With the 40th March for Life just about a week away, a very imprudently timed fight has apparently broken out among pro-lifers over some Facebook comments of Toby Harmon, one of the founding members of Abolish Human Abortion. The offending comment that started it all:
“...[W]e do not consider Catholics brothers in Christ or Christian at all. We will not seek unity with a Satanic religious system. The only unity that can come is for Catholics to repent of false religion and idolatry and put their faith in Jesus Christ alone (not rituals, not Mary, not the Church of Rome or any mere man). AHA does not believe Catholicism is a Christian religion, but will fight alongside Catholic pro-lifers in various tactics against abortion. However since AHA is gospel centered, believing that that the gospel is the only hope to end abortion, and since RCC does not preach the gospel, then Catholics cannot be abolitionists any more than a Mormon can be. I have said numerous times, even on the AHA page that We are anti-Catholic doctrine/theology/faith/religion, but that does not mean we hate Catholic people, we love them. Everyone at AHA loves them. We also believe that in LARGE part Western Protestantism is dead, very dead as well.”
This is just one element of the small amount of this conversation I've really read, so please do correct me if I'm misinterpreting the situation. Regarding this comment though, I'm certainly surprised to hear that I worship people other than Jesus, or that I put my faith in the Pope. Toby is certainly mistaken, not only in his ultimate assessment of the Catholic Church, but obviously about what the Catholic Church actually teaches and practices. No, we don’t worship Mary or the Pope or think that the Church died for our sins. That’s just old-time Protestant propaganda that got old a long time ago. The first rule of healthy religious debate is having an accurate understanding of your opponents beliefs.
But Toby is right about one thing: the Catholic Church does have an essentially different view of what true Christian doctrine and practice is than Protestants (whatever variety Toby might be). While I hope Toby would be pleasantly surprised to know that Catholics believe as infallible dogma in the unique mediation of Christ, the necessity of the grace of Christ for salvation, and the necessity of faith, there are indeed many very significant points of difference. We Catholics do indeed believe that Jesus instituted the seven Sacraments as signs and instruments of his grace, that Jesus founded a Church and left the Apostles in charge, that the Apostles ordained successors who have passed on their authority to the present day in the bishops, that Mary and the saints are rightly honored as individuals made holy by Christ, and, probably most importantly for Toby, we do indeed unflinchingly reject sola fide and sola scriptura as heresy which, like all heresy, if knowingly, obstinately, and unrepentantly believed post-baptism, makes a person a heretic and damns them to hell. If Catholics are shocked by Toby saying that the Catholic Church doesn’t have the Gospel, I recommend they read the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on justification, paying careful attention to the last sentence of chapter XVI and the canons.
Yes, there are real, essential differences between Protestants and Catholics. The Reformation wasn’t just a big misunderstanding. I joined the Catholic Church after being raised as an evangelical Christian because I was convinced that only the Catholic Church had the fullness of the Gospel and the means of grace and that I was obligated to do so in order to follow Christ. While the Catholic Church differs with Toby by recognizing that all those who have faith in Christ and are baptized do rightfully claim the title of ‘Christian’, it is nonetheless the case that, as much as Toby hopes Catholics will leave the Catholic Church, I also hope Toby and other Protestants will join the Catholic Church.
And this doesn’t mean that Toby or orthodox Catholics are “anti-” anyone, hate anyone, are bigots, or are intolerant. It means we both take religious truth claims seriously. Yes, it is very possible to think that another person’s religious beliefs are wrong - even Satanic - and still love the person deeply. There is absolutely no contradiction in that. If fact, it is that very love that will spur the person on to try help the other see the supposed error of his ways.
Religious beliefs are not just opinions or expressions of the person such that they cannot be disagreed with. Toby rightfully takes his beliefs seriously. He knows, based on logic, that if he believes x, and Catholics believe y, but x and y are mutually exclusive, then either x or y (or both) must be wrong. Since he of course believes x to be the case, he logically concludes that the Catholic belief y (or at least what he believes is a Catholic belief) is false. This is just simple logic.
Toby also correctly understands that, not only is there such a thing as religious truth, but religious truth matters - and can matter a great deal. A correct understanding of the Gospel is not a matter of indifference; it is not just a matter for ivory tower theologians who are splitting hairs: it is the very essence of the faith. The only thing that will matter in eternity is whether one avoided hell and gained heaven. How one understands the Gospel is precisely how one believes that is accomplished. Toby and the Catholic Church both agree that God’s grace is necessary, that Jesus alone died for all of our sins, and that one must put their faith in Christ alone to be saved. While I don’t know for sure Toby’s beliefs, I’m assuming that we part ways from that point on, regarding such things as the necessity (or lack thereof) of the Sacraments as means of applying the grace of Christ to our lives and our cooperation with God’s grace in living the Christian life to go to heaven.
