Another dose of that Old-Time Religion...

...coupled with another massive dose of historical ignorance.

Last seen comparing Thomas Aquinas and all Christians prior to 1517 to children, C. Michael Patton offers his flock the final word on "The Rise of the Roman Catholic Church."

Here is what I taught last Tuesday at the Credo House.

In order to be a good Protestant, you must be a good anti-Catholic. I am not Catholic. I am Protestant. There are many doctrines of the Roman Catholic church that I am against, but there are many things that I appreciate about them.

Both Protestants and Roman Catholics have our lineage in the catholic church. Yes, I just said that. I am catholic, but not Roman Catholic. I’ve got some info for you: If you are a Christian, you are catholic too. This differentiation between catholic and Roman Catholic is part of a solid Protestant polemic against Roman Catholicism. It normally drives Roman Catholic apologists crazy, since it undermines their belief that they are the one true church. But it is true; Protestants are catholic Christians, but not Roman Catholic Christians. The word “catholic” was used very early to describe the church. It simply meant “universal,” describing the church’s universality. The church is not exclusive to Gentiles, Jews, Greeks, Romans, those in the East, or those in the West. The church that Christ built is universal, or “catholic.”

However, there was an institutional arm of the catholic church that eventually became known as the Roman Catholic church, complete with its own hierarchy, doctrines, and liturgical distinctives. The type of institutionalization that eventually characterized the Roman Catholic church is one of the major issues the Protestants battled against, believing that it had corrupted the catholic church to the core, even obscuring the Gospel itself. We now call it the Roman Catholic church due to its identification with the “seat of Rome.” This seat, according to the Roman Catholics, is the perpetual seat of ultimate authority that Peter passed on. It is known today as the papacy, which is the office of the Pope. The Pope sits in the seat of Rome, having the infallible authority to guide and direct the church in matters of faith and practice. He, along with the magisterium, form the institution and can, through “ordinary” or “extraordinary” means, intervene in church life and doctrine in a binding way. If a heresy arises in the church, the institution can condemn it, thus securing the faith of the church. Intervention rarely takes place (though this is debated), but this infallible safeguard can theoretically step in at any time and protect the church from corruption.

Patton offers a singularly non-historical recitation of history. He offers no names, no dates, no development of concepts, although he does illustrate his points iwth stick figure drawings, which are de rigeur if you are going to learn the Big Thoughts.

For example, Patton authoritatively tells his readers that the Roman Catholic Church grew out of the institutional arm of the catholic church. As if the cathedrals and bishops and priests just walked off one day leaving their congregations behind.

When did this happen?

Well, it didn't, obviously. The Catholic Church was the people and the bishops. St. Ignatius in 120 AD recognized this when he counseled Christians that they were to stay with their bishops. St. Clement understood this when he explained in the 80s or 90s that the apostles had appointed successors in order to prevent schism:

Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.

But what did he know? He just knew the apostles. He didn't have the benefit of the internet.

Patton's refusal to deal with dates and his mythmaking is his way of dealing with history. He incorporates both the "historical amnesia" technique and the "infantilization" technique; the latter he does explicitly when he explains that the Catholic Church developed its idea of the magisterium in order to protect its members from the Bible and its Great Big Threatening Ideas:

This is where history takes an interesting and definitive turn. It is not unlike our desire to protect our children. There are two extremes. One extreme locks the children up in the house and thows away the key in order to protect them from all harm (like I am tempted to do!). Nothing wrong with the intentions here. The other extreme lets their children run wild, believing they have to learn the ways of the world in order to learn to protect themselves. Again, intentions good. As the church began to face more and more dangers, as doctrine was continually manipulated, as teachings that did not fall in line with Scripture or the church’s historic interpretation of Scripture were put forth, the church began to institutionalize itself. In other words, we brought all the children in the house and locked the door.

