On Protestantism
I had a reader who’s enjoyed my series examining ancient Christianity urge me to write something on Protestantism. I’m still thinking about that, and also being lazy: I need to link the earlier articles in the series, and the conversion to WordPress has made that challenging. I’m also almost afraid to write about it because, well, I think Protestantism in general is a mistake that should be viewed as virtually catastrophic. Also, while I respect mainline Protestantism, even while seeing it as fundamentally in error on some very important points, I am quite conflicted as to whether “Bible-only” Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians should even be called Protestants; the gulf between what they believe and what mainline Protestants believe is often quite profound. It’s also hard for me to write about, because I was raised (as a child of divorce) in both mainline Protestantism (Presbyterian) and in Bible-thumper literalism, yet I chose Catholicism as an adult. I came to believe that Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity are the legitimate heirs to the original Church established by Christ as described in the Gospels and the book of Acts. I think mainline Protestantism brought some important reforms to the Church that were needed, and raised some valid objections, but that was centuries ago and they’ve continued some errors that they themselves need to correct in their own houses. But I think Bible-only “Protestantism” is just plain nuts, to be blunt, and is not supported by scripture or anything else except the people who promulgate it. Bible-only Christianity is a horrible series of errors compounding on even bigger errors, caused by imposing false doctrines on scripture that never even existed prior to the 16th Century. But saying so doesn’t make me popular, especially amongst friends who are still part of that Bible-only tradition.
So. My point is, when I wrote about ancient Christianity, my goal was to be as ecumenical as possible. Once I start writing on Protestantism in more than just broad terms, I’m going to come into conflict: I disagree with all forms of Protestantism, but I respect some forms of Protestantism a great deal and other forms not much at all. Although I guess that since it’s almost all a serious attempt to at least honor God and to improve people’s souls and their relationship with God, it’s all good on some level.
Anyway, if you want to see, in very broad terms, what separates Catholicism from Protestantism, the closest I’ve seen to a neutral look at it is this article on ReligiousTolerance.org. There are a few minor errors in it but it does a pretty good job. I’ll also point out that Orthodox Christians (Greek Orthodox, Indian Orthodox, Coptic, etc.) are 99.99% in line with the Roman Catholic position, with exceptions for how they view the Pope and a few other fairly obscure doctrinal issues; for example, they don’t use the term “Magisterium,” but they have the same concept of all the Orthodox Bishops in communion with each other.
Maybe I’ll write more on it later. Feel free to expand upon any of this in the comments…
64 comments
Perhaps from the Roman Catholic perspective but would the Enlightenment have happened without the Protestant Reformation?
Thorny question. As I said, the original Protestants raised some valid objections. On the other hand, the Church in the East (i.e. the Orthodox) never developed an equivalent to Protestantism, because it never had the political power that the Church in the West did and thus there was no need for any Reformation. And the Church of the East (i.e. the Orthodox) views Protestantism virtually the same way: a severe series of errors compounded upon errors, some worse than others. Did they raise some valid objections? Yes. Did they make some good points? Yes. But it’s been five centuries now and it may be time to re-examine a lot of this, and look at where Protestantism itself went wrong. The list would be lengthy, and it all comes from misreading of (and, in some cases, mistreatment of) scripture.
But yes, good things came from Protestantism, and still do.
I am starting to view the Protestant Reformation in large part as a response to Papal claims of supreme (though limited by canon law) authority in secular affairs, both within and without Christendom. Such claims may have had justification within ancient church tradition, but they were never fully articulated until the period that began with the Gregorian Reform in the 11th century. Now, I cannot claim that all of the Protestants reactions to such Papal overreach were fully correct and proper, but I do think it is easy to reach bad conclusions about the Reformation if the not insubstantial “mistakes” of the Catholic hierarchy are ignored.
There are lots of different protestant sects, and not all of them have the same issues with the Catholic Church that led them to splinter off from the main trunk.
Here’s one thing to consider Dean, and I’m not Catholic but my wife and daughter are. I once picked up my adopttive mother’s Bible (she was also a Catholic) and was thumbing through it one day just because I used to enjoy reading religious books, and I found a section where Jesus told his followers “Call no man father.” Now this happens to have been a verse I was quite familiar with having been a member of the Church of Christ who use this verse as a divine command to take control of your own spiritual destiny. Basically the way that church taught it is that it is up to each individual Christian to learn, interpret and live the life of a Christian because when you are judged, you are judged alone.
So I found it quite interesting that this verse had an asterisk in the Catholic Bible, and a note beside the asterisk that said “This does not mean your spiritual father in the Church.”
What th’? Isn’t that exactly what it means?
Now I’ve got this other verse in the Bible that the Church of Christ likes which is about the doom that will befall any man who “adds to or takes away” from the literal divine words of the Bible.
Now, isn’t that exactly what the asterisk is doing?
I know this is just one tiny anecdote in a much larger discussion, but this has stuck with me for a long time. It sure seems like the Catholic Church is violating a direct order from Jesus.
Are they?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..New York Times issues warning of health risks of blogging!
There must be a fine line distinction between Sola Scriptura and “Bible only”, but it would probably take someone like Paul to suss it out properly.
Thanks for writing this, BTW. It ought to be a good discussion.
Coptic patriarchs can also marry, unlike their Catholic counterparts. (Although certain delineations of monks and priests cannot, and I don’t know what the precise hierarchy is.) I would be very interested to see a conversation between an observant Coptic scholar and an observant Catholic scholar to better understand the similarities/differences.
I find the Reformation and Counter-reformation really interesting. I think Luther’s ideas were appropriated by princes who had no real interest in institutional reform and simply wanted to be free to govern without the Church. (Henry VIII comes to mind.) My family is Lutheran on one side and Methodist on the other, though both my parents left their respective churches in the 60s. Still, you carry what you learn in infancy with you all your life, and one of the things they inherited and I seem to have inherited from them is a deep Protestant suspicion of the idea that an earthly priest can absolve you of your sins. Since confession is central part of Catholic ritual, I assume you probably support it, Dean? What is your take on that?
While I’m sure your feeling on this matter are heartfelt and sincere, I can’t help but see them as also a bit self-congratulatory. I’m not the only one that has noted that either. It seems you spend a lot of time looking down your nose at Protestantism and, well, everyone else that doesn’t share your view of Christianity.
You say out of the side of your mouth that Protestantism did “some” good things but, out of the other, deride it as “virtually catastrophic.” I’m sorry but I simply cannot give your opinion on the matter much weight because you’re never willing to turn such a critical eye on the Catholic Church.
And, frankly, you spend most of your time repeating Catholic talking points that 10 seconds using Google has been refuted by many Protestant sources.
You spend all your research time looking for evidence to prove your conclusion rather than letting the evidence form your conclusion.
And, I fear, that your fervent embracing of Roman Catholicism is more in reaction to your unhappy Protestant upbringing than serious examination of what the early Church actually believed and what the Scripture actually says.
That in some way you got burned at one end of the spectrum and you’ve sought to distance yourself so hard from it that you’ve traveled to the exact opposite end.
That was a pretty big step when you consider it. Papal authority derived from God, so how could you get God to compromise? At least with the princes the nobility, and later the burghers, merchant classes and others could strike deals to share power.
It wasn’t a big step especially since Royalty asserted their power by claiming Divine Right, but I view the Reformation as an important step in the development of Western Democracy and capitalism.
Very provocative, very informative.
I’m Catholic, a friend of Dean’s, and probably agree with him on 90% of political issues. Quite a bias!
So, lemme play Devil’s Advocate for a bit, and support KevinD:
Dean writes:” I think Protestantism in general is a mistake that should be viewed as virtually catastrophic.”
How can this be true if Protestants Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al, founded this country, flaws and all, the greatest engine for liberty and freedom and morality, that the world has ever known?