If Toby believes that the Catholic Church is fundamentally wrong on this point, he very rationally keeps his distance. Though I generally withhold certain judgment about the particular activities of the Evil One, indeed, it would not be unreasonable for Toby to think that, given the size and historical longevity of the Catholic Church, if the Catholic Church is not of God, she is of Satan.
Which brings me to another point on which I’d like to commend Toby: he believes in Satan. It would seem that anyone who would call the Catholic Church a “Satanic religious system” would have to be someone who takes Satan seriously, which I applaud! While most of the world unfortunately scoffs at the very existence of their spiritual enemy, Toby may find that he’ll be increasingly left in the company of orthodox Catholics on this matter.
Far from being offended by Toby’s comment, I find it refreshing in a way. Gosh, he actually believes in objective religious truth! And he seems to take what he believes the Catholic Church teaches seriously. Though we sharply disagree on matters of the utmost importance, I nonetheless have a certain respect for him, recognizing, in his desire to take the Christian faith seriously, a fellow brother. I feel much closer to someone who consciously rejects the Catholic Church for honest theological reasons than someone who thinks Catholics are “just fine” due to religious indifferentism.
And so, if for some reason Toby has read this long piece on a Catholic blog, I’d like to offer him an invitation. I’m assuming he’ll be in Washington DC for the March for Life. I’ll be flying in from Minnesota to be there, too. I’d be more than happy either to grab a beer or coffee (depending on the time of day as well as Toby’s preferences) and have a real, friendly discussion about the religious truths we both take seriously. The drinks will be on me. I'm serious: I can be contacted on Facebook, Twitter, or by email.
Toby, I’ll hear you out, I'll let you explain to me why I should return to the protestant evangelicalism I left in 2010 - and I’ll hit you back with the arguments that convinced me to join the Catholic Church, no holds barred. We can even laugh at a few jokes, or strategize about how to best accomplish the only thing that will stop the March for Life from happening year after year: succeeding in abolishing human abortion.
This is good stuff. I mean it sincerely.
ReplyDeleteThank you! I don't understand why this has been so challenging for some to grasp: no matter what side of the debate you're on, and how much you want to save babies, if you have any appreciation for theology you have to understand that Protestantism and Catholicism do not share the same theology on many matters of great importance.
ReplyDeleteI would rather be around people who regard me enough to hate me than who think nothing of me. I'd rather be surrounded by virulent Satanists than luke-warm Christians. But it's a false dichotomy that believing in an objective truth requires people to present that truth with a mean spirit. What I've seen are people more concerned about being RIGHT and feeling morally or intellectually superior than showing concern for any of those they deem wrong, in spite of the fact that they think our wrongness condemns us to Hell. If one truly believes me to be lost due to wrong beliefs, how does calling me a "stench in the nostrils of God" inspire me to reject my belief and accept another belief (which in my case, I previously held and rejected)? Speaking the truth IN LOVE does not make it any less true. And one is not a wishy-washy, feel-good, apathetic Christian if they are charitable in speech rather than throwing barbs at others.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that mean-spirited and sanctimonious folks use "da truf" as an excuse to be utter a-holes. "You're not offended by me! You're offended by the truth!" No, actually, I'm offended by you. Even when I have believed certain things AHA said to be the truth (such as the problems with incrementalism and voting for the lesser of two evils), I still opposed the way they attacked others who disagreed, and always feigned to be the victim when people would respond. And I said so. Now, I oppose the way they attack Catholics and then accuse the victims of spreading division by warning others of their behavior.
So it is not that someone need to be lukewarm (God forbid) in their doctrine to show basic kindness in their speech. You can hold any belief and still present that belief kindly if it need be presented at all. That is what this is about. It is not a good-faith disagreement on faith. It's about some people simply not acting out of love and tempering their speech. The fruits of the spirit should be evident, and they are clearly NOT.
I commend you using this as an open door, but since I have tried to reconcile with AHA on many occasions, I've shaken the dust from my feet.
Hello Jacque,
DeleteYou're absolutely right that the manner in which a person says something matters and can be offensive, even if the content isn't. I don't know enough about the organization, Toby, or even this whole conversation (note my clause after the quote)to know whether this is the case in this situation. In this post, I'm just responding to the idea, which I have seen in some people's responses to this situation, that it's offensive to say that someone doesn't have the Gospel or isn't a Christian. You could be right that there is more going on here, but I just don't know enough to know. Thanks for your perspective.
