Open Letter to a Protestant: response to his letter of 10 May 06

B---

To keep this short, I have taken out everything addressed in other emails.

I stand by my belief that you are, in fact, in love with the romantic notion of Rome more than you are engaging this on a matter of being convinced by Scripture and plain reason.

I have never been able to make out why Protestants so often accuse Catholics of wicked and false motives, regardless of how well the Protestant knows the Catholic. I have my suspicions, though this is hardly the place for them. But I will say that the objection itself merely begs the question: it would indeed be wrong to profess Catholicism if it were false - but that condition remains unproven. Once you prove Catholicism is false, then logically you can accuse me of believing something false; but certainly not before.

The objection is also fallacious in another sense, and perhaps to illustrate this point I can reverse the situation. Let's pretend I accused you of being hopelessly in love with the Protestant notion of anti-Catholicism; and let's pretend you objected, "What? Where in the world do you get that idea?"; and to that I said, "Well, from the plain fact that you have repeatedly attacked the Catholic Church of course." Immediately one can see this kind of special pleading proves nothing, since it cuts both ways, and this I suspect is something like the ground of your claim. That I defend the Catholic Church no more proves I am in love with some romantic ideal of Rome than that you attack the Catholic Church proves you are in love with the Protestant ideal of anti-Rome.

Part of my reason for saying this is to lay to rest your ad hominem attacks and return the conversation back to the intellectual grounds of the Catholic claims, which is more interesting to me than what you imagine my motives are for defending Catholicism. Nevertheless, if you still feel like you must defend your earlier slander, I welcome you to try to prove it from my own writing - or to admit you cannot. At any rate, I hope you are not one of those Protestants who prefers cheap shots at Catholics without grounding them in facts; nor one of those who think simply to make a derogatory assertion (especially about Catholics) is almost to have proven it. And I certainly hope you are not one of those who think that, once a charge has been made, the burden of proof rests with the one on whom it was made to cast off (especially if he is a Catholic) rather than with the one who made it to prove. But if that burden is too much for you, it would certainly be easier, and I would certainly prefer, that we set aside all fictionary charges of the heart and returned to question of whether this or that teaching of Catholicism is true.

If that seems like an attack on you, so be it.

This is a good example of rhetorical evasion. For example, suppose I were to say to you in the course of a conversation, "Like most Protestants your tradition of anti-Catholicism is based on false caricatures and doctrinal distortions; and as with all lies, I know who the father of this tradition is," and suppose you objected and demanded that I give concrete evidence of my claim (as you would have every right to do). Then suppose I waived the point in question with a casual "Well! if that seems like an attack on you, so be it" - that would be an example of rhetorical evasion. This device is very often used in debate, and it allows one both to make an outrageous or unfounded claim against one's opponent and then avoid defending or giving evidence for that claim by speaking of the accusation as if it were a self-evident truth which all honest men recognized (when in fact it is only recognized by one side). I heard a similar thing once on an annoyingly conservative Republican talk-show in Texas which said that "everyone" recognises the Democratic Party has universally abandoned morality.

Needless to say, I am not taken in. Clearly you were sharply criticising me.

I think that KJV-only types are afraid of the stickiness and uncertainty of Greek and Hebrew and that they are love with the romanticism of Ye Olde language rather than putting a, what I believe to be a decidedly healthy, priority to accuracy and clarity.

The analogy between those who think the Authorized Version is the only true English translation and Catholics who think that Christ came to establish one faith is a false analogy. The question of Biblical translation rests by definition on how suited this or that word, phrase, or expression is to rendering the inspired Hebrew and Greek. The question of whether or not Christians are supposed to be bound together in one visible society (as both Christ and Paul say) rests by nature on whether or not that was a revealed truth. The question is not how do we render this or that phrase, but was this revealed. Translation is one thing, revelation another.

Further, for one of them to, in light of what I would say to them, then fall back on "jot and tittle," I would probably say something similar about wasting our time; and, even if they didn't feel it was wasting their time (because I seemed so 'unable' to counter their brilliant "jot and tittle" thesis and resorted to personal attacks)

I have never met a KJV-only person and so I am not familiar with their arguments or opinions. But if you cannot argue against their "jot and tittle" thesis (whatever that means), whether brilliant or not, the right thing to do is to admit you cannot and say that you are nonetheless unpersuaded by their arguments for it (assuming they made them). The wrong thing to do is to resort to ad hominem attacks and unjustly distort and misrepresent their position, which is exactly what you have done here.

For the record, I think anyone who is so hopelessly devoted to any one expression of Christianity needs a healthy thump on the head.

My argument against your ecclesiastical pluralism is in another email, but seriously B---, I have a hard time believing that even you think of yourself as some kind of religious world-view thumper or healthy head-bopper.

I don't think that, on most things anyway, various expressions are truly as at odds with each other as they think; I think it has much more to do with them each describing a different portion of the whole.