Yes, I know they were Deists –nonetheless, they were Protestant Deists, not C&E Catholics.
I submit the Protestant vision and work ethic is a big part of what made this country great. This has been a wondrous complement to the Catholic spiritual and intellectual lineage (Aquinas, Augustine) that has also infused the thoughts and writings of our leaders.
I’m not getting all highbrow about the Reformation and Enlightenment, I’m talking about the practical effects of protestant vision and history, which in my simple mind, have been quite positive — certainly for our political and social institutions.
HankB
I’m not quite sure what issue you are talking about with 99.99% in line, as there are significant differences in Eastern (Orthodoxy, whether Eastern or Oriental) and Western (Catholic, Protestant) Christianity. In terms of liturgical worship or the sacramental life of the church, yes, Orthodoxy and Catholicism look much closer together than most of Protestantism (exceptions being Anglicanism and some branches of Lutheranism). However, in the actual approach to the faith, and in very fundamental worldview aspects, Eastern and Western are very different.
There is a marvelous book on the subject, published just last year titled “Light from the Christian East” by James R. Payton Jr., who is a Protestant from a Reformed background. It is not a fluffy book, but nor is it impenetrable, but a very balanced and thorough examination of the contrasts.
One brief example would be the contrast between the concepts of original sin versus ancestral sin. Below I’ve linked a couple articles that discuss the differences from an Eastern perspective, which also touch on the differing views on the nature and meaning of salvation:
http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php
http://www.orthodox.clara.net/ancestral_sin.htm
So, as an agnostic who has had one foot in a bunch of different religions and denominations over the years, and since nobody offered to respond to my question about “Call no man father” let me weigh in on this in a more general sense.
The main difference that I see between Protestantism and Catholicism boils down to the role of the Catholic Clergy. Protestants, by and large, feel that the Catholic Church has created a completely artificial and unnecessary hierarchy between Jesus and man, and that the creation of the hierarchy was done mainly for the benefit of that hierarchy. Basically if I understand most complaints the bottom line is that the Catholic Church is by and large an unnecessary and self-perpetuating bureaucracy whose main function is in the enrichment of and self-preservation of that bureaucracy.
I can’t say I am in complete disagreement with that.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..This then that?
Sort of, CosmicCon.
There were at least 3 major swings away from Catholicism in Europe. I look at them this way -
Luther mainly criticised the corruption of the Church, with focus on the Papacy and elitism. He was more true reformer in this sense, since he didn’t seem to wish to break away at first.
Henry VIII argued against the temporal authority of the Church and little else. He kept nearly all the forms of the Church and the resulting CofE can be considered an ethnic version of Catholicism [anglo-catholic].
Calvin reinterpreted the meaning of scripture, especially as regards the way, he thought, society & church should be ordered. His is probably the closest to what you’re getting at.
What urthshu said.
Let him who is without error cast the first stone.
Jeff Licquia’s last blog post..It’s Not Like You Care About Your Documents
I suspect this thread is going to wind up generating (degenerating?) 50-60 increasingly argumentive comments.
Let’s you and him fight.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold:
It’s been surprisingly level-headed and calm so far.
Heh, I always considered the Anglican Church to be sort of a Catholic Church by proxy, not a true protestant church for exactly the reason you say, it wasn’t about dogma, scripture or even ideology, it was an artificial creation to break England from the secular authority of Rome. But to be fair I don’t know that much about the Anglican Church.
I think the criticism of the corruption is close enough to the criticism of the hierarchy as to be of very little difference, except of course when it comes to religion, there is no such thing as “very little difference.” Let me say from the perspective of an agnostic who finds most Christian denominations to be shades of each other, I don’t see that much difference between rejecting the hierarchy because of corruption and rejecting it because of its bureaucracy. Because after all, it was the bureaucracy that was corrupt.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..This then that?
CosmicCon -
Breaking away from Rome’s secular authority still counts as Protestant. Not so much in a doctrinal sense, I agree, but ‘Protestant’ refers more to that faith’s attitude towards Rome’s authority than any specific doctrine.
Criticism of corruption is not the same as criticism of hierarchy, though. One of Luther’s problems with Rome was the sale of Indulgences, for example. He thought there was still a foundation of good within Rome, but that it had become decadent and should be reformed, not tossed aside.
As for the rest of it, much of the hierarchy/bureaucracy thing is superficial, I think. That question really is over “Apostolic Succession” and which churches have that, which don’t, and why.
Of the 3 main movements above, only the Calvinist one doesn’t have this succession [to the best of my knowledge, so it may be in error]. And many of the ‘every Christian is a priest’ sorts wouldn’t recognise it as having any importance, either.
Urthshu:
We may be seeing this thing from completely different angles. Take “indulgences” for example. You seem to be saying that is purely a matter of corruption, and that Luther was upset at the corruption.
I see “indulgences” as an example of exactly the sort of policy that a run-away bureaucracy will INEVITABLY introduce. Why? Because it validates the existence of the bureaucracy, empowers that bureaucracy and actually funds the continued existence of the bureaucracy.
It is primarily because of the potential corruption that is inherent in bureaucracy that I think most protestants have objected to the existence of one. In fact I think the fundamental principle behind the objection to the bureaucracy is that it is inherently antithetical to the church’s original tenets and leads inexorably and inevitably to heresy.
So I still think that they are much closer than you seem to think.
But no matter, as I said, in religion there are no “minor differences” in thought. Everything is a schism.
I also don’t think the objection to the Catholic Church’s hierarchy/bureaucracy is only or even primarily about “apostolic succession.” I know for a fact that in the Church of Christ, for example, they find virtually EVERYTHING about the Catholic Clergy to be heretical, starting with the idea that Priests are called “Father”, continuing on through the assertion of the Church that Priestly sacraments are required and ending with the fundamental idea that “Saints” are able to “intercede” with God. All of that is part of the bureaucracy/hierarchy that, at least, the Church of Christ rejects. And they consider ALL of it to be a corruption of the teachings of Christ.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Six inches and still falling?
Oh, I could agree that corruption is inherent to bureaucracy. That presents no problem to me.
And I’ll stipulate also that your experiences with and views of the Church of Christ are right on the money. No problem there.
“Everything is a schism” is also non-problematic.
What I’m trying to do is present those founder’s points of view only, and probably not very ably, since I’m doing so in brief. The beliefs of those founders were influenced in turn by beliefs which simply aren’t very current today, so it can be hard to see it through their eyes.
Anyhow, the point of clarification has either been made or not. I’m certainly not trying to influence you in any way.
A thread like this was bound to turn into a complicated one, which is one reason why I’ve been trying to avoid this. But I’ll try to answer people one comment at a time. We’ll start with Sean (Cosmic Conservative), on “call no man father”: Church of Christ is one of the bible-literalist/bible-only Christian groups I’m talking about. They’re famous for the sort of prooftexting that you’re providing here: find a verse that seems to support a particular point of view, read it in a way that supports that point of view, and then just stop because you now have your answer. (Well, they just stop. You obviously have taken the step of asking a Catholic who’s studied the issue, which they rarely if ever do.)
Let me point out two things to you, one complex and one simple: the Bible was officially compiled by the Church (there was only one church then) around the 4th Century. We can demonstrate for a fact that the title “Father” was in widespread use as a term of respect and affection for priests well before that. We know that a number of men who used the title “Father” were involved in the councils and discussions that produced the Bible. So, do you think these men were stupid, when they included these books in the Bible? Were they intentionally putting things in there that made them look like chumps? Did they sort of blindly put the books in there without reading them?
All of the oldest lines of Christianity, including the Oriental Orthodox (which split from the Orthodox/Catholic church in the 400s) and the Eastern Orthodox (which split with Rome in the 11th Century) have used the title “Father” always. From the beginning. And still do. So, what, are they lunatics? They can’t read the very Bible that they created and preserved, so 15 centuries later some fundamentalists can show up and find these verses and say “Aha, you fools!”