Hi, Brantly,
DeleteYou should know that I've only shaken the dust from my feet after making two separate & exhaustive attempts with AHA leadership to reconcile with them, not over differences in beliefs- but behavior. The first time, I shared their beliefs but was appalled at how they antagonized those who did not. They did not just entertain debates, but they tried to pick fights by crafting memes that mocked certain people & posted the taunts on the pages of people. Many tried not to let themselves be provoked, but some answered respectfully & others, I'm sure- returned evil for evil. But one simply answered with Romans 12:18 "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." People who they attacked, who responded only in kindness were accused of many horrible things & anyone who responded at all was accused of "throwing rocks" or "causing division." I asked plainly how to reconcile, saying, "The election is over. We have to work together. How can we be at peace with each other." The answer from AHA was that all who were wrong in their opinion could repent, but that there would be no peace. I withdrew, since even if I agree with someone's position- I don't approve of acting that way. It is not acceptable & also counter-productive.
About a month or so later, AHA members, including some in leadership, started antagonizing Abby Johnson. One of the ways they taunted her was for her thanking St. Gerard for his intercession & her pregnancy. The group, starting saying things to each other like how they could not bear to share the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood with Catholics, since the Rosary makes them sick. One in leadership affirmed, "Light can not fellowship with darkness." I mentioned that Catholics & Protestants work together in Dallas to cover the killing hours with sidewalk counselors- that we need all h&s on deck, so we don't pick fights over such things. I was told to rebuke my Roman Catholic sister (Abby) for bringing her Roman Catholic faith into pro-life work. To which I asked if she (the antagonist) should leave her faith out of pro-life work. I said something to the effect of, "I rebuke you, my sister, for sowing discord." To which I was informed that I was NOT her sister & that she does not regard Catholics as Christian. To be continued...
Continued...
DeleteIn order to clarify, I asked leadership publicly if we really can't share the sidewalk together (since I am "darkness" & they are "light", & if AHA is going to persecute those who disagree with religion the way they did those who disagreed with politics. The took 150+ comments from dozen of people & wasted hours before they finally said, "Hey, this is a Protestant group. It was started by Protestants. This is how we roll. If you don't like it, you can leave." That made sense to me! While I don't think you have to be an a-hole to be Protestant (I worked with the Catholic Pro-Life Committee of North Texas as an evangelical with no issues), I learned that this is how they behave. I would not work with people who behaved like this, even if they were Catholic.
My friends have had similar issues, but AHA was always disingenuous & claiming that anti-Catholic persecution came from members of the group, not the group itself, even though AHA leaders affirmed these posts. The Toby Harmon slip-up only provided a post they could not lie about. They act like it's an isolated incident, but it's a culture. If this were merely a slip-up, then an apology & clarification would have ended it. But it simply isn't so. But neither (apology or clarification) have really happened.
I say all this to let you know that many, many have tried to make peace & establish good-will with AHA. I did not write them off over one statement or without heroic attempts to work things out with them. After the second time I tried to make peace, I ended with, "If you ever need my help, I am still here." & the answer was pretty much, "Go away." After all this, I feel content that I did the best I could. I understand your efforts to try to make peace & I hope they are successful, but I hope you aren't abused in the process.
Grace and Peace,
Jacqueline
Their adherence to their own faith and insistence on its truth doesn't offend me or bother me in the slightest, but lying, repeatedly and without apology??? That does offend me. THAT is where they got themselves in trouble. It was not in proclaiming in sola scriptura that Catholics became angry. We obviously disagree, and disagree in some important and significant ways, but it was in proclaiming as truth and fact that Catholics worship Mary and other falsehoods such as Catholics killed 50 Million Early Christians, etc. where I lose respect for them. I have no problem with their defense of their faith, but if they can only defend their faith by spreading lies about Catholicism, then I have no respect for that at all.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this began a month ago, not with the Toby Harmon post. That just was the snowflake that caved in the roof so to speak.
DeleteThe question is whether they are lying or not (saying a falsehood knowingly). I really don't know them, so you could be right; like I said to Jacques above, I just don't know enough here. You're correct that the idea that Catholics worship Mary or killed 50 million early Christians is all laughable nonsense. If they continue to say things like that, particularly the idea that Catholics worship Mary, despite being shown that the Catholic Church in fact does not and actually specifically says otherwise in her teaching documents, then it would start to seem that they have an anti-Catholic bias, rather than just misinformed and otherwise acting in good faith. Also, as your second indicates, perhaps this has been building for a while. Thanks for your perspective on this, too. It would make sense that there is more in the background here. I haven't been following their organization or anything, so I wouldn't know.
