they seem to have fond memories that they take with them as they come home to the Catholic Church. However, the flip side of this is when a Catholic leaves the Church to join a non-Catholic church he or she seems to have such angst and almost hatred toward the Catholic Church. It seems as though these people are running away from the Catholic Church with much prejudice versus non-Catholic converts running toward the Church with much joy. These same people who leave the Catholic Church then become "experts" on Catholic theology and seem to feed the ongoing anti-Catholic bent. It is sad and I wish there were a simple answer to this. Regardless, I wish all of my non-Catholic brothers and sisters the peace of Christ and I pray that we will be "perfectly one" as Christ would have us.
In Truth,
Matthew

64

I'm glad that Jimmy Akin linked to this post. As a former Mennonite Evangelical who is now Catholic, I believe that we Catholics are also very indebted to our Evangelical brothers and sisters. They are, in general, so zealous for the truth and for the spread of the Gospel. I know that I personally am indebted to the many faithful Protestants who taught me the basics of the Chrstian faith, the importance of love for and obiedience to Jesus Christ, and who still support me as wonderful Christian friends.

65

marie,you talk about history I think you need to recheck your history starting with some good Catholic recources, such as catholic .com.Regarding the behavior of catholics it's true there have been very sinful catholics in history but aren't we all sinners and history shows that many bible believing,God fearing prostestants have committed horrible attrocities such as the founders of our great nation many of whom were slave owners and slavery was a staple of the people of this land for hundreds of years,a land with a overwhelming majority of protestants,and how can we forget the puritans and the Salem witch trials...In sum we are all sinners and let's not forget we shouldn't leave Peter because of Judas.Anyway thank you Joe for the great post!!!

66

Very thoughtful and well written post, Joe. Of the evangelical non-Catholic Christians I've known or read, I'm thankful for who they were in my life, people who loved the Lord, acknowledged the Trinity and endeavored to live the Gospel the best they could.

67

My thought about Evangelicals I know is "why aren't they Catholic?" It would be a win-win situation. I know the Church would be better off with them, and I believe they would have a fuller, more beautiful experience. I know that they just love Jesus with their whole heart and soul, and if they could have an open mind to come to understand the depth and beauty in the way the Catholic Church worships our Lord.

I also feel sad for them because of what they miss. I was thinking of this a couple of days ago. As far as I know, Lent doesn't mean anything to them. For Catholics it is the most important part of the year. Fasting, Stations of the Cross, etc. I think of inviting them to come to Stations of the Cross. I always end up with tears in my eyes. How could you not when you reflect so on what our Lord did for us? I think with their deep love of Jesus they would have a powerful experience.

Or the symbolic beauty of Good Friday to Easter, how Jesus is removed from the church after Good Friday Mass and the church is darkened because our Lord is not with us, with no Mass on Saturday while we wait until Easter vigil when the Light of the World reenters the church. Every year I love that experience.

68

I am a Catholic. I spent my life from 13-20 with an Evangelical family after my parents passed away. Those people were so kind to me that I can never thank them enough (they have also passed away). Those parents became grandparents to my children, and were there rejoicing for their first communion, confirmation, etc. I am grateful for the evangelical church because they treated me kindly, loved me, and loved my family. Thank God for them, and for you, Joe. You can see that we are more alike than different, as I do. Your post gives me hope that we can grow together, rather than further apart. I could never leave the Catholic church, but I am forever grateful to my Evangelical brothers and sisters. May God bless you all!

69

Here is a site that many of you all might find interesting: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Marie, in particular, might find interesting Justin Martyr's writings in his First Apology (written circa 155 AD), chapters 61 (on "baptismal regeneration") and chapter 66 (on the Real Presence). See:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

Also noteworthy: Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrnaeans. See chapters VII & VIII.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2233_373220

(Ignatius wrote ~ 110 AD.)