Also there’s the simpler question: if Jesus really meant “call no man Father” the way your Church of Christ friends suggest, why wouldn’t you be committing a sin to call your own biological dad “Father?” What, did Jesus not mean it when he said it? Shouldn’t you be telling your children never to call you Daddy?
Consider the simpler but more reasonable explanation: he was making a rhetorical point. Believe it or not, they were actually sophisticated enough to use rhetoric and hyperbole in Jesus’ day. Jesus also said he was a door, did that mean he was made of wood and had metal hinges? Jesus said no one could follow him without hating his mother and father, does that mean Jesus invalidated the 10 Commandments?
This is the entire problem with the bible-thumper/fundamentalist crowd. They have respect for scripture which is good, but they’ve elevated it far above its proper place and made a virtual idol out of it, and as a result have arguably made it their God.
The Church produced, defended, and preserved the Bible. It constructed the Bible as a record of its sacred traditions. It is the book of the church, and inerrant on matters of the faith. But it cannot be understood properly without (A) reading any verse within the context of the Bible as a whole, (B) equally important, within the context of the history at the time it was written, and (C) also equally important, within the context of the Church that created and preserved it.
I would consider your “call no man father” example to be a prime specimine of the rampant anti-intellectual scripture abuse that is common to fundamentalist circles. I think of it as one of the many pathological misinterpretations that come from the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura,” which ironically appears nowhere in scripture. It’s Martin Luther’s most serious error, frankly.
Willow: Believe it or not the answer to your inquiry about marriage and the clergy is a lot simpler to answer than Cosmic’s. Simply put, it’s a matter of church policy, not doctrine. There have throughout history been married priests, married bishops, even married Popes. This is no great secret.
The standard with most Orthodox is that priests can marry up until the time they are ordained as priests. But they may only marry once. For most Orthodox (and the Coptics are Oriental Orthodox by the way), a married priest may be elevated to Bishop but it’s most common to pick unmarried or widowed Priests to be so elevated. Also if they are married, their wives have to agree to their ordination, with the full understanding that they as wives come second in their husband’s life, that the church’s demands come first. Many such wives wind up becoming nuns.
The matter of the marital status of the clergy is policy, not doctrine. The Church in the West made a decision to stop ordaining married priests to fight corruption–the establishing of priestly dynasties (which, by the way, is a growing and obvious problem among fundamentalists in the United States). And also from a practical level: the demands of being in a marriage are not entirely compatible with the demands of being a priest, so it’s considered best that they not marry. (And the apostle Paul did, by the way, say it’s better not to marry if you can control your sexual urges.)
The Church is allowed to set policies on any number of things (see what’s called the power of the keys in the New Testament). The policy on the marital status of the clergy can be changed at any time that the church hierarchy decides to change it. This is true for the Orthodox as well as the Catholic. “It just works best if we do it this way” is all it amounts to. Indeed, while they aren’t common, there are married Catholic priests today; exceptions are at times granted, and honestly, a lot of us suspect that the policy will be revised at some point. Such policies are from time to time reviewed and occasionally changed.
Hank: I can’t answer Kevin’s assertions because he hasn’t really said anything that can be responded to with anything except “well, some of that’s true and some of it’s not.” But to answer your question: the founders of the U.S. were a motley crew, religion-wise. They were a mix of Episcopalians, Unitarians, Deists, and the occasional odd Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or Presbyterian. But when I say that Protestantism has been catastrophic, I don’t mean it in the context of the United States. I mean it in the context of Christ’s Church. Christ established a church, not a book. Those running the church may make mistakes, often even big ones, and thus the need for reforms happens. However, Protestants grabbed ahold of some doctrines that are very destructive. The worst of them all is “solo scriptura,” which has led to the historically unprecedented development of biblical fundamentalism, which from both a spiritual and practical level looks very damaging to me. But that’s just my take on it. I still think many fundamentalists are good and decent people. I just think their theology is way messed up, and leads to many problems for them and those around them. It also, I think, leads to a lot of atheism and antagonism toward religion in general. [shrug] That’s just what I think, I could be wrong.
Nate: We aren’t really in disagreement. My comment about the Catholics being 99.99% in agreement with the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) was in the context of the article I linked to (this one on ReligiousTolerance.org), where they do a comparison between Catholic and “Conservative Protestant” (by which they really mean biblical fundamentalists). From the context of that article, it’s fairly obvious that, with few exceptions, the Orthodox position is generally all but indistinguishable from the Catholic perspective.
It is quite true that when you get to a deep level, there are significant and important differences between the approach to theology between Catholic and Orthodox. I don’t deny them. On the other hand, when you compare them to the differences between Catholic and, say, biblical fundamentalist, the differences seem to almost vanish; the Orthodox and the Catholic want to argue over whether the term “purgatory” is the proper way to describe what happens after death, but both admit that there is probably something like it at some level; the fundamentalists just yell “that’s not in the Bible so it’s obviously false!” and discussion ends. The Catholic and the Orthodox both want to discuss what attaining and maintaining salvation mean within the context of the Church, but the fundamentalist bellows “it’s all whether or not you believe in Jesus as Messiah, end of story!” and discussion ends.
The truth is that most Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental) and most Catholics see it as desirable to come back into communion with each other if possible. The 20th century saw rather remarkable efforts to that end, with many Eastern and Oriental Orthodox entering dialogs with each other, and with the church in Rome, toward that end. It’s not clear where that will all ultimately end up, but it’s ongoing.
It’s also true that dialog between mainline Protestants and the Orthodox has been most interesting. Indeed, there was a time when Presbyterians and Anglicans were in very serious dialog about coming into full communion with the Eastern Orthodox. In fact, some of that’s still ongoing, as some Anglican bishops have been seeking ordination from Orthodox bishops to bring the Anglican communion in line with Orthodox thinking. Again, where all that will end up is hard to say. But most Orthodox and most Catholics say the same thing: Christ’s church shouldn’t be so fragmented like this, and so we need to do something about it.
In looking up Sola Scriptura, I’m finding there are indeed shades of difference - there are in fact 3:
Prima Scriptura, which holds that even though the Bible is the primary source of doctrine it is improved by reference to other sources.
Sola Scriptura is the principle that interpretations of how to understand and apply the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves.
And Solo Scriptura, which is the belief that it is up to the individual to interpret the Bible, discarding all conciliar and ecclesiastical authority.
OK, I *think* I’ve answered everything directed to me. I’ll only add that I don’t actually disagree with anything Cosmic or Urthshu said regarding church hierarchy or corruption, except, I must point out that hierarchy and bureaucracy are not the only things that are corrupting. Corruption will appear in virtually *any* human institution. And, from my perspective, corruption is actually *easier* in many non-hierarchical institutions. Your little corner “church” down the street led by a charismatic, popular bible-thumping preacher is just as prone to having someone who’s stealing from the coffers, or having extramarital affairs, or diddling little boys, or whatever, as any Orthodox or Catholic priest or bishop. In fact, a lot of us would argue that corruption amongst the fundamentalist crowd is quite rampant, if you just look at all the televangelists who’ve so deeply embarrassed themselves. Indeed, that sort of corruption is much easier to get away with if you run your own church and you answer to no one above you in any sort of hierarchy, because no one can force an investigation on you or excommunicate you or do anything else to discipline you. You are, in effect, your own church.
This is a sore spot for a lot of Catholics. We are the largest religious denomination in the world, bar none. And, when corruption is discovered within our church, it always makes headlines. But what we *don’t* do is simply sunder the church and create our own new churches. Some priest or deacon or bishop gets caught sinning in some way, and the policy is that they need to be stopped and disciplined or expelled, but the church itself continues as an institution. (And yes, it is sometimes the case that the hierarchy doesn’t move anywhere near fast enough to discipline errant members).