Deleteit was in proclaiming as truth and fact that Catholics worship Mary and other falsehoods such as Catholics killed 50 Million Early Christians, etc. where I lose respect for them.
DeleteWhoa, hold on there.
We did not say RCs killed 50 million early Christians. Somebody said that, AMONG OTHER THINGS, in a comment, and one of the admins 'liked' that comment from the admin account. He didn't 'like' the comment for that part of the comment. He liked it b/c of the other content in the comment.
I fully affirm that it's a ridiculous assertion that RCs are responsible for the deaths of anything close to 50 million early Christians. RCC certainly has put many good Christians to death for no good reason, but not 50 million.
So you got that all mixed up.
Now, to say it's false that "Catholics worship Mary" is just a thoughtless and very poorly-phrased comment by you.
Many RCs DO worship Mary. Many others don't.
The RCC's official teaching is that one should not worship Mary.
All three of these statements are true, which means that your statement is false. I recommend you craft your verbiage more carefully in the future.
Peace,
Rhology
Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "Catholics". Do you mean people who are Catholics? Do you mean people who are Catholics insofar as they are Catholic? Or the Catholic Church? All are possible meanings. Also, by "Catholics" do you mean most Catholics? Or just that there is at least two? Generally speaking, in my mind, by saying "Catholics", a person either means people who actually follow Catholicism, or they mean to refer to what most persons who are Catholic believe/do. In both instances, the statement is false.
DeleteI went to Catholic school for 12 years and have been Catholic for a few years now and I've never met anyone Catholic who worshiped Mary or thought that we should. Is it possible that there are some people who are Catholic who, contrary to their own Catholicism, worship Mary? It's impossible to prove a negative, so I obviously cannot say that that there haven't ever been anyone. But it's greatly misleading to people to say the phrase "Catholics worship Mary", because it sounds like that is a part of being Catholic or something Catholics generally practice (both of which are false). In the way that you are taking the phrase, I could also just as well make blanket statements like "Evangelicals hero-worship celebrity pastors", "Evangelicals are thieves", or "Evangelicals believe you have to work your way to heaven". All of these statements could certainly be true insofar as there certainly could be, and probably are, some evangelical persons who fulfill all of those statements. But it's misleading because it certainly doesn't represent evangelicals in the main or accurately represent evangelicalism.
Rho, I really have no interest in debating with you at all. You are very loose with the truth and twist things to fit your predetermined point of view.
DeleteThe idea that I'm supposed to understand that AHA was agreeing with part of the post, but not all of it (and conveniently not the most inflammatory point) even when AHA doesn't bother to say clearly what they do and do not agree with, even now, is ludicrous. I'm not a mind reader, so I have take people at face value more or less. You like a comment with bad facts, never clarify your stance separately, I take it you agree with those bad facts and espouse them as truth.
But whatever Rho, you're no more worth arguing with over this than Renee Beans or the other dishonest pro-aborts are who troll the AHA. You misdirect at every turn.
Brantly, I leave the posts in their entirety below so you may judge for yourself, these are a few of the posts that began the nonsense, before Toby Harmon broke on the scene (although for all I know he was the AHA admin behind liking these posts).
The AHA Page itself, not a mere individual, "liked" this comment:
Richard Fiegen: Paul, the only true faith is the faith of Jesus Christ. I was Catholic at one time. It was a dead church that prays to: Mary, dead saints, angels, contradicts and conflicts with the plan of salvation. Killed 50 million early Christians, etc, etc. Besides Peter was the Apostle to the Jew, he certainly did not preside over Rome in 60 ad.
AHA itself, not a mere individual admin, liked this comment:
Justin Edwards: Michael and Patrick, it is the Gospel that will end abortion, and that is the foundation of abolitionism. The only problem is that the RCC teaches another gospel and placed anathema on itself when it anathemitzed sola fide and all who believe and teach it. So naturally, RC is kind of incompatible with abolitionism since it is incompatible with the Gospel. This isn't a slight against you or Catholics, but just speaking to the reality of abolitionism and the RCC's rejection of the true Gospel.
{{Note, in the light of your post, this particular posting may not at first appear particularly objectionable, but it is based on a fundamental historical error on their part on the nature of abolitionism, as even they have admitted their were non-Christian abolitionists, which by definition means that Christianity cannot be a requirement to own the term, as a historian, that annoys me as well}}
The AHA page itself made the following comment:
Abolish Human Abortion: You may not call it worship, but every prayer TO Mary I've ever read is indeed worship. The stuff I posted above from newadvent.org is indeed worship, even if you give it another name.
Alexandra,
DeleteYou are very loose with the truth and twist things to fit your predetermined point of view.
