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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Council
of Trent - reason enough to NOT conform to Roman Catholicism.
Hundreds
of competing, massively contradictory denominations (so that much error MUST be
present): reason enough NOT to totally conform to any brand of Protestantism,
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.).
Maybe. But it's more
likely Lewis would have taken the path of most Protestants: Protestant
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
•
“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.
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.
•
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.
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)
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)
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.
to the Word of God.
·
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
§
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)
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.
§
§
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