The analogy between demoninations and the six blind men trying to understand the elephant is another false analogy. In the case of the elephant each blind man was perceiving one aspect of the same material thing. To prove any of the blind men wrong, one only needs to have recourse to that material thing (the elephant) with all five senses. The various Christian denominations do not disagree about material things; therefore, it is impossible to have recourse to the senses to prove any denomination wrong. They disagree about spiritual things, for which no sense has direct apprehension. Reason and faith are the guides we have in matters of the spiritual world; therefore, in a discussion on the spiritual world, reason and faith (considered both as objects and acts) are the only principles which ought to guide the conversation. And if faith itself is in question (as it is here), reason is the guide.

Even a superficial study of the various creeds of the Christian Churches will reveal how much they blatantly contradict each other, e.g., the Lutherns and the Baptists on the Eucharist, the Orthodox and the Calvinists on justification, Anabaptists and Methodists on infant baptism. Furthermore, the most natural assumption in the case of two groups which claim to have contrary beliefs is to think that they both in fact have what each side claims to possess. The burden of proof then lies with you, to prove they do not profess or believe contrary doctrines. If the burden is too heavy, I welcome a concession.

Admittedly, I say "most things," because I think that Rome's angle on a handful of things are fantastically unbiblical and, in fact, dangerous to the Faith.

I would only like to note the following: you have constantly alluded to there being some unbiblical teachings in Catholicism, but you have never given a solid argument for this proposition. Saying that Paul never once mentioned Mary -- even though he did in passing (in Rom & Gal) -- does not prove that the Catholic doctrine on Mary is unbiblical, only that it is extra-biblical. Even suppose Paul never did mention Mary, what follows from that? St. James's letter does not mention the doctrine of the Atonement; are we to conclude he did not believe it? Why do you think that the few apostolic writings and epistles we have left from Paul and others contain the whole content of their mind, or (even more strangely) the whole Gospel? I have never been able to make out why you or any other Protestant holds such an unnatural opinion. Try to make out the history of ancient Rome from the few extant letters of some of its great politicians and from the fragments of its histories, or see if you can find the whole philosophy of ancient Greece from a small selection of a few brief letters of its chief exponents, and you will have something like the state of the case as regards finding the true religion of Christ in the Bible. Imagine if I took some of your letters which were never intended for publication, brought them out in one volume, and then proceeded to claim I could find the whole content of your mind by reading these letters. It would be an absurd claim which ignored the real, historical person. This much I will grant: if the whole revelation of God in Christ is found on the surface of Scripture, then the Catholic doctrine on Mary is false. I admit that the conclusion follows from the premise and the argument is consistent, but I see no reason to grant the protasis. Indeed, it seems extremely unusual to assume that Scripture is what it does not say it is, namely, the only guide to faith and morals and a book which sufficiently contains everything we need to know about religion and God. Nor would Scripture be gravely lacking if it was incomplete -- that fallacious argument only begs the question by assuming what needs to be proven! It says, "Because all we have is Scripture, therefore Scripture must be complete," which again is a sound argument but not a true one. The conclusion follows from the premise, but why would anyone grant that particular premise? It would be equally sound and equally false to argue, "Because all we have is the books of Moses, therefore they must be complete." The books of Moses are not all we have, and neither is Scripture. If I granted the first half, I would certainly grant the second to be consistent. But again, I can find no honest reason to grant the first. And I can think of no reason why anyone else would either. Why should Scripture be all we have? The revelation of God in Christ was given first and foremost to people, to a living community of faith which from generation to generation passed on and developed the contents of that revelation, and only secondarily to an inspired text. Why should I reject one and accept the other? It would make more sense to reject both or accept both than to accept Scripture and reject the apostolic community which both wrote and gathered Scripture into what it is.

Most of all, I think the arrogance of presuming such unique, rock-solid certainty on such things as birth control ... and pointing at everyone else outside of the Roman sphere as being outside of the One True Faith is mind-blowing to me.

How similar this charge is to the one brought against our Lord. Jesus "made himself out to be God" and the Catholic Church "makes herself out to be His Church" -- how alike indeed! I wonder, do you also attribute the miracles within the Catholic Church to Beelzebub?

The Church is indeed built on a rock, on the rock of St. Peter. The Founder of our Church, Christ himself, told the apostles this: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). What, if not Peter and the Apostles, is the Church built on? Do you object to the Church being built on Peter? Do you object to the Catholic Church teaching what Christ taught, namely, that His Church was to be built on the rock of Peter and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it? Would you have rather He found it on something else? Perhaps on private judgment? Maybe on sola Scriptura? Well in any case He did not, and Scripture tells us what He did do. Or perhaps would you move that foundation and create a new church built on someone else? There are no lack of alternatives. Arius, Luther, Donatus, Zwingli, Nestorius, Calvin, Pelagius, Wesley, Marcion, Knox, Valentinus, Wycliff, and many others. But Scripture tells us about them too: "No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). The Church is founded and established on Christ and by Christ, and built on the rock of Peter; but you dismiss and reject the Church of the Apostles. And yet St. John tells us the fate of this Apostolic Church: "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev. 21:14). And Paul too bears witness to this same truth, saying that the Church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." Or do you think that because the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the Body of Christ, when she also teaches the Church was built on the rock of Peter she therefore contradicts herself, as if there were two foundations? She no more contradicts herself than Scripture contradicts itself, for she teaches both of these truths, as Scripture does. Why then do you reject the Church which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and the rock of St. Peter, for it was the same which was established by Christ Jesus?