And it's a pleasure to talk to you too. :-P
The idea that I'm supposed to understand that AHA was agreeing with part of the post, but not all of it (and conveniently not the most inflammatory point) even when AHA doesn't bother to say clearly what they do and do not agree with, even now, is ludicrous
What is ludicrous about it?
so I have take people at face value more or less.
Shrug. I have explained what happened. You apparently don't care about my explanation. I don't know why anyone would think you are willing to listen to anything else I have to say.
The AHA Page itself, not a mere individual, "liked" this comment:
Yes, the admin account did 'like' that comment.
I explained that already. See how there are numerous points in the comment? The admin was 'liking' those other parts.
And Justin Edwards' and the AHA comment were 100% right. Just b/c you don't call it worship is beside the point, and I see no reason to think you've thought through the relevant issues. Let me know if you'd like some info about that.
Peace,
Rhology
Alexandra, thanks for sharing the comments. My thoughts:
DeleteThoughts on the Fiegen comment: He's right that the only true faith is the faith of Jesus Christ, no disagreement there. I strongly disagree that the Catholic Church is dead. We do indeed pray to Mary, the saints, and angels, though I'm not sure how speaking to people is "contradicts and conflicts with the plan of salvation". Of course, the "killed 50 million early Christians" is laughable, seeing as the Catholic Church was the one who was persecuted and killed by the Romans in the early centuries of the Church and Rhology has already ceded that. Scripture doesn't tell us the how Peter's life ended, though,from what I understand, many scholars believe 1 Pt 5.3 indicates Peter was Rome at the time he wrote the letter. The early Church was unanimous in believing that Peter and Paul ended their careers in Rome.
On the Edwards comment: I agree that the Gospel is ultimately the only end to all sin, including abortion. It's true that the Catholic Church understands the Gospel very differently than most Protestants, though not in the ways that many Protestants think. Catholics do indeed reject sola fide outright, believing that it is contrary to Scripture (and I agree, though Edwards obviously disagrees). Since most evangelicals have a false dichotomy between faith and works, they then assume that we're Pelagians, despite the fact that we are explicitly not.
Regarding the comment made by AHA directly: lol Ok, this is just unfruitful. I'm not going to take the time to respond to this adequately here, but since they claim that every prayer they've ever seen to Mary is idolatrous, I'd be interested in them showing how the most common prayer to Mary, the Hail Mary, is idolatrous. It says positive things about Mary that are direct quotes from Scripture, and then it asks for her prayers.
Just as another comment: I generally don't appreciate being told what my religion is or what I'm "actually" doing. If a person is confused by something Catholics do or say, they should ask for a clarification, not jump to conclusions. E.g. It's not appreciated being told that a specific prayer is worship when we don't intend it as worship. If we're not worshiping, we're not worshiping, and it's unhelpful for others to misjudge and then insist that we actually don't know what we're doing.
DeleteI didn't say "Catholics", actually. I said "Many RCs". You'll find them all over Latin America and the Philippines, worshiping Mary. Yes, they are in disobedience to the official RC teaching, but see, that's the thing. They don't know and/or don't care.
ReplyDeleteAlso, by "Catholics" do you mean most Catholics?
If you're asking if by "many RCs", I mean "most RCs", the answer is that I made no commitment either way.
I've never met anyone Catholic who worshiped Mary
Shrug. I bet you've never met a lot of people. There are 7 billion people in this world.
But it's greatly misleading to people to say the phrase "Catholics worship Mary"
No, it's not, for the reasons I gave.
something Catholics generally practice
You've already admitted you don't know how many are doing so, so using the word "generally" here is equivocal. You're not in a position to say one way or the other.
I could also just as well make blanket statements like "Evangelicals hero-worship celebrity pastors", "Evangelicals are thieves", or "Evangelicals believe you have to work your way to heaven"
Then it would be fair to ask for clarification, and it would be fair for you to clarify, then wouldn't it? :-)
That's what we're doing.
Peace,
Rhology
This ends up just be trifling over wording. As long as we're clear, as you seem to be, that the Catholic Church is crytstal clear in her definitive teachings that we worship God alone and that true Catholics worship God alone, then we're fine. I would only ask that you would be much more clear in the future that insofar as any person who is Catholic who worships Mary (or any other sinful behavior found among all denominations), they do so in clear defiance (knowingly or unknowingly) of their own claimed Catholicism and do not represent Catholicism.
Delete"But it's greatly misleading to people to say the phrase "Catholics worship Mary"
DeleteNo, it's not, for the reasons I gave. "
You should be careful about your standard. Because it justifies the statements:
"Protestants kill people." (For certainly, many Protestants have killed someone.)
