Archives For May 24, 2017

Reformers recognized that those earlier believers were not inspired, were not inerrant, and, in fact, quite often made errors in their judgments and beliefs, just as people do today. The only infallible rule of faith, they argued, is found in the pages of Holy Writ. The big differences between Catholic and Protestant versions of sola scriptura are that Catholicism believes an authority in the form of the papacy is necessary along with tradition. One of the big ironies about sola scriptura is that the same arguments against Protestantism are used against the Orthodoxy by Catholicism. So between Orthodoxy and Catholicism you have two churches claiming the authority of tradition, and yet their authorities conflict with each other; their traditions conflict with each other. And yet, they laugh at Protestants.

The problem is that human wisdom is fallible, and not a sufficient foundation for believing anything about God. It is not sufficient to assume that when the New Testament speaks of tradition, it means tradition in the sense of the Roman Catholic or Orthodoxy way of understanding tradition. God’s Word needed to be written down to govern His people through all generations. And so it’s not surprising that this written Scripture became the standard for testing.

This is why I can appreciate Bishop Barron’s approach to Catholicism and the Reformation. I too think its better for Protestants and Catholics to find common doctrine to build on rather than create animosity. I do appreciate that he unlike other Catholic thinkers does acknowledge the faults in the Church when dealing with the reformers and not being receptive to the criticisms. I do think however that he does still tend to dance around some of the fundamental issues for the cause of the separation between the churches. Those fundamental issues being: purgatory, the mass, transubstantiation, indulgences, the treasury of merit, penance, the rosary, prayers to Mary, holy water, the papacy, and on and on. What you will find is that biblical exegesis does not support these traditions only a supposed Apostolic Oral Tradition.

I do enjoy the more traditional and liturgical aspects of Catholicism. I studied Latin from an early age and on a stay in Rome I had the pleasure of attending a Benedictine vespers. Very awe inspiring and actually made me want to consider the Catholic faith. However I did not make the switch mainly due to my reservations in the differing theologies.

Interesting take on the differences between Pope Francis and Pope Benedict with a nice twist at the end. I was half expecting the author to eventually side with Francis since he is clearly the more popular of the two particularly among non-Catholic believers. Perhaps that explains why Mr. Schmitz agrees with Pope Benedict’s message enduring long term due to its unpopular but doctrinally sound positions.