In the happy debates between Protestants and Catholics, we Catholics are often charged with holding to un-Biblical beliefs, then when we give the Biblical support for those beliefs we are charged with 'twisting Scripture'; 'taking Scripture out of context'' or the Protestant simply says (on no authority other than the 'proof text' displeases him) but "But that's not what that passage means."
Here's an example: Protestant says, "You Catholics hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but it's totally un-Biblical." So we refer them the story of the annunciation where Mary is greeted with the term 'full of grace'. (Luke 1.28) We conclude that if she was 'full of grace' then she had no sin for the Biblical definition of sin is to "fall short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23) If she was "full of grace" then we only have to ask when this fullness started and we conclude logically that it must have started when her life started, and life starts at conception so she must have been conceived without sin. We refer to Genesis 3:15 where God says that as a woman has given in to Satan, so a woman will trample the head of Satan, and we refer to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and teh other Fathers who refer very early on to the Blessed Virgin as 'the second Eve' and conclude that as the first Eve was created perfect, so was the second. Now, we are happy to admit that this does not amount to Jesus Christ himself saying to his apostles, "My mother was conceived without sin and thou shalt believe this and teach it until I come again in glory." We also admit that the doctrine (while implicit in Scripture) was not defined formally until fairly late. That's okay. We believe in the possibility of the development of Doctrine, and we have theologians who help us define how and when that happens validly.
Compare this however, with the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura which has no Biblical proof texts, no evidence from the early Church fathers, and was invented by the sixteenth century reformers and is held to by all their followers as a foundation tenet of their belief system, and this from people who deny that doctrine develops, believe every doctrine must originate in the primitive Church, and say "If it's not in the Bible you're not to believe it." The same applies to the Protestant bedrock doctrine of sola Fide or faith alone. The only reference to faith alone in the Bible is James 2:24 where such a concept is formally repudiated.
Without any agreed interpretative authority the Bible means whatever people decide it means. Here are a few other 'Biblical interpretations' I've heard over the years. I have deliberately chosen a range of Protestant traditions so the conservative Evangelicals can't say, "Yes, but those are the kooky liberal Anglicans." and the Anglicans can't say, "Yes but those are the kooky American fundamentalists."
First--one of my favorites--the snake handlers. They interpret Mark 16:18 literally and so they pass around rattlesnakes and vipers at their worship services and they drink poison to see if they will survive. We know Christians who insist that their women cannot wear trousers because of a verse in the Old Testament and Seventh Day Adventists who only worship on Saturday because they don't find Sunday worship in the Bible. Lest people think I am only giving radical, way out and insane examples, we have to include the vast majority of Evangelical Christians who take the whole package of late-invented dispensationalist 'end days' Biblical interpretations with the utmost seriousness.
Then there was the Anglican vicar who counseled a friend of mine to have an abortion because Jesus says, "Let the little children come unto me and forbid them not." There's the female Baptist minister who admitted that her abortion was killing but quoted the Old Testament idea of sacrifice and one person laying down a life for the good of another. Another Anglican friend explained quite sincerely how homosexuality was okay because Jonathan and David loved one another and John was the disciple Jesus loved. The incident when Peter had a dream of unclean beasts and was told to 'kill and eat' has been used to convince people that the otherwise forbidden innovation of women priests was okay after all, and the 'youth who ran away naked' from the garden of Gethsemane has been used to support Christian naturism.
I understand how non-Catholics may not see or accept the Biblical basis for Catholic beliefs, but what I don't get is how they miss the lack of Biblical support for some of their foundational beliefs and the amazingly weird Biblical interpretations some in their own ranks hold to with utmost sincerity.
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Fr. Lets point out some loonies in your own Catholic Church before we throw stones at the Protestants. Trust me there are far more loonies and nuts in the RCC than there are in the Prot Denoms.
Lets start with "Apparition Chasers", you know the folks that see Mary in grilled Cheese Sandwiches and 20 foot Jesus's on building walls.
My land lady is Filippino and tells me about men who have themselves literally nailed to crosses during Lent.
How about the Mexican drug Lords who have a "patron Saint" who was a criminal, thug, and drug dealer, they ask his intercession to protect them from the Policia.
Let's not forget those Mass going, Rosary praying Santeiria folks who also invoke "Saints" and cut heads off Chickens and use the blood in their Santeiria rituals.
Oh I almost forgot the good Catholic people of Haiti and their VooDoo, Spiritism and such like.
I assure you Fr. L all these "Catholic" folks put together outnumber Prot loonies 10 to 1 at least.
BTW I started reading your book, taking notes and had some chuckle moments at the some things you mention ( as in "not true", "say what?")
John, of course Catholics have loonies. I never said we didn't. My point was not that Protestants have a lunatic fringe... In fact, most of the Prot views I expressed are not fringe at all. The views on abortion and women's ordination were expressed by mainstream Protestants and the dispensationalist end times views are mainstream majority opinions in American Evangelicalism.