Although it’s a clumsy comparison, this might help: imagine if, every time a Senator or Congressman got caught diddling an intern or taking bribes, people in the United States decided to overthrow their government and establish a new nation, and referred to themselves as “The true United States” and the sitting Congress as “the false United States government.” That’s very much what the bible-thumper crowd looks like to us. Any time there’s a problem, they just leave whatever local church they’re in and find some new charismatic leader or institution to follow, or found a new one, or just go home and stop going to church because they’re disillusioned, or whatever.
Urthshu: You are quite right about Sola Scriptura. What the original Protestants, and Luther himself, meant by that doctrine are often wildly at odds with how bible-thumpers mean it. What the Bible-thumpers mean by “sola scriptura” and the mainline Protestants mean is often wildly different.
I think Sola Scriptura is false doctrine, period. So does the Catholic Church. So do the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox. Basically, all the oldest continuing lines of Christianity believe it’s false doctrine. However, the way mainline Protestants apply it is much more defensible than the way fundamentalists apply it.
Or so I see it, anyway. I think most Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestants would basically agree.
Oh, I guess I should add as a footnote that the selling of indulgences was never policy issued by Rome, and when Martin Luther brought it up Rome agreed that it was wrong. In fact, Rome agreed that about half of his theses that he famously nailed to the door were probably correct. The fact that Rome did so is often not mentioned, although serious students of the history all know that’s true.
A sort of folk mythology has sprung up around Protestantism which sees the Catholic Church as having been an utter cesspool of corruption that the Protestants came in and cleaned up and fixed. This is ridiculous, and serious-minded Protestant scholars and theologians acknowledge this. Rome actually had answers for Luther, and agreed with a lot of what he said, and took measures to institute reforms. From the Catholic position, what was disastrous about Luther is that he went much too far, and created doctrines that were much too destructive to the church as a whole. You don’t have to agree of course; it’s sort of a given that if you’re a Protestant you probably don’t agree. But fair-minded Protestants recognize all this as a starting place for ecumenical discussion, dialog, and even (it is to be hoped) reconciliation one day.
Dean,
While I don’t necessarily agree with the ‘Call No Man Father’ means we shouldn’t call Priests fathers, I don’t know that your agrument that bacause Church authorities who were called Father’s included it, it cannot mean what it says.
Firstly, anyone who believes in the Bible as divinely inspired believes as a matter of course that God influenced what was, and what was not, included. Presumably, if God wished, he could make the most evil church heirarchy include passages that directly contradicted their teaching.
Secondly, the 4th century church leaders were not operating in a vacuum. They didn’t just find a bunch of books hidden in a storage room as say these ones look good, lets through them in. The writings they used were already well known and accepted. They of course chose to disinclude some already controversial writings, but they didn’t have the ability, even if they wanted to, to make a great deal of changes to accepted books or even choose to not include popularly accepted books because of a line or two that might be uncomfortable to the existing heirarchy. They had a lot of contraints on them.
I also think you could make your point that this is an analogy and a requires a more poetic interpretation without indulging in insults.
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Jimmy McCain
Dean:
Clearly Jesus was not asking people not to call their biological father “father.” Just as clearly he meant not to call anyone but God your spiritual father. When Catholic apologists trot out the “well, you can call your biological father “father”" they are the ones making an absurd argument, not the Church of Christ who clearly believe that Jesus meant “spiritual father” and that is precisely how the term “father” is used in the Catholic church. You can argue all you want that “father” is merely an affectionate term, I think that is a very disingenuous argument. Words mean things, and there is no doubt that the act of calling someone “father” provides a contextual connotation not only of “affection” but also of “authority.” This is also precisely why the word “brother” is used in many Protestant churches. Because it implies respect and affection, but not authority.
So please don’t continue to insult me by suggesting that I (or even the Church of Christ) are the ones who are making the absurd argument. That is coming from the CATHOLIC side.
If you want to argue that “father” is not used the way Jesus warns against, then make THAT argument. That’s the actual point of disagreement, not whether a person is allowed to call their biological father “father.” That’s a red herring intended to distract the argument from the real point. So explain to me how you can use the word “father” in a spiritual context WITHOUT a connotation of authority. I. don’t. think. you. can.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
Dean: Surely you realize “bible thumpers” is an insulting, derogatory term that is neither fair nor accurate in this day and age. I know a lot of deeply devout “fundamentalist” Christians and the great majority of them are sincere, intelligent, inquisitive and willing to discuss things. I debate this stuff a lot, with a lot of people, and the number of people who have pounded the Bible in a conversation is literally ZERO.
It’s not necessary to be insulting to make a point.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
To the question of “call no man father”: All I can tell you is that this is an example of what’s called “prooftexting.” Decide what you already think, lift out a verse from its context that seems to prove your point, and triumphantly announce that the case is closed.
From the perspective of the vast majority of Christians–probably well in excess of 70%–the arguments that you’re making, Cosmic, aren’t just wrong, they’re silly. Sorry, I’m not saying that to be disrespectful, but they are. They’re not just wrong, they’re shallow. From our perspective. And, they’re easily answered these days by simply using the internet and consulting reasonable sources on it (as my friend Kevin mistakenly thinks I don’t do).
Here, for anyone who cares, is a very good article on the subject. Note that, while Cosmic makes the enormous mistake of thinking it’s merely Catholics who reject his interpretation, this article is *not* written by a Catholic. But there’s nothing much there on the subject that a Catholic would disagree with.
It is simply the case that before there was a New Testament, there were Christian priests, and they were referring to those priests with the affectionate and reverential title of “Father.” In multiple languages, all around the Christian world. They were perfectly capable of reading (or at least hearing) that verse, and in most cases almost certainly did. So either they were stupid, dishonest, or, they didn’t read it this way.
Go ahead and read the article I linked. One thing I can tell people like Sean, Dave, and Kevin, is that as a person leaving biblical fundamentalism behind, I invariably found that the best people to debunk the folk wisdom and prooftexting habits of fundamentalists are usually the Orthdox; many Orthodox split away from Rome as early as the 4th century, yet they are almost always in 99.99% agreement with Catholic interpretations of the issues that fundamentalists bring up.
As for whether the term “bible-thumper” is offensive or not: tell me what term to use, then. Every term I’ve tried, someone decides to take offense at. I make no secret of the fact that I’m an ex-fundamentalist and I view fundamentalism as deeply spiritually and intellectually damaged goods. You don’t have to like it, but quite a few Protestants agree with me on that score. Make of it what you will.
(By the way, I predict that the next question to come up will be “how can there be Christian priests? Doesn’t the Bible say that all believers are priests?” Shock of shocks, there actually is an answer to that, too, and it’s not particularly complicated. If you want to know the answer, just consult any Orthodox source, or any Catholic source. It’s already been answered, multiple times. The unfortunate tendency of the fundamentalists is to pretend there is no answer, or that the answer is some sort of evil twisted mind-trickery made up in the Vatican in Rome that the fundamentalists will just clear up for us by quoting a few verses and triumphantly beaming. The fact that all the oldest lines of Christianity that are *not* part of the Roman catholic church would give exactly the same answer tends to fly right past them.)
Dean:
Your assertion that something is “silly” doesn’t make it “silly.” You have an obvious bias in this because you’ve already interpreted the verse a particular way. As have others. I’ve not often thought that a “majority” means “wisdom” and I don’t think so here either. The argument is not silly if you believe that Jesus was making a direct statement against giving other human beings authority in your spiritual decisions. I think an objective analysis of the Catholic (and other) Clergy is that is PRECISELY what they do. Now, if the “bible-thumpers” are wrong about what Jesus meant by that line, then sure, it’s a silly argument. But you have not, and neither have the link you provided, effectively countered that argument. The fundamental argument that the word “father” implies authority is one that you can dance around and call silly all you like. I think it’s a powerful one.
