THE LAW OF MERITED IMPOSSIBILITY

Ever heard of The Law of Merited Impossibility? 

The American Conservative is a publication/website I don’t hold much in high esteem.   Basically, The American Conservative’s point of view is that it is against any American military involvement anywhere else in the world except for very essential national interests—in practice, there are very few very essential national interests.   Short of the Swiss army storming the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in D.C., military responses to provocations or crisis’s anywhere else in the world are specious over-reactions.    The American Conservative is replete with articles about war-mongering neo-conservatives, slavish American policies to Israeli interests, and, lately, how Obama’s “treaty” with Iran concerning its nuclear ambitions is a product of superior statecraft.  Not my cup of tea; but, to be fair, neither the Democrat nor Republican parties can count The American Conservative as a friend.

I turn to The American Conservative to read Rod Dreher.  Dreher calls himself a “Crunchy Con” conservative.  A “Crunchy Con” is an individual who embraces the hippy/countercultural lifestyle of his youth while embracing the conservative ideology of an adult.   Dreher left the Catholic Church after covering the Roman Catholic Church’s child sex abuse scandals and converted the Eastern Orthodoxy in 2006.   For the most part, Dreher writes about cultural issues and only occasionally about politics.

It is Dreher who came up with The Law of Merited Impossibility.  Those of us old enough to remember can recall that as legislators were preparing to vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Senator Hubert Humphrey, a key advocate of the bill, assured his colleagues that the new law “would not require an employer to achieve any kind of racial balance in his work force by giving preferential treatment to any individual or group.” To drive the point home, Humphrey went so far as to promise, from the floor of the Senate, that if the Civil Rights Act were ever to be cited as a justification for preferential hiring practices, he would physically eat, page by page, the paper on which the bill was written.   Humphrey’s assurances were codified in the Civil Rights Act by Congress’ insertion of a clause stating that “nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer ... to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance ...”   Yet, as history shows, beginning with the behind-the-scenes drafting of  “goals and timetables”,  full-blown criteria for “affirmative action” became a matter of law—all of which were justified in the name of…you guessed it… the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Of more recent memory, objections were raised that special legislation ensuring the rights of homosexuals would lead to “gay” marriage.   Proponents of gay rights legislation ridiculed such a suggestion as a bogus, silly fantasy made up by nutball religious fanatics to mislead the public.   “Gay marriage”, all were told, was simply impossible.   And yet…..

These two examples illustrate Dreher’s Law:  “It” will never happen, and when “it” does, you are a mean-spirited bigot if you oppose it.

Here in Hoosierland, as a result of last year’s RIFA fiasco, the Indiana legislature is working on legislation to protect the rights of LBGT folk.   Our august Indianapolis Star, advocating such legislation, dismisses any objections that it would compromise religious rights and that it would mandate that transsexuals would be allowed to use the restrooms of their choice.   Any bets on what will happen?

THE SYNOD OF THE FAMILY

Pope Francis, as this date, has seen the end of the gathering of bishops for a “conference” called the Synod of the Family.  The stated purpose was to formulate appropriate pastoral guidelines for the pastoral care of the person and the family covering a diverse collection of issues such as marriage, more positive statements of Church doctrine, Gay Catholics, decentralization of Church authority, and women.    Pope Francis called for this synod for the concrete purpose of ….what?   This is what had and still has the conservatives in the Catholic Church on edge.

There has been considerable reports of the innumerable skullduggery committed among the factions of the bishops at the Synod.  I am not conversant with all the ins and outs of Vatican politics—so I’ll leave that be.    But the outlines of the Synod itself are of interest.

During a “pre-synod synod” (A preparatory session of the synod held in 2014 to set the stage for the larger 2015 assembly), the Pope made some suggestive comments while a few documents written by liberal conference members were leaked to the press.  These indicated some fundamental, practical changes in Church doctrine coming down to pike.  Whether these were fair weathervanes of what was to transpire may not be determined for years to come.

One of the purposes of the Synod was to put in place how to bring homosexuals closer into the heart of the Church without much of the "exclusionary language” (“intrinsically disordered” being one such phrase) which had produced intense discomfort gays experienced in the past.  As one member (unidentified) put it, “Catholics "are our children. They are family members. They are not outsiders. They are our flesh and blood. How do we speak about them [positively] and offer a hand of welcome?"  It would appear to this Lutheran that in the end pretty much standard boilerplate was applied stating that gays should be drawn closer to into the Catholic community and their “gifts” were needed and should be generously accepted.  The bottom line is that the Synod set forth the goals without reckoning how to get there.

In any event, the subject of homosexuals and the Church pretty much fell to the wayside for (in a sense) a more contentious matter: pastoral care for the divorced and remarried, acceptance to some degree for the divorced and remarried among the fold, and opening the Eucharist to those who has failed to conform to the Church’s teaching on the permanence and indissolubility of the sacrament of marriage.

The Pope himself had made some noises signaling that he had some openness to changing Catholic practice and admit the divorced and remarried to the sacrament.  (One might presume following repentance and shouldering some form of penitence.)  First, he said that the Church's doctrine on marriage was not going to be changed, and that the previous assembly of the Synod did not propose changing it.   Secondly, he warned his brother bishops not to "reduce their horizons” into a single yes or no vote on whether divorced and remarried Catholics can be readmitted to the Eucharist.  In all fairness, these “noises” were vague.  Nevertheless, both the Pope and most bishops have a great deal of sympathy for those Catholics who were divorced through no fault of their own by the other partner in the marriage against their own wishes.

As one might imagine, the liberal faction of the Church have long favored extensive reforms which would allow the divorced and remarried to the Eucharist.   More to the point, they wanted a loosening of Catholic doctrine to reflect the reality of widespread divorce in the modern world.    The Church’s teaching on the permanence and in dissolubility of the sacrament of marriage would remain, but the admission to the Eucharist would be left to the discernment of the local priest under the guidance of the bishop.    German Archbishop Heiner Koch said that most people he spoke to understood the admittance of remarried Catholics to the Eucharist as matter of charity and mercy, not of the indissolubility of marriage.  Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Australia 65% of bishops were opposed to allowing remarried Catholics to the sacrament, with 35% in favor.^] Regarding allowing individual bishops conferences to determine their own pastoral practice with regard to divorced and remarried Catholics, Coleridge said he believed that proposal had closer to 50% support.   In general, bishops in the west (where Rome is experiencing severe loses in membership) were more likely to support these changes while the African Bishops (where the Church’s greatest growth is taking place) were almost uniformly against it.