Reading the Anti-Nicene (before Nicea) Fathers may not turn a Protestant into a Catholic. Indeed, many Protestants find support for their positions in the writings of the early Fathers. But reading the Fathers will at least disabuse a person of the simplistic myth that the sacramental system & the understanding of the church as a visible hierarchy were accretions of the "medieval church" or the result of the corruption of Christianity at Nicea. The fact is that a great many of the things that some Protestants find weird about the Catholic Church have been there since the inception of Christianity, although they may have grown more elaborate over time.

I just veered off too much into an apologetic argument. Sorry. My main point was to make everyone aware of EarlyChristianWritings.com, which seems to be inter-denominational. Thanks for the respectful post, Joe Carter. I love & respect faith-filled Protestants. May we all continue humbly & prayerfully to seek the Truth.

70

Great post Joe (I’m Catholic)! Your perspective shows your wisdom. In his book See The Gods Fall the brilliant Protestant/philosopher/ethicist Francis J. Beckwith writes, “Although it is certainly true that the Christian church in its three major branches (Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy)” Your view of Catholicism seems to go well with Beckwith’s view of Catholicism. Beckwith seems to hold that Catholics are Christian. I hope that Catholics continue to show their appreciation to you. We must all unite on the pro-life issue too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

71

As a fallen away Catholic, who regained his faith in college with the help of Evangelical Protestants... and after subsequent study, returned to the Catholic faith, I have tremendous respect and appreciation for my Evangelical bretheren. For one, they tend often to be more "evangelical" than we Catholics... that is, they are less reserved in expressing their faith and taking the risks necessary to spread the Gospel. Also, my evangelical friends reawoke in me a passion for daily devotional reading of the Holy Scriptures--THE ancient devotion within the Catholic Tradition (but one which falls by the wayside among some Catholics--though this is changing in recent years). I, too, pray for unity. I would also never ask a Protestant brother to compromise their beliefs on salvation sola fide, as Joe warns,--though, I would ask them to study to see what the Catholic teaching is... for example, what kind of faith in Christ saves us? Can a "dead faith" save us?... by no means, the faith that saves is one that is alive and inseparable from charitable works (as a response to the grace of God, of course) (James 2:14-26).
Laudetur Iesus Christus! (Praise be Jesus Christ!)

72

I am Catholic -- What I love about Evangelical Christians is their courage to offer prayer as a viable first step in dealing with a serous problem. I belive this to be the case but unfortunatly I hesitate to tell non-believers about this. Evangelicals: No fear! Some of the best people I have ever met were Evangelical Christians. I imagine meeting St. Francis of Assisi would be similar to meeting one of these great people. I wish I could explain the Eucharist better -- they really would dig it if they could see it the way Catholics see it. I dig how the best Catholic apologists are former evangelicals and not cradle catholics (tim staples, scott hahn, jimmy akin, etc...)

Evangelicals are super!
+peace!!!

73

Thank you for this wonderful post. I have worked with many Evangelicals in pro-life work and I appreciate and admire the deep love for Christ they illustrate in their lives.

74

My wife's uncle and his wife recently "Crossed the Tiber" after 30+ years in Evanglical churches. While we were concerned initially that they were "reverting" (they were raised Catholic) to hide from God by attending church in a less emotional and private atmosphere, it now looks like they were always quite earnestly seeking God. Which is good.

Their attitude however has become decisively anti-Evangelical now, which is most unfortunate since we really never had a problem with them becoming Catholic - they're still Christians, afterall.

There have been heated discussions of doctrinal issues that they are now espousing which we disagree with strongly, and things do get ugly at times.

The whole thing is sad, really. I was raised Catholic myself and have always looked at Catholicism in much the same way your post describes. Lately, due mainly to the aforementioned heated discussions, I have found out some things that have disturbed me greatly. I'm not sure what to think of Catholicism anymore.