"Protestants worship money" (For it is manifestly obvious that many do.)
"Protestants don't read the Bible" (For I have met many Protestants who do not.)
"Protestants ignore the Bible" (For it is easy to find many Protestants who do.)
If "X does Y" statements do not represent either an official practice of X or at least the practice of a large portion of X (ideally at least the majority), then they are meaningless statements, devoid of content. Scripture does not have anything good to say about such talk.
It's not appreciated being told that a specific prayer is worship when we don't intend it as worship
ReplyDeleteBowing down before a statue of a dead person, lighting a candle before it, and speaking inaudibly, in a church and religious context, to that dead person is nothing less than an act of worship. Motivation does not matter. God has set out how He will be worshiped and He has told us not to talk to the dead.
Let's pretend an Israelite during the post-Exodus wandering in the desert were caught in his tent bowing down before, praying inaudibly to, and lighting candles to a statue of Abraham. Brought before Moses, he gives all the standard RC and EOdox arguments:
--"I was just giving dulia, not latria, to Abraham."
--"Abraham is alive in God."
--"My motivation is not to worship, but rather to venerate and to ask him for prayers. Every little bit helps."
--"Don't you ask your fellow Israelites for prayer?"
--"It's not an idol, it's an icon. See the difference?"
That dude would be stoned, and rightly so.
I'm not sure how Moses would have responded. But:
Delete- When a person is "dead", it means the person's soul is separated from their body. The souls of all dead people are still very much "alive"
- Scripture prohibits idols, but not all images, seeing as God himself commanded the creation of certain images, and even had the Israelites use them in worship (think the ark of covenant, the serpent, etc; a great summary of this point: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/10/does-bible-prohibit-religious-images.html)
- Does Scripture prohibit lighting candles for people? Not sure what the problem is here
- "Speaking inaudibly" - I'm not sure what your criticism is here either
- We aren't supposed to conjure the dead or engage in occult practices. Neither is taking place when we pray to the saints.
- Actually, the Israelites gave great honor to Abraham, and rightly so since Scripture does
- Yes, there is a real distinction between latria and dulia, worship and veneration/honor. E.g. God commands us to honor our father and mother. We don't take anything away from our worship of God by honoring our father and mother. Neither is anything lost in our worship of God by celebrating the example the saints give us of people made holy God anymore than we do by commemorating Martin Luther King Jr day.
- Yes, there's a big difference between idols and other religious images (icons), as already stated, in purpose and use
- Not sure what's wrong with asking saints in heaven for their prayers
- Also, from what I understand, asking for the prayers of those who had died was impossible before Christ since the only reason we are able to do that is because we are all a part of the same Body of Christ
You probably still don't agree with me. But in any case, I'm not really that interested in having an extended discussion on these topics in the comments here. The purpose of my post above was an attempt to re-frame the controversy to help people move forward.
As a staunchly reformed Protestant, this article is solitary ray of hope amidst a swirling maelstrom of internet butthurt.
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing it.
Thanks, I'm glad you appreciated it.
DeleteI really miss the like button of facebook for these comments, particularly "internet butthurt". LOL
ReplyDeleteBrantly, you forgot to point out to Rhology that an icon of God was impossible before Christ because God had not revealed Himself in visible form. But today icons of our Lord point to the reality of the incarnation. Similarly, icons of saints point to the reality of the cloud of (real, live) witnesses surrounding us. Hebrews 12:1
ReplyDeleteBrantly, thank you for this post. As a former "fallen-away," poorly catechized (woeful RCIA experience) Catholic convert who became Protestant for several years, and, finally, returned to the Catholic Church in 2010, I agree with most of what you've written here. Most serious Protestants who are "anti-Catholic Church" are not anti-Catholic in terms of actually *hating Catholics themselves*. Moreover, despite what some Catholics think, serious Protestants do want to obey our Lord and to understand the and follow the teachings of the Bible. They simply get some of those teachings wrong, largely due to being cut off, for 500 years, from the teaching authority of the Church.
ReplyDeleteThough I like your post overall very much, there is one part of it which concerns me, and which could lead, I think, to some misunderstandings for both Catholics and Protestants. You write:
"....probably most importantly for Toby, we do indeed unflinchingly reject sola fide and sola scriptura as heresy which, like all heresy, if knowingly, obstinately, and unrepentantly believed post-baptism, makes a person a heretic and damns them to hell."