Officially, the Synod changed nothing.  However, as with Vatican II, liberals are already talking about the “spirit of the Synod”.   Conservatives fear that the Pope will act on his own (the Pope is never bound to the consensus of the bishops) and institute reforms from his office.  However these reforms might be dressed up, the practical effect would be the abandonment of the doctrine of marital indissolubility.   Further, this would set the stage for an eminent “civil war” within the Catholic Church which would lead to eventual schism.    Whether all this talk of the “spirit of the Synod” would prove influential and a Papal unilateral action will take place is something only future years can tell.   Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say the Synod has set up grounds for profound conflict with the Catholic communion.

Up until the mid-twentieth century, Lutheran teaching closely resembled that of the Catholic Church.   While Lutherans did not hold that marriage was a sacrament, they did believe marriage was basically indissoluble and divorce was not acceptable.   While divorce’s presence among the laity did become more common, it remained a disgrace for many years and remains so to this day to some degree.   Individual Lutherans still do not readily talk about their own divorces among the fellowship.  It is a subject of shame rather than a normal happenstance of modern life casually discussed.

In any event, the Eucharist is rarely if ever denied to the divorced in the Lutheran Church.   It isn’t a vital issue.   One is far more likely to be denied communion because one the “proper” Lutheran belonging to the right Lutheran denomination. 

Still, one has to wonder.   However much we like to sugarcoat it, divorce is a scandal in the Lutheran Church.   Divorce rates are the same as those in the general culture.  We are supposed to be different and the fact we are not is not lost on the general public.   It is another fact in the public perception that we are a bunch of hypocrites who do not follow the precepts of our own religion.  They are well aware of what Jesus had to say about divorce and while they don’t take Christ’s instructions seriously for themselves, as they see it, we are deliberately ignoring Him when it suits our purpose.

Are they right?

We Lutherans have long been taught not to be judgmental toward those who have gone through divorce.  We are to greet them with charity, sympathy, and understanding.  I would not have it any other way.  Still, we have muted Jesus’ instruction so that the divorced will not be made uncomfortable and guilty whenever we speak of it.   On the whole, I hardly think most enter divorce lightly; however all too many consider divorce just one of life’s unwelcome but inescapable tragedies.  It’s normal.  It happens.  It’s even a positive good in many circumstances. In spite of Jesus’ teaching, we’ve even convinced ourselves this conventional wisdom is essentially true.

I don’t know quite what to do about this state of affairs.   Some will object that someone else’s divorce is hardly my business and, besides, their divorce has no impact on my marriage.    I am not convinced that is true.   I am certainly not convinced that is true for the marriages of others.   What I am convinced of is that long term studies have shown that divorce has a serious lasting impact on children.   This is not the place to go into the details of all the observed deleterious effects divorce has on children even well into their adulthood; but they exist and are all too common.   It’s not just for some children but for almost all.   This has define bearing on the social ecology we all live in.   Divorce is not benign. 

When others speak of their divorce, we should extend our understanding and love.  It is just that, perhaps, we are just a little too quick to understand.

BUT, MOMMY, I DON'T WANT TO GO TO CHURCH! DADDY, CAN'T WE JUST STAY HOME AND HAVE FUN?

In a minor news story, JUSTIN BIEBER remarked that he wanted to take his Christian faith more seriously.  Bieber talked about his Evangelical Christian upbringing.   Bieber says that he loves Jesus and wants to become more like Him.  But the kicker is Christians have left “a bad taste in people’s mouths” by being “overly pushy with the subject, overly churchy and religious.”  Bieber said, “It doesn’t make you a Christian just by going to church.”  Then Bieber made the analogy:   “You don’t need to go to church to be a Christian. If you go to Taco Bell that doesn’t make you a taco.”

Bieber got his big break in the music industry being discovered on YouTube.   He was all of 13 years old.  Millions of records sold later, he is now twenty-one.  His recent behavior of the last few years is exactly what one might expect of a young music star who has come into big money before becoming a real adult.  He wanted to be a tough bad boy emulating hard, dangerous, street-wise rap/hip-hop stars.  Several tattoos, vandalism, racing his Ferrari on city streets, intoxication, and arrests later, Bieber wants to change. He wants to grow up and change his public image into a serious recording artist and budding adult.

It is odd to compare going to church with going to Taco Bell—much less Christians and tacos.  But no one has ever said merely “going to church” turns you into a Christian.   It is actually the other way around.   The Christian comes together with his other brothers and sisters to worship, hear His Word, and keep the sacraments.

As Luther said of the sacraments, there are many ways God’s may be heard.  But baptism and communion are the visible Word of God.  And these are the only ways God can be touched.

It is a little unfair to expect Bieber to be different than his peers.  Indeed, the Millennial generation commonly identify themselves as spiritual but not religious.  Abjuring organized religion, the Church, they view worship as purely optional.  Or more exactly, being a part of living Christian congregation is not needed.  In fact, there may be more authenticity and graciousness in standing alone. 

We should always be suspicious of the “spiritual/not religious”.   Typically, it grants these individuals the license to pick and choose among features of the whole variety of the world’s religions in order to amass his own belief system.  Moreover, the foremost feature of building one’s own “religion” –one’s own Christianity—is that it is undemanding and won’t bring discomfort.  No call to die and take up the Cross.

One of the central insight of Luther is that despite one’s own best efforts, the sinner will never be righteous enough to stand before a holy God.  No unrighteousness, no impurity can possibly live, be admitted into the presence of the holy God.  Truly, one finds that even his best efforts sinks him deeper into depravity.  Nevertheless, our natural inclination is to try to be so good in order to justify ourselves before God.  