However, lunatic fringe or mainstream, Catholic or Protestant loonies...none of this was the main point. The main point was that Protestant loonies defend their views by distorting Scripture and taking weird interpretations and holding to things which aren't in Scripture at all, so it gets a bit rich when they claim to "simply read the simple honest Scriptures with an open mind" and accuse Catholics of twisting Scripture with dogmas like Immaculate Conception.
Back up John, remember one thing, the toasted cheese types are many times toasted themselves, yes they claim many things but these claims are not of the Catholic Church, just individuals who claim to be Catholic, you know, Scola Scripta Catholic style, I have heard many claims by Bible types that are just as outrageous, you can murder and still be saved as long as you are born again, oh please, I have a brother in law that is a evangelical preacher, self taught of course and some internet courses, so I hear it all. That is why my wife became Catholic before we married, Her dad is baptist (nominally) and her Mom a Methodist (barely practicing,)she was impressed about the fact that there is a structure and foundation to the Catholic Church instead of just anyone deciding that they have divine revelation. Am I perfect, no, my wife, more so than me, but after listening to the in laws arguing I am quite happy to have something solid to lean on. BTW my only brother became a practicing Jew, please explain a blond haired, blue eyed, German Jew, I can't, the running joke in my family is he is a priest running away from a vocation.
Fr. L I don't agree with the Dispensationalists and their "End-Time" views, But they can build a case for it that does seem Biblical, unlike the RC Marian views which have little if any Biblical basis. As a matter of fact most of the RC Marian views come from Gnostic sources, one of which was called the "Transitus Maria Beatae". ALL the doctrines/teachings, including the Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, etc contained in that literature was CONDEMNED as heresy by two Bishops of Rome, yet modern Rome says that they are not only not heresy but are Dogmas that MUST be believed.
Also the RCC has its share of "End-Times" folks who base their ideas on both the Bible and "revelations" given to "Saints" in their visions.
The RC Dogma of Purgatory is based on neo-Platonism, Pagan heathen mythology, and "private revelations" than it is on solid Biblical grounds.
John, thank you for your comment. I don't deny that there are other cultural and literary and theological sources that may influence the development of Catholic doctrine.
This is the way all doctrine develops. Some of the links are specious stuff of a conspiracy theory mentality. Others seem to be links because certain things happened at the same time. However co-incidence in time does not require influence. Other links reveal valid sources of the development of doctrine--but Catholics don't say that a particular source or influence is necessarily evil.
One could just as easily discover links between worldly or pagan philosophies and practices and Protestant beliefs. Let me give you a few: The Anglican view that the monarch is the head of the church. This is based in the pagan concept of the 'divine Monarch'. The Divine right of kings stems right back to Roman times and Babylonian times when the monarch was thought of as a demi god and therefore was not only monarch, but religious leader.
There there is the notorious influence of Freemasonry within Anglicanism. Go to the Lambeth Palace and see the portraits of former Archbishops of Canterbury and see how they are all wearing Masonic regalia.
What about the influence of New Age philosophy on the present Anglican Church with its eco-feminism and 'earth spirituality'?
We should also mention the non-Biblical doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide which have their roots in anti-Christian nominalism and rationalism. These beliefs have no basis in Scripture at all, but are human inventions by people influenced by humanist and secular thinkers in the Middle Ages.
See? If you want to you can demolish any theology or belief by a system of 'links' which seem to undermine it.
Therefore, as Catholics, we consider the history of theology and where and how our beliefs originate, but we don't dismiss them necessarily because the pedigree is tainted.
Instead we examine something to see whether it is true or not in light of Scripture and the perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church. Most of all, we don't attempt to do this ourselves, but only to conduct our study and enquiry in and through and with the greater wisdom and greater authority of the Church.
You, on the other hand, have got to do all the work yourself.
Poor you.
John appears to believe that if pagans believed something analogous to a Catholic doctrine, and that doctrine is not clearly spelled out in Scripture, the Catholic doctrine is therefore invalid.
Very well. Let's take up the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. There are plenty of biblical texts which *hint* at the Trinity, but none which spell it out in the form that Catholics (and Anglicans and Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals) believe. That's why we still have Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
Well, did the pagans have any beliefs somewhat like the doctrine of the Trinity? Actually, they did. There were the three Fates in Greek, Latin, and Norse mythology, who were older and more powerful than the gods, but who yet only operated together. Closer to the mark is the Trimurti of Hinduism, with 3 main gods (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) who were nonetheless all ultimately representations of one god. (This would be closer to Sabellianism than to orthodox Christianity, but it is a good deal closer in content than the alleged pagan inspirations of Marian doctrines.)
Thanks, Father! That was really helpful!
Post a Comment