However, I don’t really care to be in the position of defending fundamentalists either. I find the idea that you can make personal spiritual decisions on a daily basis based on the writings found in a 2,000 year old book just as silly as the concept that I would turn my spiritual destiny over to a man in white robes. Both are equally silly to me.
Since I am profoundly agnostic and believe that there is no “one true religion” that has direct access to and influence with, God, to me this is just an interesting argument. And since both my wife and daughter attend Catholic Church every week, and my wife teaches religion class there, I obviously have more sympathies for Catholicism than other forms of Christianity. I abandoned fundamentalist churches in my teens because I thought the idea of interpreting scripture as divinely inspired literal truth was (in your words Dean) “silly.”
The Catholic Church has survived in large part because of its willingness to re-interpret scripture, and the hierarchy of the Church is in some ways a physical manifestation of the millenia old body of wisdom that Catholics have developed over their history. I actually find this to be a more rational way to deal with attempts to determine divine intentions than the fundamentalist assertion that it’s all in the Bible as written and if you don’t agree you can go to hell.
So please understand, Dean, that I frequently will take the opposing view of a discussion simply to make sure the arguments on both sides are being given a fair shake. And I still don’t think you are giving the “call no man father” verse a fair shake.
From my perspective it’s purely rhetorical. From a Christian perspective it boils down to whether you should follow Jesus’ word, at least as it is written down.
I can definitely see the fundamentalist protestant side of this issue. It makes sense. If Jesus said “call no man father” and meant it in a spiritual sense, then calling a priest “father” in a clearly spiritual sense seems to me to be a pretty severe violation of Jesus’ own desires.
Furthermore, I think the fundamentalist interpretation of this is closer to Jesus’s original intent as I read it in the Bible myself. One thing about Jesus’s ministry that has always struck me is how completely devoid of material things it was. He gave his sermons standing on a rock. He said that wherever people gathered in his name, that was his church. He went TO the people, he never had the people COME to him. All of these things are consistent with this idea that Jesus wanted his followers to have a deeply personal direct relationship with God, and that there was not only no need to go through layers of intercessors, that was actually antithetical to his message.
I think that’s a defensible argument Dean, and you can call it silly all you like. It’s not like I’m the first one to make it, and if you truly believe that everyone who has is an idiot, that says more about you and your biases (and debate style) than about mine.
Let me try to put things in perspective. In general terms, comparing Protestant Fundamentalists to Catholics, I find myself far more likely to be in agreement with Catholics. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the Protestant Fundamentalists got it all wrong. They may be far further off base than Catholics overall in spiritual matters, but in this particular case, I think they probably got it right, and Catholics got it wrong. I could argue that Catholics got it wrong intentionally to further their own political and materialistic goals, but I don’t care to do that. I will just say that I think they interpret things in a way that is advantageous to them once in a while.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
Also by the way, I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that fundamentalists are often very good people, good citizens, with decent values, but I’ll just repeat it again: they are. And some of them are very good friends, as I’ve said many times before and will doubtless have to say many times again. [shrug]
deleted by me
Sean: My saying it’s silly doesn’t make it silly. But your saying it’s not silly doesn’t make it not-silly, either. From my perspective, it’s entirely obvious that, when viewed in its proper context, your reading of that particular verse isn’t just wrong, it’s a kooky-crazy, nutso-silly reading. I don’t see it that way to offend you. It’s just what I actually think, and most of the world’s Christians would agree although maybe they’d be more diplomatic about it than I tend to be.
What is most apparent to me is that you, as an agnostic/atheist, nevertheless share the biases that come from your fundamentalist upbringing. Indeed, you are (apparently unconsciously) accepting something that fundamentalists do accept, but that Orthodox and Catholic Christians do not: that the Bible is the repository of all wisdom, and that the church’s job is to put forward what’s in the Bible and to put it into practice whatever’s in the Bible. What you should reflect on is the fact that most of the world’s Christians do not view the Bible that way.
And this is the point where Protestantism diverges not just from Catholic thought, but also from Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox thinking (i.e. *all* the continuously-existing lines of Christianity going back to the 1st century): The Bible is *not* viewed by Orthodox *or* Catholic traditions as the ultimate source of God’s word or God’s teachings.
Let me repeat that for you so you get it clearly: according to both Orthodox Christian (all varieties) and Roman Catholic teaching, the Bible *is not is not is not* the ultimate source of authority. Period. That’s not what it is, nor what it was ever intended to be.
What the Orthodox and the Catholics believe now, and believed at the time they compiled the Bible, was that the Church is constructed according to what is called Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is separate from regular tradition. Holy Tradition is passed down directly through word of mouth from Jesus and the Apostles. And it actually starts before that, in what the Jews call the Oral Torah. Early Christianity was spread primarily orally, not by writings. Writings were merely (ha! “merely,” as if this is a small thing) an indispensible and useful part of the teachings.
Scripture, according to both the Orthodox and the Catholics, is the highest written expression of the Christian tradition–sacred, important, holy, but never all by itself capable of answering every question. Indeed, there were many writings they chose not to include in the bible that they believed just as valid as anything in the Bible. It was constructed for Church purposes, to be useful for reading in Church and as a touchstone for double-checking doctrine.
To quote an Orthodox (not Catholic) source, the Bible is the Book of the Church, for use by the Church for the Church’s purposes. The Bible cannot be understood separate from the Church. And furthermore, while the Bible is holy, inspired, and of critical importance, if by some awesome miracle God were to cause every Bible on the planet to disappear in a puff of smoke, and no one had any Bible to quote from, the Church would continue its practices and teach all the same things it currently teaches now and has taught from the beginning.
Simply put, Christianity was never sola scriptura before Martin Luther formulated that doctrine in the 16th century. We simply don’t *look* at Scripture the way you were raised to view it in your Church of Christ youth, Sean. And because we view Scripture so very differently, our interpretations are vastly different.
And once you see that, a whole lot of other things start promptly falling into place, and a lot of what people think the Catholics just made up start to look much more reasonable and not “made up in Rome” after all.
I’ll leave you with this link: David Wooten’s excellent essay on the non-biblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Wooten is not a Catholic, but once again there’s nothing much there that a Catholic would disagree with.
Or so I’ve found.
Dean:
You must not have read my entire reply, which I guess is excusable since I do tend to post long responses.
I won’t repeat it here, but go read through it again, you might find that I am not nearly as “fundie-biased” as you seem to think. I just don’t think that Catholics are 100% correct, and on this one issue, I personally think if Jesus were to return and walk into a Catholic Church, every time he heard someone refer to the Priest as “Father” he would wince.
Also, since “most of the world’s Christians” belong to one or another of the hierarchical driven churches, don’t expect me to be swayed to learn that “most of the world’s Christians” interpret something that is favorable to their own church. I put that in the “duh” files Dean.
Again, just because Al Gore claims that there is near-unanimity on Global Warming doesn’t mean I’m going to swallow his propaganda either.
We aren’t likely to resolve this “call no man father” issue, and as I said, I am generally far more receptive to the Catholic means of divining (pun intended) Jesus’ message than I am of fundamentalists, but that doesn’t mean that Catholics are always right and Protestants are always wrong.
By the way, I also think that Jesus would walk around a typical Catholic Cathedral and shake his head in sheer annoyance at the incredible ostentatiousness of it all. My personal opinion is that he’d be more at home in an open field.
Oh, by the way, I was not raised “Church of Christ.” I spent a few months going to one because I was in love with a girl who went to one, and got kicked out because I couldn’t swallow the literal interpretation of the story of Job. My parents were non-denominational, although they did mostly take us to Protestant churches of one denomination or another.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
I did read your entire response, Sean. I thought I gave a pretty thoughtful response to it.