We can’t help ourselves.  Even knowing the project fails before we even start, we do it anyway.   Christ meets us…when we are called by the Father…and calls us to trust in Him instead.   The Christian is graced to stand before our Holy Father because we are clothed in Christ righteous.   But the creature the “old man” in us still lives.   We still are sickened by unbelief which can overtake us once again.  There is a powerful temptation to shun with faith in Christ and go back to the way we were. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that we have be constantly reminded of who we are.  We must come to worship to be taught over and over again the work of Jesus.  We have to hear the call of the Father often and continuously for faith to live.   This will not happen standing alone.   We have to be a part of the company of believers, worship with our brothers and sisters, listen to the Word of God, bare the sufferings of our brothers and sisters, and receive the sacraments.  

As far as it goes, Bieber is right.  We Christians are a pretty icky bunch.  The older I get, often sitting in the pew, before the altar, I understand that I am inescapably a pretty rotten guy.   In spite of the words of my mouth, I am a hypocrite.   I will always be a hypocrite one way or another.   Maybe the world sees me as a good guy and, by those standards, I am.    But, before a holy God, there is a completely different truth. 

There is nowhere else where we confess and receive absolution but in the Church.

As the old confession is spoken:

O God, our Heavenly Father, I confess unto Thee that I have grievously sinned against Thee in many ways; not only by outward transgression, but also by secret thoughts and desires, which I cannot fully understand, but which are all known unto Thee.  I do earnestly repent, and am heartily sorry for these my offences, and I beseech Thee of Thy great goodness to have mercy upon me, and for the sake of Thy dear Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord, to forgive my sins, and graciously to help my infirmities.  Amen

This confession is hard.  It is not easy to speak with our whole hearts.  It is in worship, before God, with our brothers and sisters, where we can truly make this confession.

Likewise, it is in worship, before God, with our brothers and sisters, where we hear the absolution:

Almighty God, our Heavenly Father, hath had mercy upon thee, and for the sake of the sufferings, death, and resurrection of His dear Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, forgiveth thee all thy sins.  Upon the confession which thou hast made, and in obedience to our Lords’ command, I declare unto thee the entire forgiveness of all thy sins:  In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

The blessing of Almighty God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, be with thee always.   Amen

GOD THE MOTHER AND RETHINKING THE NICENE CREED

In the letters section of the recent issue of the Lutheran [July, 2015], Pastor George S. Johnson advocated openness to rethinking the Nicene Creed to reflect the feminine nature of God.  He wasn’t exactly specific; but one may suppose a revisionist formulation like ‘I believe in God the Mother”.    (Perhaps “God the Father” and “God the Mother” would alternate from service to service).  Maybe some way would be found simultaneously identify both genders without emphasis to one or the other.   In any event, the charge is that, by refusing to put a feminine face on the divine, we put God in a very small box when limiting the Creator to male imagery. 

This call to recognize the “womanlike” facet of our Lord is made now and again—often times in periods of intensity followed by episodes of drought in which there is nary a breath devoted to such a transformation.  The problem for the modernizers is that Lutherans and the greater Church are and have been loath to fiddle around with the creeds. 

(Exception being the Church at large did annoyingly shifted “He descended into Hell” to “He descended into the dead” in the Apostles Creed.  But that’s a story for another time.)

For Lutherans (Let’s be honest.  We mean the ELCA here—the party most likely.)  to go it alone and change the Nicene Creed according to their lights would do irreparable damage to ecumenical relations the Catholic and Orthodox Churches—not mention other creedal Churches.  In spite of the predictions of the “sunshine and sugarplums” Christians in our midst, The Catholic Church is not likely to follow Protestant trailblazing—and let’s not delve in science fiction and even talk about groundbreaking departures from tradition by the Orthodox.

Nevertheless, Pastor Johnson cites Martin Luther himself to justify writing:  “As Martin Luther said, ‘Everything we teach needs to be open for examination and possible revision.’”.

Actually, I have some sympathy for Pastor Johnson’s suggestion.   After all, in both Sunday School and Confirmation, we little Lutherans were told that God was neither male nor female in spite of the fact God is usually addressed as “Father” and Jesus Himself was and is a man.  (For some reason, the Holy Spirit—the Spirit of Christ-- is often referred to as “it”)  If God is neither gender but we call Him “Father”, then it seems entirely reasonable that we may also refer to God as mother.  This seems, even absent Biblical precedent, reasonably coherent.  And herein lies the problem.

While Luther did advocate examination and possible revision, he also had a grave mistrust of reason:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

 More specifically, Luther abhorred theological/philosophical speculation in matters of faith.  Christian teaching should only be grounded in the Scriptures.    As he saw it, the Church had been plagued by the violent invasion of philosophical reasoning through the centuries and such reasoning had worked to obscure the Gospel and the plain meaning of the Scriptural text.   In light of this hazard, Christian teaching should not go beyond what is revealed in Scripture.

It is frequently objected that the Bible does in fact use feminine metaphors in describing God acting in some maternal role .   Many of the examples cited are quite a stretch; but such images are there.   One only has to remember Jesus’ lament:    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!  (Matthew 23:37)

 

The critical flaw in the conjecture that such images warrant the use of such appellatives as “God the Mother” is that these images are precisely that:  metaphors.  They describe actions—not persons.  They are not proper names.   That Father and Jesus are proper names is, yes, the point.   They are the names revealed to us in the Gospels.  It is by Jesus’ instruction in the Lord’s Prayer we are told ‘this is how you should pray…our Father.’

The Father is literally Father of His only the Son, but he becomes our Father by adoption, by grace, by union with Christ by the Spirit so that Christ’s relationship with the Father becomes ours by participation. So if God is the Father of Jesus, and we are in Christ by the Spirit, then his Father is our Father.   Father is thus not a gender, nor is it a function, it is a pure relation of a person to another person.   God is not distant and impersonal.  He is a personal relationship with us for which names are essential.  When we are in close relationships, names are vital and exact—not optional, metaphorical, or flexible

As Luther would say, it is not safe to stray beyond the revealed Word of God.   Truths which are not discoverable by reason.   While the revealed Word of God confounds us and are a scandal to the ideals of our time, we must trust beyond understanding our Lord has His own purposes.

