Mark Shea has a post about anti-Catholic legends. He is talking about the classic list of Loraine Boettner stuff that keep s getting recycled. I guess I don't worry about that much. When I was a protestant I never put much stock in such things. But there were some serious misconceptions about the church that did cause problems. Catholics worship Mary. Catholics believe you need to earn your salvation by good works. Catholics don't believe in the bible. These I think are more damaging. Serious protestant thinkers believe and repeat these ideas. Most people understand the use of candles is not a good reason to accept or reject Catholicism. But the more serious charges of false teachings do form the basis of why protestants feel they cannot become Catholic.
The thing I noticed as a protestant starting to explore the Catholic faith was not only are these caricatures false but many protestant apologists who admitted they were false would still repeat them in other contexts. Part of it is just protestant shorthand. They need to refer to protestant/Catholic issues without explaining them in detail. But even shorthand should be accurate and charitable. Part of it is insecurity. The shorthand is designed to remind people that the Catholic position is just completely unreasonable. The trouble is that really is in accurate and uncharitable.
If you think about reasonable and charitable ways to refer to these disputes. Instead of "Catholics don't believe in the bible" you could say "Catholics don't read the bible the way I do." That does not really capture it. Because it is not just one protestant who feels that way. So maybe "the Catholic way of reading scripture is wrong." That states the wrongness as an objective reality but people get that a Catholic would not agree. The trouble is that it can make people curious. How exactly does this wrong reading of scripture hold together?
Protestants will preach this way frequently. Group A says this. Group B says that. But the bible says such and such. What they really mean is group C says such and such and I am a member of group C. But if they preached that way the subjectivity and self-centered nature of protestantism would be obvious. The preacher himself does not understand that his group, group C, is logically parallel to groups A and B if you take his personal opinion out of it. He really thinks the bible says such and such and he treats that as an infallible interpretation. What else do you do? Tell them you don't know? Preachers are not wired that way.
If we move on to "Catholics worship Mary" or "Catholics believe you need to earn your salvation by good works." These are a bit more difficult. The problem here is Catholics make a distinction that protestants think is invalid. So to describe in shorthand any distinction at all would kind of concede the point to the Catholics. But they end up as saying positions condemned by the church are official church teaching. It must be possible to be more accurate than that. Just saying Catholics believe in salvation by faith and works. That is accurate and charitable. The trouble is most protestants immediately thing, "What is wrong with that?" That is the reaction they are trying to avoid. But it is the normal reaction when interacting with reasonable biblical exegesis.
If you think about reasonable and charitable ways to refer to these disputes. Instead of "Catholics don't believe in the bible" you could say "Catholics don't read the bible the way I do."
ReplyDeleteOr the Protestant could say "Catholics have an interpretive authority that isn't me."
"Protestants will preach this way frequently. Group A says this. Group B says that. But the bible says such and such. What they really mean is group C says such and such and I am a member of group C."
I was listening to a fantastic sermon this morning by a Protestant pastor on the 'parable of the mustard seed', and he was attempting to introduce a really outside-the-box interpretation of the parable (which actually was quite good and sensible). But to drive his interpretation home, he said "Now I know you may have heard that the parable really refers to the numeric expansion of the kingdom of God, how it started with 12 disciples and eventually blossomed into millions of followers. Well my point today is that this is not at all what Jesus meant when he told this parable." Now, whether he is right or wrong--and I'm fully behind the Catholic understanding of "multiple senses" of Scripture--what basis, or what authority, would he have to say "Jesus didn't mean that, he meant this"? This is an example of the conundrum you described.
"Just saying Catholics believe in salvation by faith and works. That is accurate and charitable. The trouble is most protestants immediately thing, "What is wrong with that?""
This is why anti-Catholic Protestants use polemical intonation to suggest the ridiculousness of the Catholic belief, and intonation that suggests "Can you believe they actually believe that?!?"
Which is another reason why the internet is helping. Simple writing that 'Catholics believe in salvation by faith and works' doesn't generate the shock as it does orally. The Protestant writers are forced to explain, in further writing, why this is a bad idea. But then the reader is given data which to analyze, and an expansive internet with which to compare the Protestant's data with legitimate Catholic data.
Or the Protestant could say "Catholics have an interpretive authority that isn't me."
ReplyDeleteI don't expect a protestant to disparage his own position. That would require humility. I still expect them to look down on us. After all, we are Catholics. Just using a phrase that has not been explicitly repudiated by every major Catholic out there would be a place to start.
I do think protestants have more than just themselves as their authority. The trouble is the best way to describe what they do have is "reformed tradition" or "classical protestantism." That is the way I refer to them. As Christians from a different tradition. But their tradition does not allow them to put tradition as the center of the difference. So their dishonesty with themselves does not help matters at all.
As a Catholic who grew up in the Bible belt, I feel that a lot of animosity towards Catholics is largely based on misunderstanding Catholic precepts or Traditional/Mainline Protestant precepts. A lot of my experience with Evangelicals specifically is that there is a lot fervor for converting/saving souls. They talk an awful lot about religion, but they only know their own. They don't understand anyone else and so they choose to not research or learn but rather regurgitate false information.
ReplyDeleteThey also bash other denominations publicly and at the pulpit which I think tends to make it "okay" to do that.
I've personally gone to a friend's church. It was Baptist. While there he addressed Communion by saying this "now some people think that this is the body and blood of Jesus, but they are wrong. It's only a representation." And he didn't give any other explanation as to why.
I understand that this was from the pulpit, but if he truly felt that it was okay concept to teach, he should have explained his position better. All I kept thinking was "Wow aren't you a Catholic-hater."
I understanding teaching a concept but saying another group is blatantly wrong and then proceeding to dog on them just isn't cool with me. Although I know a few Catholics who do that too.
It was not until I became Catholic that I understood how dangerous the pulpit is. How easy it is to sweep away other positions without really interacting with them. It is just as easy when speaking falsehood as it is when speaking truth. It have often thought how protestants are impacted by the content of sermons. I have not really considered how protestant communication style might have been impacted as well. That I don't really need to interact with the other person's position. I just need to talk, talk, talk.
ReplyDelete