What Is “Catholic?”
I’m going to be writing a series of posts on ancient Christianity. I see a lot of misconceptions when I write occasionally about my journey back to the Christian faith, so maybe this series will be helpful to some. Or not–I’m going to write it anyway. 
First up: understanding what the catholic church is and is not.
Most of the world’s Christians consider themselves to be part of the catholic church.
The word “catholic,” it surprises many to learn, simply means “universal.” When you refer to “the catholic church,” you’re simply saying “the universal church.” Although in casual use people will say “catholic” to refer to the church led by the Vatican in Rome, it turns out that many denominations continue to use this word to describe themselves, or a general concept they have of Christ’s Church. This is why many people refer to the church led by the bishop of Rome as the “Roman Catholic Church.”
The phrase “one holy apostolic and catholic church” actually comes from two of the oldest and most universal creeds of Christendom, the Nicene Creed as well as the Apostle’s Creed, which are part of the standard teachings of not just the Church in Rome, but also all of the Eastern Orthodox and the largest Western Protestant denominations including the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and others.
Why the need for creeds? Because the Bible alone, created by the church in the context of the early centuries of the church, admits to multiple interpretations of all sorts of issues. Creeds were established by the early leaders of the church to help separate heresies (which simply means false teachings) from orthodox (which simply means correct belief). It is simply not possible to create a consistent and complete view of the Christian faith by reading the Bible alone, and those who wrote and edited and preserved the Bible over the centuries never suggested it was (and indeed, the Bible never says this about itself).
Most Christian denominations hold to the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed, and most Christians believe themselves to be members in the one holy catholic and apostolic church. It’s only a fairly radical minority that don’t believe that.
Next up: What’s a bishop?
Subscribe to Dean's World by Email
30 comments
How very Catholic of you. You’re clearly biased in this view, which is fine, but at least admit to it.
One of the five solas of Protestantism (sola Scriptura) completely disagrees with this view.
So, while Catholics and the Orthodoxy may agree with you Protestantism does not.
Certain sects of Protestantism may recite the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed (none I’ve ever seen but I’ve not seen them all) they almost universally (again, I’m not going to speak for all Protestantism as you wish to speak for all Christianity) put Scripture above any creed. And never is any creed or doctrine or tradition equal to Scripture.
When Protestants speak of the “Word of God” they’re speaking of Scripture exclusively.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s not some “small radical sect” you disagree with. It’s Protestantism itself.
How very Catholic of you. You’re clearly biased in this view, which is fine, but at least admit to it.
Nope. That is the view that the vast majority of the world’s Christians hold to, including most Protestants.
If anyone told you otherwise, they were deeply mistaken.
One of the five solas of Protestantism (sola Scriptura) completely disagrees with this view.
You might try asking a Presbyterian or Lutheran or clergyman from any other Protestant denomination if they agree with you on this. You will find that they by and large do not. Sola Scriptura, a doctrine of the Protestant Reformation, was never a doctrine that the Bible Alone was sufficient to define Christianity and all proper practice within it. It was only to say that there is no human authority, but only scripture, that could be used to settle differences in tradition.
You need to learn more about Protestantism, Kevin. You almost certainly are not a Protestant in the traditional sense. Most bible-only Christians are not, because from the beginning the Protestants, including John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and others, simply did not believe this thing you believe about the Bible. Most Christians do not (and this doctrine you hold to about the Bible, by the way, is not to be found in the Bible).
Simply put, Kevin, you don’t know enough about Protestantism. That’s because you grew up in, and are still steeped in, the radical minority sects I speak of. The vast majority of Protestants hold to creeds like the Nicene Creed precisely because they admit that the Bible admits to multiple possible interpretations, and creeds and doctrines are a necessary component to the faith and to proper interpretatation of scripture.
There is absolutely nothing I’ve said here that any mainline Protestant minister or bishop or theologian would disagree with in any major way.
By the way, Kevin, that you’re part of a radical minority of Christians is not an insult. It’s just a statement of fact. It doesn’t make you wrong, it doesn’t make you evil, it’s just what you are: part of a small radical minority of Protestants (if you’re Protestant at all).
You don’t have to believe me. Spend some time looking at what Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc. (i.e. all the largest denominations of Protestantism) or what people like Martin Luther and John Calvin actually wrote. I did.
By the way, I was raised Protestant, and went to many a Sunday School and Confirmation class and Bible study group in multiple Protestant traditions. I have rarely written anything on the subject of Christianity that the major Protestant denominations would do more than quibble with.
You have absolutely know idea where I grew up in because you’ve never asked me and I never told you and that you make this gross assumption that you do only further bolsters my point that what you think is fact is anything but.