WHAT WOULD JACK SAY?

Over at the Patheos web site, it seems that, where two are gathered, the tribulations of 1517 eventually rear their ugly head.  If you never have visited Patheos, I highly recommend perusing its multi-faceted individual bloggers.  Anyway, I had been directed to a particular article entitled “Why Didn’t C. S. Lewis Become a Catholic?”  from the REALCLEARELIGION daily survey.  My initial interest was in precisely the subject of article.   What I didn’t know was that I had fallen into the contentious arena of one Dave Armstrong.  Mr. Armstrong grew up as a Protestant and went on to be a campus missionary.  Armstrong converted to Catholicism and was received into the Church in 1991.  Since that time, Armstrong has become one of the leading Catholic apologists in the United States.  His main focus has been defending Catholicism through what he views as Biblical evidence which explain and support the doctrines and practices of the Church.  Mr. Armstrong has been quite prolific in his work—turning out a very impressive and long list of papers, debates and dialogues defending the Catholic faith.   Armstrong claims his efforts has brought about hundreds of conversions and the return of lapsed Catholics back into the fold.

Armstrong believes that the Holy Spirit guides His Church to be always free from doctrinal error.  He also finds the notion that The Church could ever have been in error or mistaken absolutely far-fetched.  Nothing exceptional in these beliefs among Catholics.  Indeed, such is taught in the Catholic Catechism.   What Armstrong equally finds unbelievable is that any Protestant could seriously think the Holy Spirit would ever let his Church fall into error.  That Protestants, by definition, DO seems to be of little moment to him.

Armstrong also has a propensity of throwing all Protestants into the same bucket; then he proclaims that, since Protestants don’t agree among themselves, none can be true.   Armstrong thinks this is so obvious that this “fact” should be decisive in and of itself in leading Protestants of all stripes back to Rome.  Most Protestants, on the other hand, believe we are all born in a world of disagreement—especially regarding (but hardly limited to) religion.  This is the way of the world and thus it will always be.  Therefore they are hardly surprised to find serious differences between the various Christian denominations.   They see little reason to expect anything less.   

Having scanned several of Armstrong’s articles, my impression as a Lutheran is that he frequently makes tendentious and dubious interpretations of Scripture sometimes balancing his case on the back of a single verse.  Granted, I was not able to read but more than a few pieces out of Armstrong’s huge corpus; nevertheless I suspect this to be a common feature throughout.

Enough background.

In the instance of this particular article, “Biblical evidence” does not directly come into play.

The bottom line in “Why Didn’t C. S. Lewis Become a Catholic?” is that most of his friends and follow Inklings were Catholics.   Their accounts point to Lewis coming several times near the spiritual explosion of conversion and the embrace of the Catholic faith.  The most unfulfilled opportunity for Lewis’s conversion seems to have occurred around 1950.    But in the end Lewis always dismissed such entreaties.   His friends and many of his biographers chalked it up to the Protestant prejudices instilled in Lewis growing up in Belfast, Ireland.  On this, Armstrong agrees. 

I don’t think this evaluation is even close to a fair assessment of Lewis’s spiritual life.  I should think anyone familiar with Lewis and his apologetics would expect more principled motivations.   “Ethnocentric” bias just doesn’t cut it.  Armstrong, however, seems to think embracing Catholicism is so compelling that it persistently hounds the thoughts and dreams of all “separated brethren”.  That it does not and wasn’t an alternative Lewis took seriously seems to be possibilities Armstrong does not take into account.

A selection from the comments:

Brian Sullivan • 

I don't think I saw this in the article or discussion, but I have heard it suggested that if CS Lewis had converted to the Catholic Church, his writings, so influential to many mere Christians of all denominations, would have been disregarded. "Well yes, he's quite convincing about that, but he was Catholic, so...."

DLink • 

Lewis appears to have been quite honest about the whole thing. At that time there was a common view among devout Anglicans that there were three branches to The Church: Roman, Orthodox and English and equally valid. As far as infallibility and Old Catholics; it was debated at Vatican I. A number of Bishops thought it wrong to proclaim but stayed in the Church after it was. A few, now called Old Catholic, went to schism. As far as Mary, that is devotional and while it might have presented a barrier to Lewis in his day, would not now. Let us view him in his time, not ours.

Cestius 

I'm pretty certain that Lewis would find the (Anglican) Church of England post 1992 intolerable - his opinions on women priests were well-known and forthright, and most of his views are now more more in line with the Catholic Church than the Anglican. I suspect that like myself and many other former Anglicans he would have been forced to reconsider in favor of Catholicism.

Thomas R 

He's not an author I'm that into, but I researched him some as he was related to a thesis I intended to write.

Although he didn't want to discuss them I think his views on Mary and the Papacy were fairly real. I don't think they were simply some anti-Catholic thing as such. I think he sincerely objected to aspects of the First Vatican Council and rejected the idea of the Immaculate Conception. The "Old Catholic Church", as it was then, might have had more similarities to him than Anglicanism really did then but I think even then it was maybe seen as a bit kooky and obscure. Well except that in one letter I believe he told an Anglican they really shouldn't say prayers like the "Hail Mary" as he felt they are too directed to her rather than Jesus.

In some ways this part, discomfort with things like the rosary, is strange as much of what he wrote seemed to favor pre-Reformation Christianity. Rosaries might be Catholic, but Marian hymns also occur in Eastern Orthodoxy and the Coptic.

MichaelNewsham

As well, Tolkien's references to Lewis's "Ulsterior Motives" were not "tongue-in-cheek." Tolkien was upset by Lewis 's "Letters to Malcolm" and what he regarded as Lewis's downgrading,and even mocking, of the Catholic doctrines, especially of the Eucharist.

It is filled with theological barbs--most of them aimed
at Roman Catholicism. As such it provides us with the very clearest
contrast between his and Tolkien's beliefs. Reading the book from
the Roman Catholic perspective of Tolkien, it is not difficult to glean
what aspects of it might have distressed and even horrified him.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...

Following quotes from Lewis, "Letters to Malcolm" (and remember, these were not actual letters- it was a series of essays cast in the form of letters.)