I don’t claim that Catholics are always right in their interpretations. In fact we know we aren’t always right, and that there is substantial room for disagreement on a lot of issues.
However I will point out to you that the men who compiled the Bible were already part of a hierarchy, one that included deacons, priests, and bishops and used the title of “Father.” So apparently you think that a hierarchical Church constructed and preserved a book that clearly states that there’s no hierarchy, and held Holy a book that said that they were fundamentally wrong on most of the things they practiced and believed. Some of us find that thinking a little odd to say the least. This was defensible in centuries past, when Protestants talked themselves into believing that everything they disagreed with was an invention of the Popes and of Bishops loyal to Rome. It became a lot less sustainable when, in the 19th and 20th Centuries, friendly regular contact with the churches of the East were re-established, and certain historical records came to light.
I should also note that Orthodox and Conservative Jews tend to see things in similar ways–they too believe in Oral Torah and do not believe that the Bible is the sole authority or where everything comes from. It’s an indispensible part of their faith, but not the central basis of it.
Because this approach to the Bible is so different between orthodox/traditionalist believers and Protestant believers, it’s often almost impossible to know how to bridge the gulf and even have a reasonable conversation.
Dean, you may be reading my responses, but you don’t seem to be listening to them.
I don’t have a problem with the distinction between the oral and written tradition, and the idea that the Catholic Church has an oral tradition that goes all the way back to Jesus through Peter is, at least, defensible.
I also don’t think that Jesus set up a church with no hierarchy. He clearly put Peter at the top of that hierarchy when he said he was building his church upon Peter. So whether or not there is a hierarchy is not the point we have been debating.
The point is that the WRITTEN tradition of Christianity has a very specific verse attributed to Jesus where Jesus admonishes his followers to “call no man father.” Unless that oral tradition somehow gainsays that quotation, then there is no debate on wether Jesus said it, only on how it should be interpreted. I think it is a statement that is so obvious in intent that there is very little room to maneuver in that interpretation. I think that Jesus was clearly saying that a person was not to put his eternal soul at risk by looking to another human being as a spiritual “father.” And to call another man “father” in a spiritual context is at least rhetorically doing exactly that. You can claim all you like that the oral tradition gainsays Jesus on this, or clarifies the point. I simply disagree with you. That’s like suggesting that when Jesus said “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” that there is some oral tradition that footnotes Jesus and adds “except for the Romans, screw the hell out of them, because this freakin’ HURTS!”.
Some things stand pretty well on their own, and I am asserting that “Call no man father” is one of them. I am also asserting that listening to a member of a bureaucracy that clearly benefits from a particular interpretation as a source of authority on that interpretation is a bit too much of a conflict of interest for me not to take that interpretation with a grain of salt.
Whether the Bible is the single source of authority for a Catholic or not, it clearly is A source of authority. It is not necessary for one to believe that the Bible is the only source of authority to interpret that verse in the manner the Protestants interpret it. All that is necessary is to accept that it is accurate and that the context is understood.
Otherwise, you may as well just throw the Bible in the trash, because all it takes is for someone to say “well, the ORAL tradition says otherwise”, whenever a new interpretation, one that is favorable to the current administration, needs to be handed down.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
Dean:
If “Call no man father” was not an admonition not to put another person in the position of spiritual authority over you, then please tell me exactly WHAT did Jesus mean by that? You have repeatedly said that it does NOT apply to Catholic or other Orthodox Priests. So who DOES it apply to Dean?
Was Jesus just having diarrhea of the mouth that day and blurted out something that had no meaning, but was written down and preserved anyway?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
Dude. I gave you a link. Here it is again. With copious references to scriptures, and other things said both by Jesus and by Apostles. To quote at least part of it, which directly answers your exact point on “spiritual fathers”:
Some Protestant interpreters are sure that Jesus is warning here against addressing Church leaders as “father.” They, of course, are interpreting “father” in this Scripture to mean, “spiritual father.” Therefore, they refuse to call their clergymen “father,” preferring instead such titles as “pastor,” “reverend,” or perhaps even “brother.” At the outset, therefore, let me point out that “spiritual father” is an interpretation of the Lord’s statement rather than what He actually said. Mind you, I am not denying the need for interpretation of Scripture. Instead, I am pointing out that the Lord said “father,” not “spiritual father.” What is at issue here? Simply this: taken at face value, Jesus’ warning against calling any man “father” would not only seem to rule out calling a clergyman “father,” it would also keep us from using that title for earthly fathers and grandfathers, ancient Church fathers, or even city fathers, would it not? For in reality, the Lord’s statement, as it appears in the text, is that only one Person is ever to be called “father,” namely, our Father who is in heaven. But is Christ’s saying to be taken at face value? If so, several other passages in the Bible are immediately in conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, “For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.”2 Does not Paul claim to be the spiritual father of the Corinthians–”Father Paul,” if you please? Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual ancestry as “our fathers.”3 And he did address earthly fathers in Colosse in this way: “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.”4 It would appear the Apostle Paul certainly did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ’s words to mean only One was to be called “father,” that is, the heavenly Father. In addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom, and addressed him as “Father Abraham,” Abraham’s response was not, “Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called `father’?” Rather, he replied, “Son, remember…”5 Instances like the above could be multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are acknowledged to be “fathers.”
OTHER TITLES
But let us not stop here. For after saying only “One is your Father,” Jesus proceeded to declare, “And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.”6 Yet He Himself acknowledged Nicodemus to be a “teacher of Israel.”7 And in the church at Antioch certain men were called “prophets and teachers.”8 Then again, the Apostle Paul not only recognized teachers as gifts of God to the Church,9 but he also did not hesitate to call himself “a teacher of the Gentiles.”10 Furthermore, in this present day, almost all of us have at one time or another called certain people Sunday School teachers. The discussion thus goes far beyond any Protestant-Catholic lines. Therefore, in saying we should call no one “father” and “teacher,” except God the Father and Christ Himself, the Lord Jesus appears not to be taking issue with the use of these particular titles in and of themselves. The context of the passage gives us the interpretive key we are looking for. In this “call no man father” passage, our Lord is contending with certain rabbis of His day who were using these specific titles to accomplish their own ends. And had these same apostate rabbis been using other titles, such as “reverend” and “pastor,” Jesus, it seems to me, would have said of these as well, “Call no one reverend or pastor.”
I could keep going, but I suggest just reading the whole article. Simply put, Jesus meant what he said. He meant every word of it. He just didn’t mean what you insist he must have meant.
And I merely point out again, it seems a little odd to believe that the very men who compiled the Bible, who we know now used this same title, either couldn’t read it or left it in there but ignored it. Consider the other possibility: you’re the one who’s reading it wrong. Is that not at least possible?
In response to the link you put up, and to other arguments from Catholics that calling Priests “Father” does not go against Jesus’ teaching, let me deal with the three most common arguments.
1. That because other places in the Bible use the word “Father” Jesus could not mean not to call other men “Father” in a spiritual sense. In fact St. Paul himself said that he was made “Father” through Jesus.
OK, so the vast majority of the uses of “Father” in this sense are in the Old Testament, and this isn’t the first case of Jesus countermanding Old Testament Law or tradition.
Now, let’s assume that the verse attributed to St. Paul is accurate, and Jesus’ verse are accurate. Yes, if I were a fundamentalist who believed that the Bible was the literal word of God, completely divinely inspired, that would cause me to have to deal with a seeming direct contradiction in scripture.
But I’m not a fundamentalist. I don’t and never have believed that the Bible is the divinely inspired literal word of God. So now what we have is Jesus saying one thing and Paul saying another. Then it becomes a question of who are you going to believe?