75

Kevin,

I tried to deliberately stick to official Catholic doctrine in my arguments, not pick on individual sinners. Of course we are all sinners, and I would not condemn the RC church for acts of individual RCs just as I would not condemn the Protestant church due to acts of individuals Protestants.

The issues I brought up are official, Catholic doctrine.

SGD, I know what "indulgence" and "anathema" mean.

Elwood, I wish "Together we confess that Jesus Christ is God and Lord; together we acknowledge him as the one mediator between God and man" were true. However the Catholic doctrine of mediation by Saints - Christians whose merits are greater than their bad deeds, and whose intercession is sought, so that some of their credits might be given to us to shorten our time in purgatory - in not consistent with the statement that Jesus is the one mediator between God and man.

We have been asked for less heat and more light. I am not speaking with "heat." I think that when one is contradicted one often feels like anger is directed at them. This is not the case.

I am flabbergasted, however, at the few commenters who seem to be willing to admit the extreme differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

The pope as the head of the church. The Apogrypha. Salvation by works. The existence of purgatory. The ability to atone for one's one sins by recitation of Hail Marys etc. Veneration of idols, relics. The mass ( a constant re-sacrifice of Christ ). Trans-substaniation. Half-sacraments (no wine). Extra sacraments. These are not small issues. We are not straining at gnats, here. To teach, for instance, that Christ must be constantly re-sacrificed in the mass, is a direct denial of the gospel.

Some have directed me to certain sites and books to illuminate me. Let me recommend "Roman Catholicism" by Loraine Boettner, who systemically lays out, line by line, the differences between us and the changes that would need to be made before we are all indeed one.

76

Joe-

Nice post. Even though it may never become official (although you should never say never--ask Neuhaus about that), you should know that some of us consider you an honorary Catholic already.

77

"SGD, I know what 'indulgence' and 'anathema' mean."

It's SDG.

And I know you think you do, Marie. But you also think, e.g., that "merit" means the saints' merits are "greater than their sins." (In fact, the Church's teaching is that the guilt of our sins is atoned by Christ alone, not by us, and that his sacrifice is the sole meritorious cause of the grace that justifies us. There is something called merit in Catholic theology, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.)

And you think that Boettner is a credible source for what the Catholic Church teaches. He's not. There is hardly a page in his book free of distortion, misrepresentation, and wholesale error.

Believe me: I read Boetter while still an Evangelical Protestant. The complete wrongheadedness of his book opened my eyes to how much anti-Catholic argumentation is claptrap.

Look at your approach. Elwood quoted a declaration of faith, officially endorsed by the Catholic Church, that declares "Jesus Christ is God and Lord... we acknowledge him as the one mediator between God and man." Rome says to you, officially: "This is our teaching." (And they didn't endorse this statement of faith lightly.)

But you answer: "Wrong, Rome, that isn't your teaching. I'll tell you what your teaching really is." How can there be any hope of discussion or understanding under such circumstances?

Until you are willing to accept that you may not know what you think you know, and make the effort of simple honesty to find out what the other side really believes instead of just accepting what you've been told, you will never know what Catholicism is -- and why our host is right to say that we have more in common than is commonly appreciated by many on both sides.

78

Marie:
I am flabbergasted, however, at the few commenters who seem to be willing to admit the extreme differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Well, part of the reason is that people think it's polite not to in the context of this post. Hence JoAnna says "To those of you who wish to debate Catholic theology, I really don't think that Joe's comments box is the appropriate place to do so - especially given the spirit of ecumenicism in which this post is written."

Of course, JoAnna simply demonstrates her newbieness here, as commenters often go on all sorts of tangents which Joe doesn't mind as it generates visits and even productive civil discussion.

So I'll thank JoAnna for her politeness and nonetheless carry on to the content.

The reason why there is division between Catholics and (Reformed) Protestants is because the differences are important. Marie is correct in essentially saying that the Catholic gospel is no gospel from the view of Reformed Protestants.

Which means that however many people in the RCC are saved by the true gospel and don't actually believe Catholic teaching concerning it, the RCC teaches a false gospel according to real Reformed Protestants.

Does that prevent Reformed types from appreciating the good that the RCC does? It shouldn't, just as Reformed Christians should appreciate Jewish cultural achievements.

But the fact is that Reformed types do not have the Lord's Supper with Catholics, and Catholics will not have Mass with Reformed types.

So whatever historical and contemporary commonalities unite Reformed and Catholic Christians, there is a gaping difference in what matters most, a difference that greatly dishonors Christ, even if some Reformed or Catholics don't feel the impact of it.

Joe:
I'm curious about Joe's comment about Jesus's mom, Mary, though. What do you think should be a good response to a faithful, but sinful Mary carrying a human baby? It can seem almost neo-Gnostic to think it was humanly different than carrying any other baby. It's not as if rays of divine holiness were emanating from her womb.

Mary had an incredible experience when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, but after that it was probably in keeping with a normal human pregnancy, according to the doctrine of the Incarnation.

I agree: her faith and the outworking of her faith in life and love during that time must have been incredible though. I bet she was a fantastic mom.

79

Sometimes these conversations end up sounding like what happens when an attempt at dialog is made with a Mormon. There is a lot of dodging and deflecting of questions. Namely, there is never an explanation of what the true Catholic belief in Saints, Mary etc is all about.
To give an example. When confronted with an honest challenge, too many here are saying, oh you simply don't understand what catholics believe about the saints. Well then why won't anyone step up to the plate and clarify those beliefs for us poor evangelicals here.
Maybe I don't know enough catholics, but my experience has been twofold:
First, there are far too many in the catholic church that are simply catholic by birth and it is merely ritual for them.
Second, I'm not confident that if I asked the average catholic they could explain the core of what it means to be a Christian: the grace of God saving us through faith in the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

80

Finlay,
Provide a forum, and many of us will be happy to discuss this. The person who sent us over here requested that we Catholics be charitable, in keeping with the content of the original post. So we are honoring his request.

81

"the RCC teaches a false gospel according to real Reformed Protestants."

Given my personal family background in the Reformed tradition (my father was an RCA/CRC pastor, my brother teaches at a very conservative Reformed school), I don't think this is an adequate assessment of the range of opinions held by those who subscribe to the Heidelberg Catechism and other touchstones of Reformed thought. (Of course, one can always define "real(TM)" to exclude whomever one likes.)

For example, Marie brought up baptismal regeneration. The Reformed author of the section on baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism believed in baptismal regeneration. The Heidelberg Catechism's teaching on baptism was not meant to exclude or condemn baptismal regeneration.

Now, if you want to say that not all the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism were Real Reformed Protestants(TM), well, that's your privilege.

Would you also exclude the Lutheran signatories to the Joint Declaration as believing "no gospel"?

82

What evangelicals owe Catholics is to lovingly preach the true Gospel of the Bible to them and pray that they might be saved from their heretical and apostate religious system.

All ecumenical roads lead back to Rome.

Sola Scriptura!

83

I suppose being raised in a tradition you have more of a feel for its range. Being brought up Catholic in a predominantly Catholic hometown in New England, I remember being puzzled by my first contact with anti-Catholicism around the election of JFK.

Even as a kid, I knew perfectly well that there was a tremedous range of social, political, and religious viewpoints among my own relatives. They ranged from "fire and brimstone" to very liberal. I didn't know anybody who marched in lockstep with the pope, including my Sister of the Holy Cross aunt.

84

Coram Deo, your thinly veiled anti-Catholicism seems poorly placed here. The Catholics here are trying to be charitable. Let me challenge you to read the apostle's creed and figure since this is a basic statement of faith, what do you disagree with?

85

Chris,

I'm not anti-Catholic, I'm Pro-Gospel.

86

Dear Joe: I was horrified to learn that the Southern Baptist Convention encouraged the passage of pro-abortion legislation in 1971. That was news to me! Thank God for the change in 1980. I wonder what other positions might be changed someday?

And thank you for this Appreciation. As a former Southern Baptist who now rejoices to be a Catholic, I will add my appreciation: I am grateful every day for the Scripture I memorized as a Baptist. Thank you, Sunday School teachers of my youth, and thank you, Beth Moore, for Scripture-saturated Bible Studies.

87

Rob wrote:

"Their attitude however has become decisively anti-Evangelical now, which is most unfortunate since we really never had a problem with them becoming Catholic - they're still Christians, afterall.

There have been heated discussions of doctrinal issues that they are now espousing which we disagree with strongly, and things do get ugly at times."

I'm sorry to hear that, but I would urge you to compare your Aunt and Uncle's own stated beliefs with those of the Catholic Church - in the Catechism or other official writings. Quite frankly, an "anti-Evangelical" attitude is sinful at best, and may be based in a heretical belief such as "Feeneyism" which can be found commonly among some "traditional" Catholics.

88

I know what "indulgence" and "anathema" mean.

The very context in which you initially used the word "anathema" (#52) strongly argues against your stated position that you know what the word means. Why not accept that Catholics might know more about Catholicism? Why not read the link I gave you? Then you would understand that Protestant churches are not under anathema. In case you persist in refusing to read, here's the short of it:

Anathema does not mean "damned" (i.e., only God can damn). It is a form of solemn excommunication. When the Church sets up an anathema, she is establishing a law. To use an analogy, if one breaks the speed limit, one does not automatically incur the penalties of breaking that law. Rather, one only incurs the penalty after due process (i.e., the cop cites you, you come before the judge etc). Same with anathemas. No one is under anathema who has not been the subject of the due process of a canonical trial. And here's the thing: anathemas happened so infrequently over the course of history that they were completely dropped from the Church law books in 1983. There no longer exists the penalty of anathema in the Church. And even if it did exist (which it doesn't), it would not apply to people who are not under the jurisdiction of the Church (i.e., non-Catholics).

So rest easy. The Catholic Church has precisely zero interest in pronouncing your (or anyone else's) damnation.

89

giggling wrote:

"I'm curious about Joe's comment about Jesus's mom, Mary, though. What do you think should be a good response to a faithful, but sinful Mary carrying a human baby?"

I have a question for you "giggling." Can sin co-exist with pure grace? Can light co-exist with darkness? No it cannot! Just as Mary, if not protected from sin by God, could not have bore Christ in her womb. Christ cannot and could not be defiled or tainted with sin in any way either before his birth or afterwards.
In Truth,
Matthew

90

Finlay writes:
There is a lot of dodging and deflecting of questions. Namely, there is never an explanation of what the true Catholic belief in Saints, Mary etc is all about.

Well then why won't anyone step up to the plate and clarify those beliefs for us

O.K., since the request was made, I will begin with the Communion of Saints. This is based on the principle that there is only one Body of Christ. There aren't two bodies. All Christians are members of that one Body, whether here on Earth, or having received their heavenly reward in heaven. Each of us is called upon to stand in the gap, and pray for one another. That makes all of us mediators. We aren't mediating between God and man, but between Jesus, His Son, and man.

We can see a couple of examples of heavenly intercession in the book of Revelation:
"And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;" ~5:8

"And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne;
and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God." ~8:3-4

While it does not specifically say whether these prayers, are the saints in heaven, or the saints on Earth, since Rev. 8:4 says "all the saints", lets say for the moment, that it's both.

"When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne;
they cried out with a loud voice, "O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?" ~6:9-10

In the above verse the souls of those who had been slain, were the martyrs. They were aware of the fact that their blood had yet to be avenged. Not only do we see that the souls of the faithfully departed are aware of events on Earth, but they are praying concerning the events taking place here.

In Heb. 12:1, Paul writes: "Therefore being surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses. Let us put aside every weight of sin that besets us, and run the race before us, lookin unto Jesus, the perfector and finisher of our faith".

Paul had just finished listing Old Testament faithful in ch. 11. These same faithful surrounded Paul as he wrote the book of Hebrews.

The communion of saints is like being in a giant Olympic stadium. We are running a race that those in the stands have already gold-medaled in. They aren't just sitting there saying, 'oh, tough luck, she fell again'. Rather they are jumping up and down, yelling 'come on, you can do it. "Look unto Jesus the perfector and finisher of our faith".

We have older brothers and sisters in the Lord who pray for us, just as we pray for each other here on Earth.

91

Matthew,
I am Catholic. But I disagree with your defense of the sinlessness of Mary for the following reason. Clearly, Christ *can* "co-exist" sin, as he does that very thing in every Christian, in the person of his Holy Spirit. Furthermore, God is omnipotent and can do whatever he pleases. So, while I agree wholeheartedly that Mary was preserved, by the merits of her Savior Jesus Christ, from all stain of sin, I disagree that it *had* to be that way, for the reasons stated. In fact, one finds the Church using words such as "fitting" to describe her Immaculate Conception, as opposed to words like "necessary".

92

John Henry is correct. Catholic theology holds that the Man Jesus was necessarily sinless by reason of the Hypostatic Union, inasmuch as He is a Divine Person who cannot be stained by sin.

In Catholic belief, it was fitting that His mother Mary was redeemed by His grace and merits from the first instant of her existence (note: Mary was redeemed; she was not exempt from the need of a Savior), but it was not necessary. Had he wished, Christ could have chosen a prostitute for his mother (and actually that just might be the next most fitting option).

The larger point of agreement, of course, is that Jesus is the one Savior and Redeemer of all mankind, Mary included, and that His sacrifice is the sole meritorious cause of the grace that justifies us all, Mary included.

Mary is among the redeemed; her cooperation in and benefit from God's redemptive plan is unique and glorious, but in no way does she add anything to, or detract anything from, the work of redemption accomplished by Christ alone (Lumen Gentium 60ff).

There are Catholic-Protestant differences of belief with regard to Mary, but they do not affect our shared faith in Jesus the one Savior Who alone accomplished the work of our redemption.

93

Marie, Finlay, and giggling,

I'm more than willing to discuss these issues right here. But as you know, they're not easy and it takes a while. I'll be around for the next 2 months if you'd like, but I can only devote so much time per day. If the other Catholic commenters can stick around, I'm sure they'll have great explanations too and correct me if I misspeak. Let's keep it going.

Marie, you mentioned that you'd been referred to books already, they really are the best source for something like this. Authors like Scott Hahn, David Currie "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic", "Surprised By Truth" edited by Patrick Madrid are my favorites. Websites like www.catholic.com are good too. But - it's easier to talk right now, so here goes.

Barbara gave a great primer on the communion of the saints. I just want to add this thought about one mediator between God and man.

What does it mean to mediate? In the dictionary, it talks of bringing about a reconciliation between two parties. First and foremost, this is what Jesus did. After we ourselves are reconciled, Jesus then offers us a part in His mediation.
What if the church, you included, didn't proclaim the gospel? What if no one told anyone about what Jesus did? When you share the gospel, you are acting as a mediator between God and the unbeliever because you are helping to bring about reconciliation. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Jesus is the one mediator, for you would have no authority to speak for God except for what He's given you. If Christ had not come and died and been raised to life again, you could still proclaim God's forgiveness, but it wouldn't mean anything because Jesus hadn't died. Your mediation is 100% dependent on Jesus' mediation.
Paul says that we are ambassadors for Christ, "as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."
An earthly ambassador is a mediator between two governments. He doesn't have any power separate from what was given him.