A rejection of transubstantiation

A Priori Anselm†

Council of Trent - reason enough to NOT conform to Roman Catholicism.

Dave Armstrong

Hundreds of competing, massively contradictory denominations (so that much error MUST be present): reason enough NOT to totally conform to any brand of Protestantism,

Mick Lee 

I find there is very little support for the notion Lewis was tempted to submit to Rome. It seems to be a persistent fantasy among some Catholics that if he lived to a more ripe old age Lewis would have become a Catholic (especially after Vatican II). But a Protestant Lewis was and Vatican II did little to compel the vast lion's share of Protestants to "come on over".  For Lutherans--for which I am one-- (and perhaps by extension Anglicans), Rome's dancing around "justification by faith alone" does not inspire confidence nor conversion. 

I am not inclined to regard the Catholic Church as the Great Antichrist nor to say it is not Christian; but I find the reality of the Catholic Church on the ground too confused and disorganized to have any confidence that I will hear the Gospel clearly among its adherents and during worship week after week.

JoAnna Wahlund

I think that Lewis would have become a Catholic if he could have seen where the Anglican church was headed (practicing gay clergy and bishops, women clergy and bishops, open support for abortion, etc.).

Mick Lee

Maybe. But it's more likely Lewis would have taken the path of most Protestants: Protestant

Dave Armstrong

Still wondering what you make of so many of Lewis' biographers saying that he came close to converting, and that his Belfast upbringing was key in his not doing so.

Mick Lee

Believe me. There are and have been thousands and thousands of Protestants who have considered converting to Rome or the Orthodox Church. (I have been one such Protestant.) We come close; but, again, we find on the ground where life is actually lived Catholicism is a mess no better than the the mess we already find ourselves in (The Catholic Church has its own share of theological liberals) and the Orthodox severely insular. However bad we find it in our own Churches, Rome is worse

There is another truth most Catholics don't like to hear but the thing is some features of Catholicism absolutely horrify Protestants. The adoration of Mary, praying "to" the saints, and the doctrine of Purgatory being some examples. Catholics are satisfied with the instruction of Tradition in these matters; but that cuts no ice with Protestants. Invoking "The Church" doesn't answer anything. Where is the Biblical instruction for these things? Where is the command or promise? (One should be surprised at how little Mary appears in the Gospels and is nowhere to be found in the letters.) Catholics do not recognize these standards as important or legitimate; but Protestants do. It is in the air they breathe and the blood in their veins.

This is why when former Protestants write their accounts on why they converted to Rome Protestants find them absolutely baffling. They don't answer any of the questions Protestants find so essential. This bothers Protestants: why the absence of what is so important? Why the passing over these issues without even addressing them or with just a mere wave of the hand? Thus such attempts of converts in explaining themselves arrive as wasted words and time.

Yes. Lewis was a Belfast Protestant; but that hardly means his allegiance was empty. Lewis had Protestant blood in his veins too. Until Catholics begin to understand Protestants as Protestants understand themselves, they will indulge themselves in useless speculation. As much as I admire Tolkien et al,, I suspect they were engaging in projection: attributing their thought paradigms onto Lewis. Of course, I am not a professional psychiatrist nor do I have proof for this; but one should never say what "X" (who lived in a different time) would have done if he had met the rest of the tumultuous 60's and 70's.

Dave Armstrong

We don't "adore" Mary (that is for God alone). We venerate or honor her, which is perfectly scriptural. The Bible commands us to honor all men, even the pagan emperor, for Pete's sake . . . But we can't honor Mary and the saints?

That's why I do what I do, Michael. I defend all these "horrifying" things from Scripture. Just search the relevant pages in the drop-down menus at the top of this page if you wanna read what I say about 'em.

Mick Lee

Your exegesis of these texts is mystifying at best.

You can play around with words; but you know and I know Catholics do a lot more than just "honor" Mary. There is no Scriptural justification for the Immaculate Conception, her corporeal assumption into Heaven, nor Marian prayers.

Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov wrote: "Love and veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary is the soul of Orthodox piety. A faith in Christ which does not include his mother is another faith, another Christianity from that of the Orthodox church." Catholics may agree with this in their own terms--preferring their own words. I wouldn't know but it appears to me that it bears some truth to some degree in the Catholic faith. Nevertheless, there is no Biblical command to ask for Mary's intercession nor a promise that such intercession could be made much less than such intercession would have any influence.

When Jesus taught His disciples how to pray, He prayed to our Heavenly Father and to the Father alone. To Protestants, His example is definitive.

Dave Armstrong

There is no scriptural statement that the Bible is the only infallible source of faith and theology, either (sola Scriptura: which is the Protestant rule of faith and one of the two "pillars" of the "Reformation"). That doesn't stop Protestants from building their entire theology on this false notion.

There is no statement in the Bible about which books comprise the Bible.

Readers who want to explore what I have written about Mary, and all the arguments from the Bible I produce can look them over here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/d...

As always, you or anyone else are welcome to try to refute any of my arguments. I am committed to defending anything in my writings, or else retracting arguments if shown a better way.

 •

Mick Lee

“There is no scriptural statement that the Bible is the only infallible source of faith and theology”. Sorry, but absence is not evidence. No could just as easily point out that it did not deem any other source infallible either.

You are somewhat misinformed. Depending on which time period one looks up, there are either three or five “pillars” of the Reformation. The original “Lutheran” confessions list three “solas”: 1.) By Scripture Alone. 2.) By Grace Alone and 3.) By Faith Alone. By the twentieth century, some denominations recognized two addition “solas” they held were valid all along but heretofore not formerly emphasized as such: 4.) Through Christ alone. And 5.) Glory to God alone. Some have argued that in a lot of ways one “sola” is interchangeable with another; but for most theologians any has distinct
meaning.

But let’s confine ourselves to Scripture.

Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone") means the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God. In other words, these other authorities only have their legitimacy when they work in service to the Word of God.

This last sentence in the paragraph above is foundational to how tradition is evaluated in Protestantism. The authority of tradition, and the authority of the Church as well, is derivative from Scripture.