To me (and, you'll notice I use phrases like that a lot), the men should have been tossed out long prior to such lewd excesses and their official works--if not torched altogether--should have been sifted through carefully by qualified, pious men.

Then you would claim to do more than Christ himself, who permits the weeds and the wheat to grow together in His Church. I am grateful, at least, that my Savior is more gentle and merciful than you.

I've had disgusting, fallible leadership in my past and I will turn to the Bible as being sufficient (though certainly not exhaustive) before I suggest for one minute that Rome is the One True Faith.

How strange! As a reaction to personal sin in the world you conclude that you can trust no one but yourself and your own judgment -- as if you and I both were not just as sinful as any other person! (Yes, even those wicked popes.) If sin disqualifies someone from being trusted, you ought never to trust yourself. Yet you in fact do trust yourself -- and others -- so you cannot really think that the sinfulness of a person necessarily means they are teaching something false. You trust many people, geographers, astronomers, historians, and others, many of whom sinned as much and more than those in the body of Christ. So why are you distrustful of sinful spiritual leaders? You will never find any other kind on earth. Did the fact that Peter failed to understand Christ's mission, immediately after he confessed that Jesus was the "Son of the living God," somehow make that confession false? By no means! Or perhaps you think there should not be spiritual leaders on earth? That Christ came to establish a private religion which has no external manifestation to the world? I doubt you think this, but if you do, read Acts again. When local churches were founded, elders were appointed; and when a dispute arose, the disciples of Christ had recourse to the "apostles and elders" in Jerusalem (14:23; 15ff.). In fact the second generation of Christians were very insistent that all the disciples of Christ maintain visible union with the apostolic episcopacy. The church of the Apostles, as the church today, has always had spiritual leaders, some of whom (sad to say) have not and do not live up to their calling. Their teaching may not have transformed their life (as it should have), but the failure of immoral leaders to witness to the truth they profess by moral action does not negate the truth of their claims.

I don't know what to say when I think that prayers to Mary fall on deaf ears and, in fact, grieve the Holy Spirit in their breaking of, what I believe to be, very clear instructions and patterns set forth in Scripture of praying exclusively to the Father.

Again, this I can easily grant: if the Catholic doctrine on the communion of saints is false, then the practice of invoking the dead is wrong. But you have never made an argument against that premise, nor asked me to make an argument for it. Prayers to saints are a practical application of the doctrine of the communion of saints, so if you want to make an argument against praying to Mary you need to specifically address and refute this teaching. This requires more work than an easy retort does, but the first step of objecting to the Catholic Church is knowing the what and the why of her teaching.

I'm confused about even praying to Jesus, although I'm quite convinced of praying only to Trinitarian Deity.

Wow. I am truly surprised by this, B---. My prayer for you is this: that Christ reveals himself to you as God, and as worthy of prayer.

To me, it is Christ alone who reins, not Christ-'n-Mary. The Lord alone is worthy of our praise.

To you, sure, that's fine. But God says otherwise: again and again Scripture tells us the saints reign with Christ (e.g., 2 Tim 2:12; Rev 5:10, 20:4-6). Or do you think that because the saints reign with Christ that somehow diminishes His sovereignty? Of course not! The saints reigning with Christ no more threatens Him than our adopted sonship in Him threatens His perfect sonship. If you want, I can draw out this argument.

If the various doctrines were put forth with a posture of, "We believe this is right and true," that would be fine. However, "This is infallible on the basis of it coming from Us"? Nuh-uh.

How is it pride to say, "I know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, because it is revealed in Scripture"? It has been revealed by God, therefore it is certain, therefore it is not pride to claim it as certain. God has not lied to us in His revelation. What He has revealed we may be certain about. We do not need to doubt or half-believe the truths of revelation.

Hey, if I get to Heaven and Jesus says, "Gee, B---...I really wish you would have prayed to my mom more," I will certainly be accountable for my choices.

I doubt he will. Seriously, why should he? Is this really what you think the Catholic Church teaches about Mary? Then, B---, be at peace: the Catholic Church has never taught that one must honor Mary in order to be saved.

I must still stand by my convictions that there are no UFOs to be suggested as reasonable conclusions for Shakespearean plays and there is no praying to Mary (among other, to me, obviously erroneous extra-biblical suggestions/conclusions from Rome).

This comparison is so far-fetched it is not even worth responding to.

Here I stand. I can do no other.

But I have not asked you to move or stand elsewhere. My primary object here is not to convert you to Catholicism but to answer your objections to the Catholic Church, lay out the arguments for this or that doctrine or practice when needed (or asked), and challenge you to answer my objections to Protestantism. So go ahead and stand wherever you want, only please stop distorting Catholicism and reducing it to over-simplified, easily dismissable points. Not even the Catholic Church which you think is a corrupt "sham" will defend the absurd propositions you lay down as "Roman Catholic."

Peace, etc.