So, next time you want to make an assumption about me save yourself the trouble and ask me about it first. I can speak for myself. I don’t need you to tell me where I grew up.
Evangelicals and Catholics Together:
Not only do many Protestants accept the Apostolic and Nicene creeds, Kevin, but so also do many Evangelicals, Dean.
Actually, you’ve told me quite a bit about the traditions you were raised in, and the one you’re part of now. However, even if you hadn’t told me any of this, it wouldn’t matter: what you’re saying about Protestantism is in error. You don’t have to believe me; just ask a Lutheran or Presbyterian minister, they’re sure to tell you that I’m not making any of this up.
Your interpretatation of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not the one that the Reformationists held to. It’s simply not. And your belief about the Bible puts you firmly in a radical minority sect even amongst Protestants. You don’t have to believe me, you can research it for yourself. But I’ll be happy to give you references if you like.
I have no problems with the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed. None at all. My problem arises, and I don’t know how many times I have to say this, with when tradition, creed, or doctrine is given equal or greater weight than Scripture.
Why the need for creeds? Because the Bible alone, created by the church in the context of the early centuries of the church, admits to multiple interpretations of all sorts of issues. Creeds were established by the early leaders of the church to help separate heresies (which simply means false teachings) from orthodox (which simply means correct belief).
intriguing. The parallel to the schools of fiqh in Islam is probably a universal feature of organized, Abrhamic religion.
sola scriptura then would be analogous to the hardline salafists? That does support the analogy of Protestants to Wahhabis, as well. (not intended as an insult)
Yes Daniel, I’m quite aware of that. Evangelicals run a very wide spectrum in their beliefs. Indeed, I made the following statement, which most learned Evangelicals would completely agree with:
Kevin wrongly believes that this is a “catholic” belief, i.e. something promulgated by the Church in Rome. It simply isn’t.
So far I haven’t said much of anything that would cause more than a quibble here and there amongst any mainline Protestants. Don’t believe me? Ask some.
I have. The evidence doesn’t exist. But since I’ve not come to the same conclusions you have must clearly mean I’m in error.
If the Catholic argument was really so convincing everyone would be Catholic. Clearly, most of the planet doesn’t agree with you.
Guess that puts them in a small radical sect too.
Dean,
your “statement of fact” that Kevin or other Bible-only Christians are a radical minority of Christians certainly doesn’t come across as a “just the facts ma’am” statement from you. You go to great pains to bring up this fact every time religion is even tangentially mentioned on the blog (and it is often). By endlessly harping on how so few people subscribe to this radical position you are clearly making a judgment call despite your protestations that you are not. Its your site, you can pass whatever judgment you want. But don’t call a spade a clover.
Aziz: You have to be careful about Sola Scriptura, since originally this doctrine was laid out merely as a response to the idea that a bishop or Pope had authority to settle theological disputes; the doctrine, in its original form, basically said that no, the only earthly authority for settling disputes in tradition is the Bible.
A radical offshoot of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says that the Bible and the Bible Alone is sufficient for a complete understanding of all issues of the faith, and is sufficient for answering any and all questions.
Yes, I’d say it’s somewhat akin to the Salafist school within Islam, although the parallel is hardly 1:1.
The vast majority of the world’s Christians, even if you discount every Roman Catholic on the planet, believe you need more than the Bible to construct a correct theology. That’s why various denominations and schools of study have developed, why ecumenical councils were called, etc. Indeed, the bishops of what was once the unitary church were the ones who formalized the biblical canon we have today, because they had to get together to agree which of the many books (and which versions of those books) floating around were within the Christian faith and which weren’t, which were authoritative and which were not.
The vast majority of the world’s Christians believe the Bible to be inerrant for matters of the faith, but that the Bible cannot be read in the vacuum or stand all by itself. And no, it’s not just Roman Catholics who believe that, not by any stretch.
Kevin: Heh. Whatever. Would you care to tell me what in any of what we’ve discussed would be controversial to a mainline Lutheran, an Episcopalian, or Presbyterian minister? These are the largest and oldest denominations within Protestantism.
Zach: I harp on it a lot only because the Bible-only Christians, while they are in the minority, tend to dominate all discussions and to give non-Christians or Christians who don’t know much about the faith the wrong impression about how the Bible is used and interpreted.
It may also have to do with the way that Catholic-bashers also tend to jump into every conversation, and wrongly assert things that are supposedly only doctrines promulgated by the Church in Rome. I get that a lot from folks like Arnold Harris and Kevin D. A lot of conversations get derailed by these assumptions they have, so it seems necessary to write on them more.