While it is true that “there is no statement in the Bible about which books comprise the Bible”, it was the books themselves which revealed themselves to be “God breathed” and binding. The early Church councils pulled together these books in service to them. Without this binding duty to the Word for them, none of these councils had any validity.

All this is to say that Scripture is the lone judge to determine when reason, the councils, tradition, and the Church itself are mistaken. It is they who stand in the dock; not Scripture. Make no mistake: reason, the councils, tradition, and the Church cannot be dismissed out of hand. These can be most helpful and indeed are in real life as it is lived. But they are not decisive.

(I should point out here that Lutherans in particular have much more to say about the significance and nature of the “The Church” than can be reflected in this short response.)

It would be foolish to think either of us will convince the other. We work from different premises. And what is embedded in one’s premises can hardly fail to come out in one’s conclusions. That is why although we are both Christians (I would hope you would regard me such), we are like ships passing in the night. This is why, when I have read your “justifications” of Catholic doctrine, I find them earnest but thin. I should think perhaps your view is that Protestantism of any sort is simply false root and branch—thus any response to your points is erroneous at its core if not immoral.

Well, like Lewis and Tolkien, what is left to us is to sit around the hearth, light our pipes, and tell each other stories. Occasionally talk about differences.

•

Dave Armstrong

1. You contended that Immaculate Conception, etc. is entirely absent from Scripture. I countered by arguing that sola Scriptura and the biblical canon are also absent, yet Protestants believe them, anyway. IOW, a double standard: one for us, another for you. You prove my point rather spectacularly in your comment above: Bible Alone as the ultimate authority; yet this teaching is NOT in the Bible; and that is (I don't see any way out of it) a self-refuting position. Catholics, OTOH, don't claim that everything MUST be explicitly in Scripture, or even (in some cases) indirectly or by deduction. This is why our view isn't self-contradictory, as yours is. Some things can be primarily or solely in tradition and still be true. They will always be in *harmony* with Scripture, though.

2. I'm quite familiar with the definition of sola Scriptura, having written about it more than anything else (including two entire books), and having debated it with several of its leading defenders for 20 years.

3. Like all Catholics, I joyfully regard Protestants as fellow Christians, part of the Body of Christ and the Church by virtue of baptism and many other common elements. I've written MANY papers along ecumenical lines, expressing respect and affection for my Protestant brethren, including high praise for my own teachers in the past.

4. For you to suspect otherwise than what I expressed in #3, proves you obviously haven't read much of my writing, which is fine (I have over 1500 posts online, all now on this site). But if you haven't read much, it's mystifying how or why you would even posit such a supposedly negative opinion from me, on my Protestant brethren.

Mick Lee

The primacy of Scripture is that it is the very Word of God. “No one can tell us what to do or what we are to believe but God Himself”:

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” (2 Cor. 9:11)

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been His counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to Him
that He might be repaid?”
For from him and through him and to him are all 
things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11: 34-36)

That the Scriptures speaks to us His actual Word and nowhere else means it has a predominance unrivaled. 

It is to God’s own Word we are to give heed, take instruction, and keep within our hearts. The Scriptures are God’s revelation to us; a revelation found nowhere else. Its is very essence as the actual Word of God is its authority which towers over all others. No other authority knows His thoughts and ways apart from His revealed Word. In no other agency can God’s very Word be found.

Thus it is by His Word all things are judged and His Grace is bestowed on us. This is why in Lutheran worship (a.k.a The Divine Service or the Lutheran Mass) we speak, chant, and keep the Sacraments using His Own Words. The most appropriate way to worship Him is by using His Own Word.

It is only from Scripture’s unique and absolute truth we can find complete trust and reliability. Even His Church sometimes fails us. Its councils contradict each other.   A great teachings promoted one day are thrown into the rubbish only to have another great teaching to follow the next . Great theologians and teachers of their own day fight among themselves. Only God’s Word is sure. In the Scriptures, there is no contradiction or untruth.

Thus we find no self-refutation as you would have it. The Word of God, Scripture, acclaims itself. Traditions, righteous guidance, the offices of the Church, and even the ancient creeds are only valid when in service
to the Word of God.

·          

Thomas R

Considering the earliest Bibles we have contain books Protestant Bibles do not (Tobit, Judith, sometimes Maccabees), and St. Stephen died for the faith before St. Paul's conversion, I admit yeah this doesn't seem like it would entirely work.

But I do admit I don't think you can use a purely Protestant/Reformation logic to justify Catholicism and Catholic converts are inevitably going to fail to do that as Catholicism isn't a Protestant denomination.

•  

Mick Lee

I agree that, beginning with Protestant "principles" with the purpose of eventually embracing Rome, one "can't get there from here"..

I am not sure what the point is you're trying to make in your first paragraph. (I have some guesses; but I find it is not safe to assume.)

Nevertheless, a few thoughts:

Yes, the Catholic canon differs from that of most Protestants. Luther's criteria involved the question of whether the Gospel was disclosed by the book or letters. (Luther said that even the Old Testament presented the Gospel) In any event, the canon itself developed over the first four centuries. The important factor was that when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the church." As I wrote before, these were acting is service to the Word of God rather than a separate authority derived from Church tradition in the strict sense.

Within Lutheranism, the Word of God refers 1.) The written Word, Christ Himself, and the spoken Proclamation of the Gospel. The first believers were made Christians by the latter. In other words, the faith passed on to the first Christians and from one generation to the next by word of mouth. It is from this "oral tradition" that the written Word was made. (There is also the possibility of an early written Word for the first Christians; but that is purely hypothetical.) Sadly, that original oral tradition is lost to us in this post-apostolic age. Nonetheless, the spoken Proclamation is very much alive.

It is not that there are not important authorities (such as Church tradition) beside the written Word of God. But these authorities are subordinate to and only valid to the degree they are congruent with the Word of God. (Thus the Creeds are seen as authoritative because they a faithful statements--summaries--of Christian doctrine.)

As a side note, Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, are not accepted within the Jewish canon. Luther said that these can be profitably read; but they had serious defects in terms of the Gospel. The Book of Esther is accepted within the Jewish canon. It is interesting in that not once do the words "God" or "Lord" appear. Perhaps one may see Esther as an example of faith therefore it belongs in the Christian canon as well.