I pick Jesus.
Oh, before you say “Well, Jesus used “teacher” himself! I don’t accept that Jesus was infallible either. Whether he used those words or not doesn’t change the intent of his original statement. Jesus, as a human being, is perfectly capable of mis-speaking or not being 100% consistent in his teachings. The question is whether the “Call no man Father” is integral to his message, where using “teacher” in another verse was simply a rhetorical mistake or a lapse into common usage for clarity.
2. The idea that it is ludicrous to suggest that Jesus meant to not use the words “father” or “teacher” in any sense because we use those words all the time. This is just silly rhetorical nonsense. Clearly Jesus meant “father” in a spiritual sense. Which interpreted in the most direct sense, would obviously apply to Priests.
3. Ah, but Jesus was a subtle fellow. If we parse through his intentions with a fine-tooth comb, we can divine (after significant effort) that what Jesus was REALLY saying is that we should not follow religious leaders who create their own interpretation of Holy scripture (oral or written) and instead stick to the traditional divinely inspired source. In this sense calling a Priest “Father” is not really the issue, but following a David Koresh or a Jim Jones is. Essentially this boils down to not following a cult leader who re-interprets Holy scripture personally.
Let’s think about #3 for a minute. OK, I can accept that if you put this narrow and arcane interpretation on Jesus’s words, then using “Father” to talk to a Priest is not so big of a deal. But what IS a big deal is following a religious persuasion that changes its traditions and laws based on personality and circumstance.
Um… sort of like the Catholic Church has done over the years.
So #3 would not necessarily be interpreted as a prohibition against calling a Priest “Father” but it sure does open up the can of worms of whether the Catholic Church has ever diverged from traditional interpretations of Holy Writ.
And I guess a Catholic could argue that they haven’t diverged, but I don’t know many non-Catholics who don’t immediately look at that and say “Hmm… of course the Catholic Church has reinterpreted things…. hmmmm…”
So I guess you can pick your poison Dean. Either Jesus doesn’t want us to call Priests “Father” or else he doesn’t want us to follow religious leaders who can’t stick to the One Timeless Truth as Jesus would.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
The assertion that the Catholic Church has readily changed what it teaches based on personality and circumstance is a common trope of Protestants, and is not entirely without merit. But when you look to the Orthodox, who broke off from the Roman Catholic church in some cases as early as the 300s yet take exactly the same line as the Catholics do, that argument tends to wear a little thin. What you’re basically saying there is that mainline christianity itself has been wrong for at least 1,700 years, and that the apostle Paul was apparently stupid or crazy too (and I admit, some say he was).
We can demonstrate this use of “Father” as a title in non-Roman Catholic circles going back as far as the 1st Century, and by those who wrote the Bible as well as those who decided what books would go into it and what books wouldn’t. Therefore, you might want to at least give lip service to the idea that these guys who put together the Bible weren’t stupid, and that it’s you who’s offering the new interpretation based on “personality and circumstance.”
Christians have been calling their spiritual leaders “fathers” since biblical times. And I don’t say that because Rome told me to–Rome didn’t. History does. Non-Roman Catholic sources do. The Bible does. What more do you want from me? I can’t make you believe as I believe, but I can point out where I don’t think you’re being reasonable–and I don’t think you are being reasonable here.
You’re free to follow the dictates of your own conscience, as we all are, but you might want to consider the possibility that it’s you and the Protestants who are the ones in error on this question. A great deal of thought and research has gone into this matter ever since the Protestants brought it up, and it’s not just Catholics who’ve decided the Protestants are in error on this point.
Dean:
I absolutely agree with you that certain Christian denominations have violated Jesus’s admonition against using “Father” in this way. I have no problem with acknowledging that this violation has been going on for almost two thousand years. I am quite certain this is not the only violation of Jesus’ teachings either.
Seriously, what Jesus was saying, if interpreted directly, would have little hope of being implemented in the face of so many generations of tradition Dean. Even if he meant it exactly as I interpret it. And even if the first Christian Leaders had tried to do it. It’s simply that hard to overcome that level of tradition.
My personal opinion is that’s really most likely what happened, and the clever parsing of the verse and its intent has developed over the years as a defense against this simple fact. As I said, I think the Protestant’s have THIS one right.
Sigh… I enjoy a good debate way too much. People probably believe that I am anti-Catholic now, and that’s not true. As I said, I find the Catholic approach to religion far more rational than the fundamentalist approach. I really do.
I don’t think Paul was necessarily crazy, although I am open to that argument. I think he was trying to build a church and used what he needed to to be successful.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
I told you this would happen.
If I were cruel as well as non-religious, I would laugh my head off.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Sean/Cosmic: Can’t really argue with you there. If we’ve gotten it all wrong for 2,000 years, and Jesus’ words were in clear contradiction to much of the rest of the Bible, then, well, so be it.
I somewhat sympathize with your point of view, given that I’ll certainly be accused of hating Protestants or hating fundamentalists. Oh, wait, I already have been, when all I said was I disagree with them and they’re in error on this and other important points.
Actually I do think that although this “Call no man Father” discussion has strayed from the whole issue of Protestantism, it is illustrative of one of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics (and other Orthodox branches). And that is the whole issue of whether the Catholic Church has adhered to the teachings of Jesus, or has fallen prey to the viscisitudes of bureaucracy and corruption to the point that it has allowed the pure spiritual message of Jesus to be buried under the accumulated weight of bureaucracy, corruption and circumstance.
I think there’s an argument there that can be made.
And to get back to Dean’s fundamental question, I personally believe that the Protestant Reformation not only made Christianity better, and improved a lot of things for humanity in general, I actually think it forced the Catholic Church to fix some things that were broken and has made the Catholic Church better too.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
Arnold: What happened? We’ve had a perfectly good discussion here so far as I can see.
Cosmic/Sean: Well, as I said, the original Protestants raised some valid objections. I thought I started out saying that, in fact. I just think they’re wrong on certain other things.
As for the view that the Catholic Church itself became corrupted over time: yes, this is common. Fundamentalists tend to take it to an extreme level, however, which is why some of us find looking to the Orthodox for help to be highly useful.
Put it this way: the general picture that’s been painted since the Protestant Reformation has been of a slowly more and more corrupt Catholic Church, getting further and further and further away from the Bible and from what Jesus taught. There’s a problem with that, inasmuch as when you look at common objections raised by Protestants, and look at the historical record, it looks like the most common “corruptions” they identify weren’t just in place in the 1500s when Martin Luther made up his famous manifesto; it turns out that they were already in place in the church, very identifiably so in many cases, even during the years when the Bible was being put together.
In other words, the very men who decided what books would be included in the Canon, who created it and called it the Bible, in some cases even wrote it, were already practicing and believing things that people suggest were just inventions of the Pope in Rome.
What you’re really suggesting here, Sean, is that the Bible itself does not faithfully transmit the teachings of Jesus. You have to be. You’re expressing a complete mistrust of the authors of some of the New Testament books, and in the church hierarchy that created the Bible. And, fine, if that’s where you’re at, that’s where you’re at. I don’t agree, but that kinda goes without saying.
What’s not sustainable is this fiction that the Pope in Rome made up a buncha fakey-fakey doctrines that were “obviously” contradicted by the Bible, and that all got fixed once the all-wise Protestants came along and found all the “obvious” mistakes and false doctrines invented by the mustache-twirling Popes and the sinister Bishops of the Catholic church.
Simply put, Orthodox and Catholic Christianity is not Sola Scriptura. We are based on Holy Tradition, of which scripture is an inseparable and very important part. But we view Jesus as having established a Church, not a Book. Jesus told his apostles to go forth and preach the word, not go forth and write a New Testament that all of the (mostly illiterate) common people could read so they could decide on their own what God had to say. He formed a Church, he put men in charge of it, and those men moved on, spread the word, put together the scriptures, preserved them, etc.
