Renewed Denial of the Roman Catholic Church, part 1: The Temptation to Become Catholic Again

Back in June, I confessed in a conversation on Facebook that much of Protestantism annoyed me.  Longtime readers will know that I believe in consistency — hermeneutics should be consistent, interpretations of passages should incorporate what has gone before, and your bar of acceptable proof should be even across all areas of your life.

Protestantism just isn’t consistent.  Protestants throw out whole swaths of Christian tradition and invent new things.  They claim they follow the Bible closer than Catholics, but do they?

No, as it turns out.  Most Protestants tell you that faith alone saves you.  Yet the Bible, held to be the word of God, forcefully argues that this isn’t the case.  The sentence “You see that a person is saved by works and not by faith aloneactually appears in the Bible (Jms 2:24)!

Another example is that most Protestants reject Catholic Tradition on the grounds that it developed later than apostolic times.  Interesting.  So, Marian dogmas originated in the mid to late second century, while the papacy developed over a few hundred years to solidify in the sixth century, and clerical vestments were developed in the tenth century.  All of those are rejected for the alleged late development.

Now, if Protestants were consistent, then there a few of our own cherished doctrines that should go.  Some came over 800 years later than the latest dogma of the Church rejected as a “late development.”  The 6,000 year old earth concept was developed in the sixteenth century.  The Rapture wasn’t mentioned until around 1850 in any literature that I’ve ever seen.  Altar calls are from the late 1800s, too.

The early Reformers came up with the idea of the seven Catholic Sacraments as symbolic of Christ rather than literal dispensers of grace over and against Tradition.  The Eucharist was no longer a true sacrifice in the sense of being the literal body and blood of Christ and one with the first sacrifice on Calvary, but now becomes a symbol of the death of Christ (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p1365-1367; cf. the Westminster Confession XXIX.2).  Again, this is over and against not only Tradition, but the Bible (see 1 Cor 11:23-32).

The universal church was founded by Jesus Christ, not by Martin Luther or John Calvin.  So it is wholly inconsistent to throw out vast quantities of Sacred Tradition just because you feel like it, or because you lack the historical understanding of the evolution of the Christian faith.  The teaching functions of the Church have been eliminated or minimized in Protestantism–to its detriment, I believe.  What we end up with a range of possibilities, from no central teaching arm to a carbon copy (but less effective) of the Catholic hierarchy.

My own Grace Brethren denomination has no higher authority other than the individual pastors of individual churches.  Presbyterian have a constitution that can change through a majority vote from the individual presbyteries; but members must abide by the Westminster Confession of Faith, which cannot change.  The Anglican/Episcopal church has monarchical bishops, but no central Pope figure (though the Archbishop of Canterbury has certain “primacy” over the larger church, but not nearly what the Pope has over the Catholic Church).

The lack of a centralized teaching authority in Protestantism sorely tempted me to rejoin the Catholic Church.  In the next post, I want to discuss high church.  It is both biblical and necessary for the body of believers to remain in union with one another.  But that alone cannot bring me to be Catholic, as it turns out, and we will see why in part 3.

About Cory Tucholski

I'm a born-again Christian, amateur apologist and philosopher, father of 3. Want to know more? Check the "About" page!

Posted on September 14, 2011, in Apologetics, Bible Thoughts, Roman Catholicism, Theology and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. Just to say, Cory dear, I’m out here listening, and asking the Lord to help you with part three!

  2. Hey, just a “quick” thought: It is important how you define “faith” in this conversation. People who say that you are saved by grace through faith “plus nothing” are correct IF and ONLY IF they define faith in such a way that lines up with James’ statements that faith without works that IDENTIFY it as such is NO FAITH AT ALL. Those who say all you have to do is “believe in Jesus” and fail to have any idea even what THEY mean by that–and thereby entirely miss the point that faith is only faith IF and ONLY IF it produces obedience to Christ–are painfully ignorant and wrong. As a Protestant, I regretfully admit that much of Protestantism would fall into the latter category.

    Faith MUST be defined as belief + obedience to God. Would you believe someone who said they had faith in a boat’s sea-worthiness if they refused to even step inside of it for 10 seconds for fear of sinking? Is that faith? In the same way, we do not have faith if we do not obey. You have to at least be on the journey, asking God to change your heart.

    Both Catholic and Protestant traditions have major problems as a whole, which is why the point is NEVER to have your full identify in a faith tradition, but rather with WHO YOU ARE IN CHRIST and WHAT YOU DO WITH JESUS CHRIST. There are both devoted Catholics as well as Protestants who do “all the right stuff” according to their faith traditions who are going to hell because they do not have real, saving faith. (There’s a difference between following a set of rules and loving/obeying God, by the way. How many rules do you have to follow to cause yourself to love God with your whole heart?) Likewise, there are both devoted Catholics and Protestants who are going to heaven because they 1) Love God and love people with all their hearts, 2) have allowed God to transform them into a new creation, and 3) are saved by grace, not of their own doing, through faith (which is belief + obedience to God). How many times did Jesus mention that if you love Him, you will obey Him, or else you will have no part in Him?

  1. Pingback: Renewed Denial of the Roman Catholic Church, part 2: The Centrality of the Church « Josiah Concept Ministries

  2. Pingback: Renewed Denial of the Roman Catholic Church, part 3: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary « Josiah Concept Ministries

  3. Pingback: Follow Up #1: What is Faith? « Josiah Concept Ministries

  4. Pingback: Why I’m Not Roman Catholic « Josiah Concept Ministries

  5. Pingback: Why I’m Not Roman Catholic (Redux) « Josiah Concept Ministries

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: