Catholicism Continued
I promise, this post won't take as long as yesterday's. This is in response to a few points made by ENV on his blog.
I think this proves the point that I've made, and that Ariadne has echoed: one of the biggest objections to Roman Catholicism that unites Protestants is that Roman Catholicism takes the orthodox position and tacks on a bunch of garbage.
To continue my theme of using inadvertantly insulting allegories, Protestantism is to a stock Ford Mustang as Roman Catholicism is to an NBA star's Cadillac Escalade. The Mustang consists of those things that are necessary for proper operation, plus a few extras that can represent those issues that are up to interpretation. Therefore, it's completely functional, with enough difference from the stock Corvette Stingray to account for differences in interpretation.
Then along comes the Escalade, decked out with bling, blasting bass tracks loud enough to be heard as far as Mecca. Sure, most of the time it works; but the sound system pulls power away from the battery, the added weight of all the gold plated swag reduces the fuel efficiency, and all the other cars do what they can to pull away, aggravated by the arrogance, the invasiveness, and the fact that this vehicle is so far over the top, it's rounded the bottom and coming back up for another pass.
So basically, you've made my entire point for me: Protestantism excises all the hokey, extra-biblical (or contra-biblical) garbage. Most of what Protestant denominations have in common, they have in common with Roman Catholicism, but since the whole point of Protestantism was to get back to the basics and restore the inherent simplicity of Christian doctrine, your point makes a case for Protestantism, not against it.
To a Roman Catholic, some of these things are trivial or "smaller". Having books in the Bible that don't belong there, or believing that the Eucharist becomes something that it doesn't (both of these being the Protestant positions on the issue, of course) are rather important to me.
I've always liked pointing out to people that Christianity is sort of like "alcoholism"/being a drunk: the first step to overcoming your sins is admitting you have a problem. If we extend this allegory to Roman Catholicism prior to the Lutheran revolution, it's particularly fitting. When Martin Luther picked up his hammer, the Roman Catholic Church was nailing any available piece of ass (see "Rodrigo and Lucrezia Borgia"), getting in senseless knife fights (crusades, some of them legitimate, but most of them incited by pontiffs with too much political power), stealing garden gnomes and shovels out of peoples' yards (selling indulgences, carting off treasure, et cetera), and lashing out at friends and family who tried to intervene (Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk whose objections were absolutely and completely legitimate and correct, and he was initially brushed under the table, then censured, then excommunicated).
I'm not claiming that Martin Luther or his associates were perfect; far from it. A brief overview of nearly every major revolution, from America to France to Cuba to Luther, will show flaws, or corruption, or violence; in short, the very imperfection that we can expect from fallen humans. Does that mean that Luther was wrong? Maybe on some things; I've never claimed to be an apologist for Luther as a person, or his entire history, or any of his associates. Claiming that Luther and his cronies didn't pull off a perfect revolution ignores the issue of the rampant, well-documented corruption of the Roman Catholic Church during the time. Was the church corrupt, violent, and out of control? Yes. Was the church operating without any accountability, completely outside the limits of acceptable conduct? Yes. Was there any indication whatsoever that the church was going to change? Of course not! How do I know? Because when Luther asked for a clarification of minor theological issues, he was censured and forbidden to speak of it, and when he called the church out, he was excommunicated and branded a heretic, a label that the Roman Catholic Church still applies to him to this day.
According to your logic, you even claim that both Luther and the Roman Catholic Church were wrong. If you admit that the Roman Catholic Church was wrong, then it's fallible, and the claims to infallibility, absolute authority, and vice-regency with Christ are unsustainable nonsense. Jesus had a mandate from the Father, He was infallible, and His actions and statements were consistent with that infallibility. The Roman Catholic Church claims to have a mandate from the Father, and claims the authority to invoke papal infallibility, but its highest representatives (the Bishops of Rome) have on many occasions violated the simplest of commandments, consistently proving that it is not infallible, does not have a divine mandate, and is not the ultimate expression of Christianity.
I think you're trying to oversimplify the situation. I'm not claiming that these doctrines are false strictly because of the individuals who support them. I'm claiming that they're wrong because many of them are extra-biblical (Assumption of Mary) or contra-biblical (purgatory, infant baptism), and fallible pontiffs are the only thing supporting them. In other words, this isn't like a thief or a murderer saying "Jesus is the only way to salvation", a doctrine that is well-documented in the Bible and internally consistent with the rest of orthodox doctrine. This is like a thief or a murderer saying "Mary's father may have been from the line of David, but her mother was the daughter of a visiting Pakistani dignitary, and it's true because I'm the pope and I'm infallible, even though there's no evidence, biblical or otherwise, to support my statement."
When presented with a "doctrine" that is either not in the Bible at all, or directly contradicts the text or a reasonable contextual interpretation of the Bible, I'm going to be skeptical to begin with. When the source of this "doctrine" is the Bishop of Rome, a person whose claims to vice-regency with Christ I reject due to a complete lack of evidence or precedent to back it up, and whose absolute authority over the catholic (note the small "c", denoting universal) church can't be supported through anything beyond Roman Catholic tradition, then this "doctrine" doesn't hold water. This is underscored by the irreversible hit to the claims of infallibility and absolute authority that the papacy suffered as a result of such "vicars" as Alexander VI/Rodrigo Borgia, Boniface VIII/Benedetto Gaetano, or Leo X/Giovanni de Medici.
So, let's review. Martin Luther isn't reputable because his movement was imperfect, but the popes are reputable, even though they're imperfect? How is it that my true statements about proven papal fallibility, and the resulting point that "doctrines" that exist solely through papal authority are illegitimate, are ad hominem attacks, but your accusations against Luther (that have nothing to do with the veracity of his position) aren't? I call shenanigans, once again. There is no defense for some of the actions of the former pontiffs, and those actions prove somewhat conclusively that popes alone are not sufficient for clarifying or defining doctrine. You can level all the ad hominem attacks on Martin Luther you want, the fact remains that he was right, the Roman Catholic Church was wrong, and their solution to it wasn't to admit it, it was to try and kill Martin Luther, after branding him a heretic.
And people like you, five hundred years later, are still defending the church's actions. Unbelievable.
I am positive that even in your sleep deprivation, you didn't just defend the sale of indulgences, or anything remotely similar. Unless you're ready to completely surrender any and all credibility, I highly recommend that you clarify this statement, and provide at least one example of a legitimate doctrine that was abused by the clergy for financial gain.
Unbelievable.
Instead, a question arises as to whether the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church on earth. My opinion is no, it is not: because that excludes the smaller rites that are also a part of the Catholic Church. (Ok, so I'm a bit of a smart-@ss tonight). Honestly though, what does this mean? That the other denominations are wrong?
Not exactly. Rather I personally believe that they all contain at least a part of the truth, som a very large part, others a smaller part. Before you get to attacking this position, hold on for just a moment. About the only semblance of consistency between all of the Protestant denominations that is not also something in common with the Catholic Church is the position that the Catholic Church is wrong. But somebody has to have it right, don't they?
I think this proves the point that I've made, and that Ariadne has echoed: one of the biggest objections to Roman Catholicism that unites Protestants is that Roman Catholicism takes the orthodox position and tacks on a bunch of garbage.
To continue my theme of using inadvertantly insulting allegories, Protestantism is to a stock Ford Mustang as Roman Catholicism is to an NBA star's Cadillac Escalade. The Mustang consists of those things that are necessary for proper operation, plus a few extras that can represent those issues that are up to interpretation. Therefore, it's completely functional, with enough difference from the stock Corvette Stingray to account for differences in interpretation.
Then along comes the Escalade, decked out with bling, blasting bass tracks loud enough to be heard as far as Mecca. Sure, most of the time it works; but the sound system pulls power away from the battery, the added weight of all the gold plated swag reduces the fuel efficiency, and all the other cars do what they can to pull away, aggravated by the arrogance, the invasiveness, and the fact that this vehicle is so far over the top, it's rounded the bottom and coming back up for another pass.
So basically, you've made my entire point for me: Protestantism excises all the hokey, extra-biblical (or contra-biblical) garbage. Most of what Protestant denominations have in common, they have in common with Roman Catholicism, but since the whole point of Protestantism was to get back to the basics and restore the inherent simplicity of Christian doctrine, your point makes a case for Protestantism, not against it.
This also means that there are a lot of somebodies whose belief systems are not correct, or alternatively, are not complete. Now, as far as I know, all of my readers are Christians. Thus, we all essentially share a set of beliefs. Where we differ are on smaller points of belief: the reality of Transubstantiation, authenticity of the Deuterocannonicals, free will vs. predestination, authority of the Church, etc.
To a Roman Catholic, some of these things are trivial or "smaller". Having books in the Bible that don't belong there, or believing that the Eucharist becomes something that it doesn't (both of these being the Protestant positions on the issue, of course) are rather important to me.
Now, in general, every one who has commented that they disagreed that the Catholic Church is the one true Church on earth has ineveitably made some comment about the corruption in the Church proving that it can't be the true Church on earth. But this is a fairly weak claim for stating that Luther was right: there was plenty or corruption on the Protestant "side" of the Reformation. Thus, following this logic, both sides are wrong.
I've always liked pointing out to people that Christianity is sort of like "alcoholism"/being a drunk: the first step to overcoming your sins is admitting you have a problem. If we extend this allegory to Roman Catholicism prior to the Lutheran revolution, it's particularly fitting. When Martin Luther picked up his hammer, the Roman Catholic Church was nailing any available piece of ass (see "Rodrigo and Lucrezia Borgia"), getting in senseless knife fights (crusades, some of them legitimate, but most of them incited by pontiffs with too much political power), stealing garden gnomes and shovels out of peoples' yards (selling indulgences, carting off treasure, et cetera), and lashing out at friends and family who tried to intervene (Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk whose objections were absolutely and completely legitimate and correct, and he was initially brushed under the table, then censured, then excommunicated).
I'm not claiming that Martin Luther or his associates were perfect; far from it. A brief overview of nearly every major revolution, from America to France to Cuba to Luther, will show flaws, or corruption, or violence; in short, the very imperfection that we can expect from fallen humans. Does that mean that Luther was wrong? Maybe on some things; I've never claimed to be an apologist for Luther as a person, or his entire history, or any of his associates. Claiming that Luther and his cronies didn't pull off a perfect revolution ignores the issue of the rampant, well-documented corruption of the Roman Catholic Church during the time. Was the church corrupt, violent, and out of control? Yes. Was the church operating without any accountability, completely outside the limits of acceptable conduct? Yes. Was there any indication whatsoever that the church was going to change? Of course not! How do I know? Because when Luther asked for a clarification of minor theological issues, he was censured and forbidden to speak of it, and when he called the church out, he was excommunicated and branded a heretic, a label that the Roman Catholic Church still applies to him to this day.
According to your logic, you even claim that both Luther and the Roman Catholic Church were wrong. If you admit that the Roman Catholic Church was wrong, then it's fallible, and the claims to infallibility, absolute authority, and vice-regency with Christ are unsustainable nonsense. Jesus had a mandate from the Father, He was infallible, and His actions and statements were consistent with that infallibility. The Roman Catholic Church claims to have a mandate from the Father, and claims the authority to invoke papal infallibility, but its highest representatives (the Bishops of Rome) have on many occasions violated the simplest of commandments, consistently proving that it is not infallible, does not have a divine mandate, and is not the ultimate expression of Christianity.
Furthermore, corruption of individuals is not equivalent to corruption of doctrines. Remember, doctrines are basically about "the way things are." Thus, to claim that a doctrine is incorrect because some of the people supporting it are corrupt is really just an ad hominem attack.
I think you're trying to oversimplify the situation. I'm not claiming that these doctrines are false strictly because of the individuals who support them. I'm claiming that they're wrong because many of them are extra-biblical (Assumption of Mary) or contra-biblical (purgatory, infant baptism), and fallible pontiffs are the only thing supporting them. In other words, this isn't like a thief or a murderer saying "Jesus is the only way to salvation", a doctrine that is well-documented in the Bible and internally consistent with the rest of orthodox doctrine. This is like a thief or a murderer saying "Mary's father may have been from the line of David, but her mother was the daughter of a visiting Pakistani dignitary, and it's true because I'm the pope and I'm infallible, even though there's no evidence, biblical or otherwise, to support my statement."
When presented with a "doctrine" that is either not in the Bible at all, or directly contradicts the text or a reasonable contextual interpretation of the Bible, I'm going to be skeptical to begin with. When the source of this "doctrine" is the Bishop of Rome, a person whose claims to vice-regency with Christ I reject due to a complete lack of evidence or precedent to back it up, and whose absolute authority over the catholic (note the small "c", denoting universal) church can't be supported through anything beyond Roman Catholic tradition, then this "doctrine" doesn't hold water. This is underscored by the irreversible hit to the claims of infallibility and absolute authority that the papacy suffered as a result of such "vicars" as Alexander VI/Rodrigo Borgia, Boniface VIII/Benedetto Gaetano, or Leo X/Giovanni de Medici.
As an example, take Operation Iraqi Freedom. Does the fact that Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted in favor of going to Iraq mean that doing so was wrong? No. It merely means that some people were using this to their own ends. So it was with many of the doctrines of the Church.
So, let's review. Martin Luther isn't reputable because his movement was imperfect, but the popes are reputable, even though they're imperfect? How is it that my true statements about proven papal fallibility, and the resulting point that "doctrines" that exist solely through papal authority are illegitimate, are ad hominem attacks, but your accusations against Luther (that have nothing to do with the veracity of his position) aren't? I call shenanigans, once again. There is no defense for some of the actions of the former pontiffs, and those actions prove somewhat conclusively that popes alone are not sufficient for clarifying or defining doctrine. You can level all the ad hominem attacks on Martin Luther you want, the fact remains that he was right, the Roman Catholic Church was wrong, and their solution to it wasn't to admit it, it was to try and kill Martin Luther, after branding him a heretic.
And people like you, five hundred years later, are still defending the church's actions. Unbelievable.
The fact that clergy were getting rich off of various doctrines doesn't mean that those doctrines are necessarily false.
I am positive that even in your sleep deprivation, you didn't just defend the sale of indulgences, or anything remotely similar. Unless you're ready to completely surrender any and all credibility, I highly recommend that you clarify this statement, and provide at least one example of a legitimate doctrine that was abused by the clergy for financial gain.
Unbelievable.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home