So, there you are. Once again, Patton views all Christians - except maybe that weirdly anonymous and non-existent group who didn't make up the "institutional arm" of the catholic church - as children who are scared of independent thought, God, rainbows and puppies.

*Sheesh*

Parchment and Pen rolls out a favorite topic for Protestants...

...are Catholics saved?

You have to admire the humility of these people.

Actually, not so much, since it amounts to nothing more than a kind of Pharasaic gossip about other people, i.e., God is so lucky to have them, unlike those other people with their wrong "gospel."

My experience could be wrong, but I don't ever see Catholics spend time "tut tutting" about whether Protestants are saved. Catholics will certainly argue for Catholic doctrine against Protestant doctrines, but somehow Catholics don't appoint themselves judges of the salvation of Protestants as a class.

That probably has something to do with the Catholic notion that God makes those decisions and humans don't get a vote in the matter.

Doubling Down.

C. Michael Patton goes "all in" after his post arguing his view that "Roman" Catholics cannot be "true scholars" by posting an essay on "Why I hate Roman Catholics."

The title of the essay is a kind of passive-aggressive rebuke to people who criticized his first essay.  Patton seems to be arguing that he has been unfairly attacked for hating Catholics, when, in truth, he has the most open mind imaginable and actually spent a year investigating Catholicism.

As they say, "whatever."  The responses to Patton's first essay didn't accuse him of "hating Catholics."  The responses were actually quite calm and intellectual critiques of Patton's cognitive dissonance in denying the beam in his eye, namly that he has first principles he cannot deny if he wishes to remain an evangelical and a true scholar - such as the Resurrection or the Incarnation. The comments are interesting and worth reading.

In response to this most recent post, Bryan Cox - who certainly qualifies as a "true scholar" - comments:

You might remember that scene in The Hunt for Red October where a Russian sub named the Konovalov fires a torpedo at another sub named the Red October, but the captain of the Konovalov was so confident that his torpedo would hit the Red October (because it was at such close range), he had deactivated the safety mechanisms on the torpedo, so that it became armed right at launch. But the torpedo misses the Red October, and subsequently locks on to the Konovalov instead, at which point, just before the torpedo impacts the Konovalov and destroys it, the Konovalov’s assistant officer turns to the Konovalov’s captain and says,


“You arrogant ass. You’ve killed us!”

I was reminded of that scene, when I read your comment above: “However, when it comes to theology and, most specifically, exegetical studies of the Bible, I don’t think he or she can be a scholar, since they lack the academic freedom to disagree with Rome.”

That’s because if you replace the word ‘Rome’ with the words ‘Jesus and the Apostles,’ you’ve just destroyed the possibility of Christian scholarship. And you have no non-arbitrary way of preventing that term-replacement.

Cox gets extra points for the pop culture reference.
 
Jeremy at Unsettled Christianity offers this interesting insight, namely after his baptism, he couldn't be a non-Catholic scholar even if he tried:
 

Upon returning to the Church, however, I was surprised to find out that my marriage was invalid … yes, that’s right invalid. The Church considered it invalid in the sense that it was not sacramental. I literally could have gotten divorced and gotten a quick annulment at that point (Thankfully my wife didn’t seize on her last opportunity for freedom as we had our marriage convalidated shortly after I returned to the Church and she started the RCIA process). And why was my marriage invalid? “Lack of Canonical Form.” In other words, I had not, as a Roman Catholic, obeyed the canonical requirement of being married in a Catholic Church witnessed by a priest or deacon (or with a dispensation from the bishop of my archdiocese outside of the Church).


But, wait a second … I was an ordained Southern Baptist minister not a Roman Catholic. Well, as it turns out, a person is Roman Catholic by virtue of their baptism. I discussed this with my instructor when trained to be an advocate for annulment cases. I knew this from the Catechism (paragraph 1280) at that point: “Baptism imprints on the soul an indelible spiritual sign, the character, which consecrates the baptized person for Christian worship. Because of the character Baptism cannot be repeated.” But, he put it a bit more eloquently; he said something to the effect: “you may have gotten wet, but you didn’t get baptized again.” Baptism is an indelible mark, and not even becoming an ordained Southern Baptist could remove it.