I wish that you had provided a bit more clarification as to the significance of the word "knowingly" here, in terms of culpability for sin. By the time that I had become a conscious, committed Protestant (I initially converted to the Catholic Church from a largely non-Christian background and then fell away), I had a much better grasp of Protestant thinking than of true Catholic teaching. I embraced "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide" because I believed them to be the true teaching of the Bible-- and I did *not* have (and was not given in RCIA) a right understanding of the reality of, and need for, the teaching authority of the Church in interpretation of the Bible. In other words, I was not rejecting the Catholic Church, while *knowing* her to be the Church that Christ founded. I was not rejecting her teachings, while *knowing* those teachings to be the truth.
Even though I had previously converted to Catholicism, I was still largely ignorant about the Church and her teachings. Sadly, RCIA had not helped me to become *less* ignorant, for the most part-- which, I now believe, is a huge part of why I left the Church and became a Protestant in the first place. The Magisterium didn't fail me, but my experience of the Church on the local level, largely, did fail me catechetically speaking. I wish that I had known, at that time, to just stick with the Catechism, when I was hearing strange things from my local priest (and from other priests as well). It could have saved me a lot time, grief, and it could have kept me from embracing mistaken (Protestant) theological and ecclesiological views. However, I was young and confused, and I ended up being influenced to leave the Church, and to stay away from her for over a decade, by Protestant friends who *also* didn't understand Catholicism well.
My point in all of this is that it is very important to convey that the embrace of "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide" are only even *potentially" damning to one's soul, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, *if* one embraces them *while knowing* the Catholic Church to be the true Church of Christ, and while knowing her teachings to be the true fullness of the Christian faith. There is some lack of clarity, in the excerpt above from your post, which could leave the impression that anyone, anyone at all, who believes "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide", will be damned. This is not what the Church teaches. To be sure, SS and SF *are* heretical teachings. One's culpability for embracing them is reduced though, if one is not *aware* that they are heretical.
Again, I liked (loved, even!) the post overall! I hope and pray that Toby will take you up on your offer! Please keep us updated on that. I will be praying for both of you about it!
Hey Christopher,
DeleteThanks for the comment here. The official Church definition of 'heretic' actually only has the qualification of 'obstinately', and not 'knowingly' or 'unrepentantly'. I added those two words because I thought most people wouldn't really know what was meant by 'obstinately'. So adding those words was actually my attempt to clarify exactly what you'd like more clarification on! lol What you're saying is right, that a person must know that the teaching is dogma, and know what that means, and must even still persist in that heretical belief. Thus, 'obstinately' continue in believing it despite having been shown their error.
An important distinction here: material heresy, and formal heresy
Material heresy is a heretical belief. Formal heresy is when a person obstinately believes the heresy, rejecting the authority of the Church. A person can have material heresy, yet not be a formal heretic. Indeed, most people probably have some material heresy! Material heresy is always a major problem, so it's not like it's not a big deal. But only formal heresy is damning.
Peace
If "X does Y" statements do not represent either an official practice of X or at least the practice of a large portion of X (ideally at least the majority), then they are meaningless statements, devoid of content. Scripture does not have anything good to say about such talk.
ReplyDeleteThen objections to when people say "Catholics worship Mary" should start there, and not with "No they don't!"
I think that's a decent place to find common ground here.
Your inane repetition of "Catholics worship Mary" is about as valid in a conversation as the pro-aborts oft-repeated "Pro-Lifers don't care about babies once they're born" or the other various iterations of that. There probably are pro-lifers who honestly don't care about children after they're born in any meaningful way, but so what? It doesn't represent a majority. It doesn't represent the official position of any group. And it doesn't apply to the individual you're speaking to. You say that for the same reason the pro-aborts use their line, because it distracts from the topic at hand and naturally makes the hearer defensive as they have to go off and debunk that idea before they can get back to the point.
DeleteAlexandra, your example of pro-choicers painting all pro-lifers as not caring about humans after birth is I think is a great example. Although it's possible it's true for some people, it in no way represents any organization or movement, and is largely just a strawman to make it easier for pro-choicers to tear down pro-lifers. The insistence among certain quarters of Protestantism that Catholics worship Mary, the saints, the Pope, or any creature is very similar.
DeleteRhology, you may have said things in good faith (I can only assume so), but you must understand that this is why Catholics react so strongly against such statements. Because we've all heard it, we all know it's not true (or at least not true in any relevant sense), and yet certain Protestants persist in saying it. What I tried to point out in my post is that while there are lot of things that Protestants misunderstand about Catholics (like this), there are indeed real areas of major disagreement (ecclesial authority, canon of the Bible, how the deposit of faith has been passed on, justification, etc). Protestants and Catholics should stick to discussing those things, rather than having useless discussions in which the Protestant continues to insist that Catholics believe or do something that is not true about Catholicism.
Peace.
I have to admit that I find your response very odd.
