OK, I realize this is a know-nothing comment, but compared to my stuff on icons, it should be rather painless: Richard John Neuhaus grants Carl Trueman’s point that there is “ecclesial assymetry” between Evangelical and Roman Catholic participants in conferences/symposia. Here is the salient quotation from Trueman:
at the outset, we have an institutional church, with clearly defined authority structures, creeds, and an identifiable history – in other words, a self-conscious identity – being discussed in relation to a movement which lacks all of these things and is really only unified by a somewhat nebulous and ill-defined field of family resemblances – and family resemblances which have, over the years, become increasingly vague. This is at its most obvious, and acute, in the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) discussions. In these, while both groups of participants were arguably self-appointed, the Catholics did at least stand as representatives of a church and knew for whom and for what they stood; whom exactly were the evangelicals representing? From their very inception, therefore, the ECT discussions were built upon an important category mistake: Catholics came to the table committed by church affiliation to a clear set of doctrinal principles; that commitment gave them a place to stand from which they could engage. The evangelicals had no such thing, no place to stand, nowhere from which to engage. This probably goes a long way to explaining the fact that, in terms of doctrinal agreement, the discussions appeared to achieve so much but actually did little more than demonstrate the “mere Christianity” perspective to which an eclectic, parachurch movement like evangelicalism inevitably tends; and thus they exposed the inability of such a movement to be truly distinctive when faced with a coherent, comprehensive, and self-conscious church body.
I know I am ignorant of many things regarding contemporary and historic Roman Catholicism. Nevertheless, I confidently declare: the idea that Roman Catholicism is “a coherent, comprehensive, and self-conscious church body” is totally hallucinatory. It is laughable.
The simple fact is that ECT involved a tiny number of catholics who are not representative of a great many Roman Catholics. One need only browse the pages of First Things and ask when are they not engaged in an “in house” struggle with other Roman Catholic office-holders over basic theological commitments. The fact is that all these Evangelicals were probably members of organizations that would not tolerate the theological diversity that exists within the Roman Catholic fold. I don’t blame the Roman Catholics for this. When the PCA spreads over five continents with millions upon millions of members I will have some basis for making claims about what sort of uniformity such a body should be able to maintain in her ranks. I judge no one in all of this. I simply point out the fact that there is nothing coherent, comprehensive, nor self-conscious about the Roman Catholic Church that has anything to do ith “a clear set of doctrinal principles.”
Frankly, there almost seems to be a sort of Protestant Romanticism that undermines Protestant confidence. We allow certain segments of the Roman Catholic Church to portray her as some sort of cohesive force in the world; we ignore the fact that she is as fractured in commitments and beliefs as any survey of Protestant denominations, and we end up making any Christian who longs for Church unity at all start longing for Rome. I have had to deal with this sort of wishful dream in practical pastoral situtations and much of it came from ultra Protestant quarters. Even ultra anti-catholicism can foster this sort of willingness to defect because, in making out the Roman Catholic Church as a dangerous foe, she gets portrayed as possessing supernatural unity. As soon as a shadow of doubt creeps in about the values one ought to hold, all the anti-catholic propaganda ends up dovetailing with the message of Scott Hahn.
Hat Tip: Justin Taylor at Reformation21 blog
It seems like this is basically the issue that Nevin had such struggles with when he considered a move to the Roman Church don’t you think? I can understand why people feel the urge but I do think it is based on an inaccurate romanticism.
As a Catholic involved in Evangelization, I beg to differ on your assessment that the Catholic Church is not united around central tenets of doctrinal belief? Have you not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1995? http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
This updated version of the Catechism outlines all the doctrines that a Catholic is required to ascent to in order to be considered a Catholic in good standing. Individual Catholics and clergy may dissent, but their dissent is merely that. The Catholic Church is a top-down organization much like a corporation, and claims to get its doctrines from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in union with the Magesterium (Pope in Union with the bishops).
They are also united around the central belief in the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood in Holy Communion (1 Corinthians 1);17)http://1bread.blogspot.com/
Respectfuly, your sister in Christ, Karen Matthews
You are correct, Mark. I’ve studied at a Roman Catholic university. The theological professors in their graduate program were all over the map – liberals, liberation theologians, and what not. There’s no consensus. They also play fast and loose with their Catechisms and official documents. And when I was doing my doctoral work at a conservative Lutheran seminary, we had RC professors come in as guest lectures in classes. It was hair-raising. One prominent RC professor in town actually argued that substitutionary atonement was in effect “child abuse” and denied that the wrath of God played any part in the cross of Christ. The only thing that seems to unite them is the institutional connection they all have to mother church and the pope.
Mark,
I think that you are basically correct regarding the doctrinal coherence of Catholicism. It is important to note, however, that Roman Catholicism does not pretend to be a confessional communion like the Presbyterian and Reformed churches.
That said, the later statement of Trueman that “one cannot abandon elaborate theology as a point of principle in order to build a transdenominational movement and then hope to produce something akin to the Catholic Catechism” is exactly correct. A cursory of the Packer/Oden compilation, One Faith, makes that abundantly clear.
Blessings,
Michael
While I’m wary of what might be entailed in the word, “elaborate,” I agree with your point Michael (and Trueman’s). In fact, I suspect that it was that basic point that caused him to say what he did. I would be surprised if Trueman wouldn’t agree with me on the issue of the RC Church.
“As soon as a shadow of doubt creeps in about the values one ought to hold, all the anti-catholic propaganda ends up dovetailing with the message of Scott Hahn.”
Boy have I seen that. I’ve also seen something similar — as soon as someone who has anti-Catholicism not merely as an outgrowth of his positive beliefs, but as a separate theological commitment, sees a chink in the armor of his own anti-Catholic apologetic, he’s wide open to the notion that the One True Church of Rome is simply misunderstood, and that by virtue of being the focal object of Satan’s hatred. From there, we don’t get merely the apologetic of Scott Hahn, we replicate the experience of Scott Hahn, as he narrates it.
Trackback Pontifications