Mick Lee

I find there is very little support for the notion Lewis was tempted to submit to Rome. It seems to be a persistent fantasy among some Catholics that if he lived to a more ripe old age Lewis would have become a Catholic (especially after Vatican II). But a Protestant Lewis was and Vatican II did little to compel the vast lion's share of Protestants to "come on over".   For Lutherans--for which I am one-- (and perhaps by extension Anglicans), Rome's dancing around "justification by faith alone" does not inspire confidence nor conversion. 

I am not inclined to regard the Catholic Church as the Great Antichrist nor to say it is not Christian; but I find the reality of the Catholic Church on the ground too confused and disorganized to have any confidence that I will hear the Gospel clearly among its adherents and during worship week after week.

Tom Leith

I am afraid you are all too justified in your lack of confidence. But there are things in the Catholic Church you simply cannot get anywhere else.

Mick Lee

I am sure that there are treasures in the Catholic Church one cannot find in other churches. Indeed, that is among its strengths. The question, however, is if those are the treasures which one should seek.

Tom Leith

Whether or not the claims of the Catholic Church are true is the only important question in life. I tell people if they want Organized Religion the choices are Mormonism and Scientology.

§   

Mick Lee

Tom: As a Lutheran, "sola fide" is the most important doctrine on which the church stands or falls.

By "organized religion", do you means an institution with a strong top-down authority? If so, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Indeed, I should think that would be important to a Catholic. Others, however, would say "organized religion" would encompass many other communities of faith. Certainly "freethinkers" would find your definition too strict.

As a far Lutherans are concerned, the true Church is found where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments are kept. That would include the Catholic Church in many ways. In more exacting detail, there are seven marks of the true church: Confession and Absolution, The Word of God, Ministry, Worship, Suffering, Baptism, and The Lord’s Supper. With a strong top-down authority or absence one, the church can be found can be found in many, many places in the many expressions of the Christian faith and "traditions". Thus, the Lutheran Church is the one true Church--and not the only one. ("For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20)

Tom Leith

Thank you for your comments. I was being a little tongue in cheek with the "organized religion" comment -- it has more to do with a very strong group-think and the ability to "shun" (as in "eject from the Church and society") those who don't conform. As much as we might like to, we Catholics can't do that.

I've never figured out how anyone can speak of The Lutheran Church. Does this mean The Lutheran World Federation -- can the LWF "speak for", the Missouri Synod? Can it speak for anyone? Or maybe the Missouri Synod is no more Lutheran than the Old Catholics are Catholic? Or maybe the Missouri Synod is The Remnant of The Lutheran Church, and 95% of self-identified Lutherans have apostatized. I don't know -- but in the face of private interpretation of scripture, I've never figured out what could possibly unify Lutherans beyond "we're not Catholics".

Once private interpretation is admitted, anyone can claim to preach the Gospel "rightly". To close off private interpretation (I'll assume you somehow want to, or you wouldn't be worried about "rightly"), how does one know where the Gospel is preached "rightly"? It seems to me you need either Authority or Tradition. But the Lutheran vision of The Christian Church can't admit a living-in-time, speaking, acting Authority, only a (dead) text. This leaves Tradition. If you want to appeal to Tradition to determine whether a particular interpretation of the text is right, it seems important to examine what the Apostles and Fathers believed of texts. One thing they didn't believe was sola scriptura -- they all insisted on a living, speaking, acting Authority.

For you it seems the only important question is whether sola fides is true. Did the Church have it all wrong for a thousand years before the heroic Martin Luther set it all straight? Well, the Apostles and Fathers didn't believe in sola fides -- they all insisted on a faith working in love causing an increase in faith-- something explicitly rejected by Luther and the Formula of Concord. Not to mention the "work" of conserving one's own faith. So where do you go?

We Catholics recognize four marks of the true Church, classically expressed One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic. Each word may be understood according to a couple of different senses. A fuller explanation may be found here. By virtue of your baptism, we Catholics hold that you are baptized into the True Church, and indeed, where two or three are gathered in His Name, there He is with them. Our communion is nevertheless impaired.

As much as I have to grit my teeth at bad liturgy, worse preaching, episcopal incompetence, malfeasance, ... ad infinitum, and apparent disunity in the highest places (look at the Kasper Proposal for redefining adultery and therefore marriage, or sacrilegious confession & absolution, take your pick) they're what the Lord gave us. The Church Hierarchy is (paradoxically) a cross for the Christian. Oh well. But look at Jesus' warning to them!  Duty calls. Thanks for the conversation.

§   

§   

Mick Lee

If you are embarrassed by the liturgy, preaching, etc. within the Catholic Church, the mortification for most Lutherans is its disunity. The lack of accord has many reasons which I won't go into here. The Lutheran World Federation is actually that: a federation. Each of its member churches retain their "sovereignty"; thus any agreements and compacts with other non-Lutheran Churches are largely non-binding. This is confusing to Catholics and they certainly have reason to be. But the Lutheran Church never has had an institutional, central authority as such.

What we do have is the Book of Concord: a collection of founding documents such as the Augsburg Confession, Luther's catechisms, the three ecumenical Creeds of the ancient Church, and several other "symbols". Subscription to these are what defines what it means to be Lutheran. Whatever else could be said about them, all these are subservient to Scripture rather than separate authorities. Pope Benedict likened them to a "tradition" somewhat in the Catholic sense; but there has been some significant development of doctrine since the 1500's.

It should be noted the Lutherans never have put too much stock in a "visible" Church as being a defining aspect of the True Church. Instead, the True Church is "invisible", the faithful known to God, spanning the whole world within and beyond the reach of any one institution--Catholic, Lutheran, or otherwise. Thus, it doesn't particularly bother us that we don't have a Pope, St. Peter's, or a magisterium. Catholics usually have a difficult time believing we take this seriously--but there ya go.

It is usually a surprise to most Catholics that Luther was strictly opposed to "private interpretation" of Scripture. In gets quite involved how proper interpretation is arrived at but the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture is the cornerstone. Lutheran theologians frequently consult with the many understanding the historic Church has taken through the ages; but their validity is only proved by their adherence to the Gospel. To those valuing a visible, ecclesiastic authority, this is likely to be unsatisfactory; but I think you might be surprised how well it works in practice.