Fundamentalists are a radical offshoot of Protestantism. If you don’t like me saying so, tough; it’s just the truth.
Dean,
No doubt you and Kevin have different approaches to the Bible, but I’m not sure if even Kevin holds the extreme “Bible only” position as you described above. On the recent thread about Mary and Luther, Kevin had this to say in reference to the “sola scriptura” doctrine:
Different than the Catholic view? Sure. Bible only only only only and not an ounce of thought or tradition allowed? No, doesn’t seem like it.
DanielH: Well look man, I can only respond to comments as they are given to me. I said this:
Kevin said “how very Catholic of you” and asserted that it was wrong. But it’s not wrong; it’s completely correct according to the vast majority of Christians, including most Protestants.
I have yet to touch upon anything that is uniquely Roman Catholic teaching. Seriously, I haven’t. It’s rather odd to constantly have people act as if I’m doing that when I’m not.
What is the Catholic view? If someone wants me to tell them, I will; they need only ask. But it’s silly to suggest that I’m spouting Roman Catholic doctrine when I’m doing no such thing.
Okay. I’m going to bite my tongue on this topic for now. I’m going to do as Dean suggested (which I’ve already done but whatever) and do some research. I’m going to research this crazy position of mine and compile the results and write a lengthy front page post on it.
It will be on par with a college level essay. It will be multi-sourced pulling from both Scripture and mainline Protestant thinkers, pastors, and professors.
Should be fun.
Dean,
well I don’t have a dog in the fight so it’s not that I don’t like it. You have your reasoning and it’s your blog. I’m just saying it can come across as a little, pardon the pun, holier than thou.
I’m finding this all very interesting. Thanks guys!
Dean,
I agree with zach. I don’t really get where this obsession you seem to have to marginalize evangelicals comes from. We are all saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ whether we are Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. Each Christian tradition makes mistakes in emphasizing things that aren’t important and not paying enough attention to the things that are important.
I just don’t see where any significant number of Protestants or evangelicals would disagree with the creeds or that they are part of the catholic small c church. I’ve recited both creeds at a number of evangelical non-denominational churches I have attended.
The purpose of the creeds were foretold in the epistles. Letter after letter after letter trying to get these different groups on to the same page.
Correcting each group individually obviously wasn’t working. So large conferences were held to work out the basics of belief and propogate it. Not a surprise at all.
Kevin D: as an Episcopalian (very lapsed) the Nicene Creed is taught as one of the basics of the faith. And that is protestent.
Mike,
That’s fine. To repeat again:
So, it’s perfectly cool if the Episcopalians teach the Nicene Creed. Heck, I agree with the creed! But that was not the thrust of my argument.
My argument was against placing doctrine, tradition, or creed at or above the level of Scripture. Only by recognizing the primacy of Scripture can we know the worthwhileness of doctrines, traditions, or creeds that claim to be rooted in Scripture.
I don’t believe Dean has a obsession to marginalize evangelicals. Dean can correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect that a lot of the motive for writing these things is out of frustration at a vocal view of Christianity being presented as the mainline view. And, due to where he is at in his conversion experience, it is maddeningly hard not to speak out about such things having had revelations of greater understanding. The polite word for it is “zeal”.
Now, I may be projecting myself onto Dean. I can certainly state that in my conversion from Protestantism to Orthodoxy that I have, how shall we say, been very cognizant of tendencies that left unchecked would result in the phrase “cage-phase” being all too applicable. Lord have mercy.
To be sure, especially as it relates to small-t tradition (ah, small t-tradition and small-c catholic). Of course even at the time of the Reformation, the early Protestant movement did a little baby-out-with-the-bathwater in losing elements of the Holy Traditions. This of course leads to the end states we find much of “modern Christianity” today, where the concept of big-T tradition (of which Scripture is a part) beyond the Bible is…unthinkable.
Which, in a nutshell, is why Protestants are so very very good at schisms. And why it’s a lower case c in the Protestant creed.
I shall refrain from remarking on the retention of the filioque.
Anyway, the elephant in the room is that outside of the Church and Holy Tradition, one cannot hope to interpret Holy Scripture without falling into error. So at some point, you do end up with an uncomfortable moment from an Orthodox or Roman Catholic perspective where as a Protestant, you invariably end up misinterpreting or misusing Scripture. I should also emphasize that Holy Tradition is not man-made tradition, but bestowed by the Holy Spirit on the Church to bring us into closer union with Christ by the working of His divine grace.