DeleteThe statement "Catholics worship Mary," is at best grossly and negligently misleading, and at worst a malicious falsehood. The statement, "It is false to say that 'Catholics worship Mary'" at worst, lacks nuance. Yet you've taken pains to defend the former and criticize the latter. You have decided to blame the more accurate and more truthful statement for deficiencies in the discussion.
The statement, "Catholics worship Mary" does so little to convey actual truth (no matter what a minority of Catholics in the Philippines or elsewhere do, and no matter what Catholic acts of Dulia look like to you and your cultural bias) and has so little communicative value that it is simply indefensible as part of an honest discussion. I'm sorry, but it truly makes it seem that you are much less interested in a discussion than you are at engaging in anti-Catholic rhetoric.
Wine in the Water, I think you're right. When Rhology wrote: "Then objections to when people say "Catholics worship Mary" should start there, and not with "No they don't!"" my first thought was, what Wine in the Water wrote is not really a response so much as just an articulation of the normal rules of language. In other words, what you've said shouldn't have to be said, which is of course the point.
DeleteDeleted so I can edit a typo ...
ReplyDeleteI think it is worthy to note that AHA cares more about religious purity than actually ending abortion. Which is why I stated the pro-life movement does not need them.
They are using the pro-life platform or abolitionist platform as a guise to preach teachings contradictory to the Church. If you want to proselytize, fine, but don't pretend you are doing it to save babies.
Kudos for their strong convictions, sure, yet I find nothing refreshing about being called an idolater and member of a satanic religious sect. Some indignities should not stand. My convictions to defend the Church are just as strong, if not stronger.
I see where you're trying to remain charitable and ecumenical, Brantly, but realize the true agenda of AHA. I can give you plenty of screen grabs and recent comments made about how they've said preaching their version of the Gospel is more important than ending abortion. Really, the pro-life movement is better off without AHA.
Ask them about trolling blogs for women recovering from abortion. Do you really want to build bridges with an organization that attacks post abortive women? Where's the love of Christ in that?
This was a well thought out and kind post, Brantly, but this organization is nefarious.
Rhology writes...
ReplyDelete"Now, to say it's false that "Catholics worship Mary" is just a thoughtless and very poorly-phrased comment by you.
Many RCs DO worship Mary. Many others don't.
The RCC's official teaching is that one should not worship Mary.
All three of these statements are true, which means that your statement is false. I recommend you craft your verbiage more carefully in the future."...
If that isn't some condescending sh*t. Brantly, engage them long enough and you see their true sense of religious superiority. The hubris is stunning. The ignorance even more so.
Let's rephrase things a bit, using the same logic [if you can call it that] used by Rhology/AHA in his above comment....
Now, to say it's false that "Rhology is a bigoted anti-Catholic" is just a thoughtless and very poorly-phrased comment by you.
Many of Rhology's comments are anti-Catholic. Many others aren't.
Rhology claims the AHA is not an anti-Catholic organization.
All three of these statements are true, which means that your statement is false. I recommend you craft your verbiage more carefully in the future.
... just reading anything Rhology writes makes one want to /facepalm.
Crescat, you are a very spirited person, and laudably, with that spirit you want to defend your church, our church, and that is honorable and admirable. But it might not be helpful here. These folks are fervent for what they believe is the truth. So are we. But will hating on each other help us abolish abortion?
ReplyDeleteLet us all assume of each other that we are sincere in loving Jesus Christ, even though we disagree about so much. Let us believe of each other that it is love of God and of human beings made in His image, that makes us want to abolish abortion.
And let us work together to end abortion.
If the Protestants don't want to hear the Rosary, lets agree to have Catholics and the Rosary on Mon Wed Fri and Protestants and their prayers on Tues Thurs. Saturday. Perhaps we could have the Our Father and readings from the gospels TOGETHER once a month.
There has to be a way to do this.
Susan Peterson
Susan,
DeleteHow is promoting anti-Catholicism showing an effort, on their part, to work with us? Even now, when they've been exposed for religious bigotry, they continue to be condescending and show no inclination towards working together with us to end abortion. Just scroll up and read what Rhology has written. Would you really want to waste so much effort on this organization when there are a hundred others who aren't hateful towards us or use the pro-life movement as a front for evangelizing false doctrine? Make no mistake, the AHA's agenda is very different from our own.
I don't hate them. I just wish they'd pick up a history book and make a decent effort to learn about our faith or shut their mouths about Catholicism all together. Rhology continues to think he knows more about Catholicism than Catholics. THAT is what is preventing us from working together.
Brantly--you've started quite the conversation here.
ReplyDeleteVery intriguing post (and comments), as always.
--
-Nick Oswald