Now, at the same time I was a Southern Baptist minister, I was also getting my MA in Old Testament and Hebrew language and starting my doctoral program in Biblical Languages (which praise and glory to God I just finished). I get my years mixed up, but I believe I gave my first SBL presentation and wrote a peer-reviewed journal article before returning to the Church (though these did not deal with theology, I obviously dealt with theology in local church settings). It’s possible my papers and publication came a little after, but regardless of the time frame there is a sense in which I was a scholar before returning to the Catholic Church.

So, this presents an interesting situation. While I was a Southern Baptist, I was still, according to the Church, a Roman Catholic bound by canon law with with regard to my marriage, so much so that I could have had a short form annulment. And, I was also a scholar in the area of Biblical Studies and Biblical Languages. Ironically, I believe there is some real sense in which I could have been considered a Catholic biblical scholar when I was a Southern Baptist minister, at least in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Otherwise the Church holding me responsible for canon law wouldn’t make a great deal of sense. Again, baptism is indelible.

Now, would I have been a Catholic scholar faithful to the Magisterium of the Church? Of course not. Would I have been a scholar with a mandate from a bishop to teach Catholic theology? Of course not. But, a Catholic is Catholic by virtue of their baptism, not because of agreement to doctrinal formulations. Of course, the Church would hope that faithfulness to Magisterial teaching would follow upon baptism, otherwise there might not be that much point in remaining Catholic. And, there are ways of being excommunicated or even excommunicating oneself. I suppose even I could have pleaded for excommunication. But, I don’t imagine that this is where the majority of Catholics who disagree end up.

Throwing down the Gauntlet.

C. Michael Patton claims that "Roman Catholic Scholarship" is an "oxymoron."

Oxymoron means “sharp dullness.” It describes a figure of speech in which two words that are contradictory are put together. For example, “accurate rumors” is an oxymoron. Why? Because by definition, a rumor is not yet deemed to be accurate. Other examples could include: “insane logic,” “public secret,” “instant classic,” or my favorite, “government intelligence.” However, over the years I have come to believe that ”Roman Catholic scholarship” is an oxymoron. I don’t believe one can be a Roman Catholic and a scholar at the same time. Well, let me put it another way: I don’t believe one can be a true Roman Catholic and a scholar at the same time. Why? Because being a Roman Catholic militates against what makes someone a scholar in my opinion.


I know, I know. I don’t ever write this . . . this . . . well, this polemical. It seems as if I am discrediting Roman Catholic scholarship with a heavy hand by an ad hom fiat. Please know this is not what I mean to do. There are going to be plenty of people thrown under the bus with this one. In fact, let me start by saying there are many Roman Catholics whom I deeply respect. I am not anti-Catholic. As well, there are many Roman Catholics whom I believe qualify as scholars. However, once they become a scholar (and I am talking about theology here), as I will explain, they have to depart to some degree from Rome. I am not saying that they actually depart from their core Catholic beliefs. I am simply saying that they must suspend their commitment to Rome in order to meet what I believe to be an essential characteristic of scholarship.

And:

What does this have to do with Roman Catholicism? Well, as you can see, this post is about much more than just the viability of Roman Catholic scholarship. While what I have described above is very difficult for anyone with deep commitments, it is most difficult, in Christianity, for those who exist under authoritative human leadership. Christian traditions do not get much more authoritative than Roman Catholicism. To be fair, there are unspoken authoritative structures in many Christian traditions that, while not claiming infallibility, do share the same fundamental guidelines. Outside the Christian faith, it is not much different. I find atheists have the least ability to question their atheism, but this has more to do with personal emotional fundamentalistic commitments than any human authority. This is why atheism boasts of being the most objective, but this boast is, most of the time, very empty.