It’s really not that complicated. You just have to eject the idea that the Bible is where it starts and ends. In our view, the Church created the Bible, not the other way around.
Arnold,
I’ve been laughing my head off nearly from the git-go.
Then, again, its the proddy theologizing of it all.
BTW, is it permissible to call one of one’s parents, pops or would that be anti-papal ?
As in ‘il papa’ ?
And I can’t find ‘dad’ in the bible, either.
Cosmic, somehow or other you presumed that a non-reply to your initial question was a gateway to further inane dialogue. So now you’re hung up on one phrase from the bible somewhere not mentioned that controls your current religious judgement, right ?
McKiernan:
Your inability to recognize or acknowledge an actual reasonable debate with points made on both sides is not my problem.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
CC,
Why don’t you answer the question ?
Dean:
I admit that I was using the “Call no man Father” as a proxy for a discussion of biblical interpretation and Catholic adherence to the Bible. I also admit that I used it to demonstrate the fallibility of the Bible itself. Nice to see that you, at least, were able to pick up on those things.
As far as whether the Bible faithfully carries its OWN message, no I don’t think it does. Not fully. As with most documents, its message is complicated by contradiction and mistranslation. Not that I can read the original, or know the oral tradition behind it, but when “Thou shalt not commit murder” gets translated for generations as “Thou shalt not kill” I think it’s pretty obvious that the Bible is not an infallible form of message transmission.
And in fact the only way it COULD be an infallible form of message transmission would be for it to be what fundamentalists claim it to be, which is the infallible, divinely inspired word of God. Which I don’t believe at all. In fact for such a book, covering hundreds, even thousands of years of human history, to NOT have numerous contradictions would be pretty amazing, and frankly unprecedented.
However, you make a leap that is unsupported by my comments. I absolutely believe that the Bible is fallible and does not completely and faithfully transmit the message of Jesus. In fact I think that’s obvious to anyone who does not have a religious dog in the fight. But that does NOT mean that I have a “complete mistrust” in it.
J.R.R. Tolkien talked about the idea of “True Myth.” He explained it as the belief HE had that much of humanity’s religion and myth were actually fragments of a deeper truth. He talked about shattering a great lens, and then picking up the fragments to get a glimpse of the image that was formed when it was whole. He put this concept into the Lord of the Rings, in fact. The whole thing with the light of the one tree being fragmented and captured in the Silmarils, which were then further broken down all the way to Frodo’s Light of Earandil (or whatever it was called) was a metaphor for that.
I think there’s some merit to that view. I think the Bible, along with other great works of religion, have a fragment of that deeper truth, reflected and refracted in such a way that some of it is clear, and some of it is muddled.
I also believe that the great majority of the Catholic Clergy are deeply devout and dedicated to the proposition that they are not only the protectors and leaders of truth, they are also actual vessels of that same truth themselves, and so they rigorously attempt to adhere to the tenets of the faith and the message of Jesus.
But they are human. And not ALL of them are so devout. Which is why I talked about the accumulation of bureaucracy, corruption and circumstance. In effect, even in the absence of overt attempts to corrupt the message, simple entropy itself is the enemy of the message. It’s hard to keep something pure and clean in this world.
This is not new, people have realized this either explicitly or implicitly for years, and the Protestant Reformation is in part a reaction to that. However, being human, those reformers have their own limitations, errors, biases and simple misunderstandings. Which FURTHER fractures the lens/mirror of truth and both gives new perspectives on the original message and obscures more of it.
It’s really quite interesting to contemplate, especially for an agnostic like myself.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
What question McKiernan? Perhaps if you extricate it from it’s attendant childish insults, I might feel like answering it.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
McKiernan:
I’ll assume this was your question:
There’s quite a lot of assumptions on your part that I have to dig through to even address this question, much less provide an answer that you won’t sneer at in your typical condescending manner. But I’ll try.
(Man I hate this tiny edit screen…)
First is the whole idea that any phrase in the Bible has any “control” on my religious judgment at all. I’m certainly not aware of any. I view the Bible as a religious document that is valuable for its ability to present one perspective on the questions of “Why are we here? Is there a deeper meaning to life? Is there an afterlife? What is the value of morality?” etc… I don’t consider the Bible to have any more “authority” on this subject than any other religious work, and quite a bit less authority than the scientific method.
Now as to whether I am “hung up” on something in the Bible. Well, see my last paragraph for the general answer to that. But to be as direct and honest as possible, I have to admit that I was raised in a mostly Christian culture, and as such the Bible had more influence on my formative years than, say, the Baghada Vita. And in that sense there is no doubt that as I read the Bible (something I have done more than once) I encountered innumerable instances of assertions and contradictions that made me question the literal divine truth of the book. Some of these were very direct things such as the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” mistranslation. Of course my immediate thought on realizing that one of the Ten Commandments had been mistranslated was “Wow, what ELSE is wrong in this book?”
Others were more subtle, along the lines of the story of Job, which makes perfect sense as metaphor, but as literal truth it paints a very disturbing picture of God and His nature.
But I would not say that there is any one verse or even any one story in the Bible that I am “hung up” on. I think there is an accumulation of many things within the Bible that challenged my own interpretation of the universe, man’s place in the universe, and the ultimate destiny of man as a group, much less as man as an individual.
Did that answer your question?
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
You’re doing so much better CC .
I probably ought not complain.
However, since the fourth commandment is: Honor thy father and thy mother it would seem unreasonable that Jesus meant ‘call no man father’ a proscription against all such use of the term.
McKiernan:
If you bothered to actually read and try to understand my posts instead of looking for things to sneer at like a middle schooler, you might have already realized that I never suggested that the verse said any such thing. Dean threw that red herring out as an attempt to deflect the fundamental assertion of the verse, and I responded to it by CALLING it a red herring. From the start I presented that as being used in a spiritual context.
In fact I consider the thought that it applies to any use of the word “father” to be so ridiculous that I didn’t even address that and went straight to the use of it to address a Priest.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
My apologies.
No problem McKiernan, I apologize for getting snarky back at you, but I tend to react in kind when people treat me in a certain manner.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Hillary fading fast?
Dean:
After rereading your comments, I see that I have left one area unaddressed that I really should address. And that’s the whole area of accusations that the Catholic Church set out purposefully to subvert and corrupt Jesus’s message as a means to derive secular power.
Now Dean, I have to say that I think there actually was some of that going on. I would say it was very rare, and that in the entire history of the Catholic Church, the number of Popes who were corrupt enough to actually attempt to cash in on the spiritual capital of the Church to advance their own secular desires was very small, maybe even as few as two or three. But there were some. Borgia is probably the most notable and well documented “corrupt” Pope. I doubt that he was the only one.
But I would also say that they were deviant exceptions to the rule, and that virtually all Popes, from the very beginning, were devout and honorable men. As were virtually all other members of the Clergy. For the most part I am absolutely comfortable saying that the Catholic Church has attempted to be a force for good in the world.
I would also say that sometimes the Catholic Church has been a bit over-zealous in that pursuit of good as well. Zealotry is never pretty, and when coupled with secular power, it’s a time bomb. On a couple of occasions I would say that bomb detonated with rather devastating results.
But I do not indict the entire Catholic Church for the actions of a few corrupt Popes or over-zealous cardinals. I accept them as exceptions, not the rule.
I would also say that those denominations who use those exceptions to indict the church are engaging in unethical behavior at best, and immoral behavior at worst.
It is not necessary to postulate evil, greedy, secular corruption to explain how the Catholic Church has navigated a rather circuitous course around the teachings of Jesus. Simple incompetence, miscommunication, bureaucratic bungling and attempted do-goodery are more than sufficient to ex