When you pray for a friend to become a Christian, do you believe your prayers have any effect? Of course, or you wouldn't pray. So, in that situation, you are also acting as a mediator. Does praying for someone and sharing the gospel with them have any effect on their salvation?

Catholics don't use the term mediation to describe our relationship with the saints, although Mary does have such a title. But I am drawing the parallel between intercession of the saints and mediation, since you mentioned the mediation of saints. I know that sharing the gospel and praying for someone are not exactly the same as all that's involved with the Catholic understanding of the communion of saints. But I use those as an example of how you yourself "mediate" without taking away from the one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. Likewise, any mediation that Mary or the Saints are involved in does not take away from Jesus as the one mediator. It's not as if Mary was a "different" way to God. It's one in the same because it's all dependent on Jesus Christ.

Sidebar: Marie, you mentioned the merits of the saints being applied to us. The main presupposition to that concept is that there is a difference between eternal punishment (the wages of sin is death) and temporal punishment. Bear in mind that what you reference in regards to the merits of the saints, purgatory, penance, etc., all deal with temporal punishment and not forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins is only by Jesus' sacrifice. This article is long but it leaves no doubt that making a distinction between eternal and temporal punishment is very Biblical. Read especially Principle 2 & 3.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1.asp

In Protestant terms and understanding, you might say that our relation to the merits of the saints, purgatory, penance, etc., deals with our sanctification, not our justification. (Just a way to talk about this issue, not meaning to get into the Catholic/Protestant understandings of the difference or likeness of justification and sanctification.)

94

The BIG problem with the Catholic church is salvation by works. I've read with interest the comments, here and otherwise, that maintain that the Catholic church teaches salvation by grace. I never heard this in 8 years of Catholic grade school nor in four years of Catholic high school (Jesuits, by the way). So, I'm forced to conclude either that (1) the Catholic church does teach salvation by works, as I heard loud and clear for 12 years, or (2) its teaching ministry is the most incompetent in the history of mankind.

95

Tom,
I'd say your #2 is closer to the truth than #1. I do definitely find a disconnect between what I read in Council or papal documents and what the average Catholic on the street might tell you. The Catholic Church, being as large as it is, moves slowly. Sometimes this is good, but sometimes it causes the Church not to be able to communicate in a new generation's language in a way that they understand. However, individual Catholics also bear responsibility, especially today.
That's our challenge... why is it that the beautiful truths so well explained by Vatican II docs, by recent popes, and by Saints throughout the history of the Church not trickle down to Joe Catholic? However, when you look at Barna research polls of Protestants, you see that they have the same challenge. High percentages of "average Protestants" also have faulty beliefs on things like the virgin birth, the resurrection, the Bible as the infallible Word of God, etc., that are standard doctrinal beliefs for most Protestant denominations.

Here's why your #1 point is not true. Salvation by works is basically the Pelagian heresy. The Catholic Church condemned that teaching a long time ago.

I agree that salvation by works/faith/grace is the BIG issue. It was my main issue I needed resolved before I'd come back to the Cath. Church. What I found in my study is that grace does not equal faith. Many Protestants use the phrases "saved by faith" and "saved by grace" interchangebly. However grace is not the same as faith. I'd venture that you'd agree with me that we are saved by God's grace. What we disagree on is how we appropriate that grace. I believe that both our faith AND our works are our response to God's grace, whereas you would say it's faith alone.
What I learned in coming back to the RCC is that the only place in the Bible where the words faith and alone appear next to each other is in James where it says we are NOT saved by faith alone.
I view my works the same way I view my faith. Without God's grace, my works would be worth nothing. Just as, without God's grace, my faith would be worth nothing.
God has chosen to make His offer of salvation to the whole world. But just imagine if He'd have made an exception, saying "My grace is available to all except for white males born in Minnesota in the 1970's." I would be bereft of God's grace, and no matter how much faith I had in Christ's death o