Roman Catholicism, however, exists under a official umbrella of authoritative – indeed infallible - dogmatic assertions. Again, while no one is completely objective in their studies, Roman Catholics, when it comes to their defined dogma, cannot really study objectively. Why? Because their conclusions are already laid out. For example, if a Roman Catholic is interpreting the Scriptures, he must come to conclusions that are in line with what Rome has already said about the subject. He doesn’t have the freedom to disagree. He doesn’t have the freedom to doubt, if the doubt implies an actual possibility that Rome is wrong.

This is why all true Roman Catholics “scholars” are necessarily apologists who follow the prejudice of Rome, not the the data. Were they to doubt and come to conflicting opinions on something the Church has dogmatized, they are no longer, by definition, Roman Catholic.

In truth, most Roman Catholics don’t function in this way. In fact, the Roman Catholics whose scholarship I trust the most are a bit rebellious. They are not truly Roman Catholic. Apologists on the inside of Rome would call them “cafeteria Catholics,” since they pick and choose which beliefs they like best.

This is not to say that the trust they put in Rome is ill-founded. I don’t happen to think the magisterial authority of Rome is worthy of such trust, but that is not the subject of this post. Another time, maybe. This simply means that when it comes to biblical and theological studies, the designation “Roman Catholic scholar” is an oxymoron. Their conclusions, no matter how unlikely, must sing in harmony with Rome. However, it must be said, that if they are right and the Magisterial authority is infallible (which is the key meta-issue before all others between Protestants and Roman Catholics), then their methodology is secure to the degree that they can demonstrate this claim.

While Protestantism is certainly not perfect, there is freedom for true biblical and theological scholarship to exist. Protestants don’t have to be lawyers defending a client of tradition, but can instead be investigators of truth. We can be critical scholars. Whether or not we always practice this is a different matter, but the issue is one of allowance. Yes, the greater the allowance, the more the diversity. But the greater the allowance for diversity, the greater the possibility of true conviction to exist. Evangelicals can let the evidence take them wherever it leads, not simply to a predetermined destination. Therefore, I believe Protestant Evangelicals can practice true scholarship to a degree that other traditions, especially Roman Catholicism, cannot.

Another excuse to ignore all of Christian history between Paul and Martin Luther.

Who really needs to pay attention to the history of Christianity prior to 1517 because those people really didn't grow up until Martin Luther?

C. Michael Patton illustrates his (tentative) way of thinking about the history of Christianity as being the equivalent of a person growing up, complete with the rebellious and immature ways of thinking characterized by the "Dark Ages," which didn't end until 1517.

So, apparently, all of Christian intellectual developmet from St. Augustine through St. Thomas Aquinas gets swept into a pigeon-hole called the "Dark Ages," where they are completely labeled "not sufficiently mature" for serious Christians. 

Never mind that the Dark Ages ended prior to the 1000 A.D., or that by the 12th Century, Europe was building great cathedrals and had a university system and unrivalled in the world.

I don't doubt that this way of thinking represents the authentic thinking of many American protestants, for whom the period between approximately 60 A.D. and 1517 (or, more likely, the founding of their local church by "Pastor Bob" in 1985) is a dark and obscure period.  Most Americans do conflate the "Dark Ages" with the "Middle Ages," because of the succesful polemics of Protestants and Secular Humanists who wanted to distinguish their "enlightened" age from a darker time. 

Likewise, I had a Baptist law partner who had no embarrassment in telling me, as a matter of simple fact, that Catholicism was "transitional paganism," which meant that the period from Christ to the discovery of the "pure Gospel" by Martin Luther was a long, long period of a pagan culture evolving into true Christianity.

Likewise, this model contains the core theology of American secularism - a belief in progress.  Under the American view of progress, development is always upward, nothing abandoned in the past had any value, and the goal of all history was to lead to us.

Obviously, this model is a cartoon, a caricature that reassures, rather than challenges its adherents to learn some actual history.