I should also make an Orthodox/Roman Catholic distinction here with a true statement that is probably as maddening as anything Dean has said: form an Orthodox perspective there is very little difference between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic. Just a little food for thought.
I would gently suggest you add research into the writings of the Church Fathers into the mix as well.
Who said what weight in what context?
The creeds are an expression of the faith, laying out the basic belief pattern necessary to be considered a Christian. They are descriptive works, but they are not scripture.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
It is a basic statement about the faith - an outline as it were.
And quit being so combative - it isn’t necessary on this subject.
What I think Aziz meant–and this has been the argument of many a Muslim pragmatist–is that while you can base a religious philosophy on sola scriptura, you can’t base an *institution* on sola scriptura. (I’ll use that term for both Christianity and Islam.) The Quran doesn’t lay out the rules for making a court judgment based on Islamic law–it doesn’t even specify all the prayer times. Which I think is roughly Dean’s point as well; the Bible contains many passages that can be interpreted multiple ways, and the New Testament doesn’t lay out much specific Church methodology. While these things don’t matter much when it comes to individual belief/practice, they matter a lot when it comes to organizing many believers together. Hence, the institution needs more parameters than the philosophy.
It’s why I’ve never been Quran alone, though I am very critical of the use of ancillary materials like hadith. It’s appealing to go totally sola scriptura, but not terribly practical.
By some sort of rough algebra, I think we can associate the Shia with Catholics, “moderate Sunnis” (for lack of a better term designating Asharis and Maturidis and even Mutazilites if they exist) with “mainline Protestants”, and textualists/Atharis/Hanbalis (and probably neo-Salafis/Wahhabis as well) with fundamentalist Protestants, at least in terms of their approaches to scripture. The textualists/Atharis/Hanbalis, whom al-Ghazali (a prominent Asharite) strongly criticized, hold a view on scripture that is close to some more radical interpretations of “sola scriptura.” For instance, if the Qur’an says something, like God having a hand, that seems to contradict reason, you are supposed to believe it bi-la kayf, (i.e., without asking how.) They do accept Hadiths/Sunnah, of course, so really hardly any Muslim is “Qur’an alone”, but taking the Qur’an and Sunnah together they are extreme textualists.
Mike,
Says you, the Protestant. I’m not talking about the Protestant perspective on creeds (whatever flavor they may be).
Dude, you you even bother to read what I wrote? I can’t believe you did because you’re talking like this.
I never said there was anything wrong with the Nicene Creed. Never, never ever. I’m talking about creeds, doctrines, and traditions taking on the weight of Scripture. That’s where the problem is. To the Catholics and Orthodoxy creed, tradition, and doctrine takes on the weight of Scripture - they become inseparable. The Reformation balked at this. You, being a Protestant, to believe this to be accurate. So, I have no idea why the hell you’re arguing with me.
This is an ongoing debate between Dean and myself. I’m sorry if you’ve missed a lot but that’s what you get for jumping in on the middle of something.
I’ll decide when it’s necessary or not to be combative. Thank you.
And I’m not being combative. You haven’t seen me being combative. Perhaps, instead of me actually being combative, you’re being too sensitive?
But the whole thing is subjective so I don’t know why you even bring it up.
Nate Trost,
A fine suggestion and something that was already being woven into my work.
I’m sure all you folks shadow-boxing through a polite web-based replay of the religious wars of 16th-17th century Europe are interested in what an Apatheist has to say about all of the above.
Except that I note sardonically that Catholics are expected to send their children to Parochial schools.
And I cannot think of any adjectives more opposite in original meaning than “catholic” and “parocial”.
But argue on, Father Esmay and Pastor Kevin.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Yes, Kevin - says me.
And yes, I read for comprehension. Its part of my job.
I know Dean’s question was what’s Catholic?
I’m Catholic. I go to Church on Sunday and Holy Days and I say my prayers at night. I don’t eat meat on Friday - it’s lent.
The only scripture I ever cared to contemplate was that which was offered up during Mass. Even through 12 years of parochial school we never studied the bible per se. Just the same few readings that I know like the back of my hand. I’m terrible at bible questions in crosswords and trivia games. Scripture is such a small part of my spiritual life. It’s the rituals, traditions, creeds, prayers, music and community of the Church that’s always drawn me in and has kept me there. To this day, I can think of no better form of meditation than saying a rosary. No better place to find my center than the ritual of Sunday Mass. One can’t really be “Catholic” without it. The “Church” is the fundamental element in being Catholic - not scripture. At least that’s the way it is for me. Catholics don’t generally go around quoting scripture with the possible exception of the golden rules. Not any that I know at any rate.
You must log in to post a comment.