By the way, Lutherans would be horrified at your description of Scripture as "dead text". The Word of God is a living Word.

As for "sola fide", the doctrine has ample pronouncements among the teachers and doctors of the Church beginning at the very least with St. Augustine himself. So, no, the Catholic Church never had it all wrong. It mostly had it right.

In regards to faith and works, Lutherans separate justification from sanctification. The first being how one is made righteous before God; and the second being taking up the Cross of Christ and following Him. In technical terms, Catholics believe in a synergisitic relationship between faith and action whereas Lutherans take a Divine monergistic view. The Methodists and the Orthodox share Catholic synergism. To many other Christians, it appears to them to be a distinction without a difference. Those involved in ecumenical discussions between Catholics and Lutherans tend to downplay this variance.

Historically, one of the great strengths of the Catholic Church was its ability to absorb many different movements in the Christian world which often times disagreed with one another--much of the time listening to all without rejecting differences entirely. . The tragedy of the Reformation was that in this case the Catholic Church did not play to its forte. Luther wanted to reform the Church--not leave it. Instead, after the Diet of Worms, the Church excommunicated him and then put him under a death warrant. Not exactly a way of bringing hotheaded sons back into the family. From there tragedy compounded upon tragedy.

The Lord has a way of "writing straight with crooked lines". As Lincoln said, each side appeals to the same God for vindication; but the Lord has His own purposes.

Tom Leith

You're covering a lot of ground here. I'm aware generally of Brother Martin's history and what he taught, but I am in no position at all to offer an in-depth discussion.
Here's an article by a priest I know who's a convert to the Church from evangelical Protestantism, and who worked for several years as a lay teacher with the Lutheran mission in New Guinea. He tackles the "Faith, Works and Justification" question here.

In a nutshell, the Catholic Church says we are justitied/saved by faith alone, not by good works, but can be un-justified by bad works. Luther said we are justitied/saved by faith alone, not by good works, and can only un-justified by losing faith (so sin boldly!). Calvin said we are justitied/saved by faith alone, not by good works, and can never be un-justified. Calvin and Luther were contemporaries, both looked to "scripture alone", and could not agree on somthing so basic as this. If you want to talk about death sentences, Calvin's Geneva was famous for them.

I'm not an Augistinian scholar (or any other kind really), and there are different sorts of "merit", but Augustine talked so much about merit I don't think it can be sustained that Augustine taught sola fides in the same sense Luther (or Calvin) did. With respect to "merit" the Council of Trent makes clear that one can never merit/deserve justification/salvation. Still, contra Luther, we can lose it even if we "believe". God may or may not offer us justification again after that.
I hope the points that divide Christians may be overcome and we can face together the non-Christian world which is so very much in need of the Gospel. It took the Church 1,000 years to convert Europe. I figure it will take 2,000 years to convert America to an integral Christianity. If God permits the world to go on that long.

Mick Lee  

It is somewhat tiresome but it has to be pointed out that Lutherans do not claim John Calvin as one of their own; thus we do not answer to his doctrines nor his actions. (Nor did Lutherans ever approve of putting “unbelievers” to death as Calvin had done.) While it may be fair to say Luther and Calvin were “contemporaries”, they were born 26 years apart. Roughly speaking, in other words, they were a generation apart. Calvin’s first volume of his Institutes was published in 1536 only ten years prior to Luther’s death. Neither knew, met, or wrote to each other. There is some evidence Luther knew about a few of Calvin’s writings and in one case, in a letter to Bucer, he sent his regards. Calvin, however, had read quite a few of Luther’s works, but felt free to pit himself against him.

The difference between Luther and Calvin regarding losing faith (Luther) and always and forever justified (Calvin) stems from a disagreement over predestination: Calvin believed in double predestination while Luther did not. As far as Lutherans are concerned, the doctrine of double predestination proceeds from reason—but not the Scriptures. As Luther saw it, the doctrine of double predestination is the result of philosophy invading the realm of Scripture; an act Luther saw as a profound violence against any notion of “Sola Scriptura” and the Scriptures themselves. Luther abhorred such speculation (and all speculation in general in matters of the faith). This accounts for the superficial observation that Luther and Calvin came to two different conclusions from the
same Scriptures.

I am very surprised with your suggestion (or so it may appear) that Luther and Lutherans subscribe to a sort of antinomianism: ‘Luther said we are justified/saved by faith alone, not by good works, and can only un-justified by losing faith (SO SIN BOLDLY!) [emphasis mine]” What Luther actually said was: “, “Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” And. “saving faith is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...THUS, IT IS JUST AS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEPARATE FAITH AND WORKS AS IT IS TO SEPARATE HEAT AND LIGHT FROM FIRE!

Put another way, justification (being made righteous before a Holy God) and sanctification (taking up the cross and following Christ) are two different things. But sanctification is a consequence of a living faith in Christ and by no means to be is it to be optional. Works are good, necessary, and praiseworthy; but they are not channels of grace.

In the case of St. Augustine, he wrote: “If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? … Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then,was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.

When someone believes in Him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” ( Expositions of the Psalms 1-32. Exposition 2 of Psalm 31.)

Thus we say, there is plenty of precedence for Sola Fide in the testimony of the Church. As John Henry Newman wrote, a Christian doctrine often is developed many years after the time of Christ; but the seeds of that doctrine were present from the very beginning in the Apostles. Newman, of course, would have disagreed; but Lutherans see the roots of Sola Fide there in the New Testament and the Christian writings and teaching thereafter.

As a final note, I trust you didn’t actually mean to say Lutherans subscribe to an antinomianism. (That is, believe and sin all you wish) Yet it is sometimes said of us by our critical Catholic brethren. I should think such should be a bit more careful in throwing this charge around. After all, a common, vicious, and false trope freethinkers and other malcontents maintain about Catholics is that the practice of Catholics is “sin, go to confession, then sin some more with abandon”. That is not true at all and I would hope Catholics would not employ a similar slander against us.