Apologetics for the Masses - Issue #190

General Comments

This Friday I will be speaking at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Huntsville, AL, which will take place at noon at Whitesburg Baptist Church. If you’re in the area, come on down!

Introduction

This issue continues my commentary of the blog post by Dr. Peter J. Leithart, a Presbyterian, or Reformed Presbyterian, or Reformed Evangelical, or Reformed Evangelical Presbyterian…I’m not sure which…anyway, his blog post was entitled, “Too catholic to be Catholic.” You can see the 1st half of this commentary in the last issue (#189) at www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter.

I will once again put his entire blog post first, and then I’ll repeat his comments with mine interspersed on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, picking up where I left off in the last issue.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Too catholic to be Catholic
Dr. Peter J. Leithart

My friends tell me that my name has been invoked in various web skirmishes concerning Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, sometimes by people, including friends, who claim that I nurtured them along in their departure from the Protestant world. My friends also hinted that it would be good for me to say again why I’m not heading to Rome or Constantinople or Moscow (Russia!), nor encouraging anyone to do so. Everything I say below I’ve said before in various venues – on this blog, in First Things, in conference presentations. But it might be useful to put down my reasons fairly concisely in one place, so here tis.

One of the major themes of my academic and pastoral life, and one of the passions of my heart, has been to participate in the healing of the divided church. I have written and taught a great deal on ecclesiology; I participate in various joint Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox ventures (Touchstone, First Things, Center for Catholic-Evangelical Dialog). I consider many Catholics and Orthodox friends as co-belligerents in various causes, and I think of Catholicism and Orthodoxy as allies on a wide range of issues, not only in the culture wars but in theology and church life.

This isn’t just a theological niche for me. It’s a product of a deep conviction about the nature of the church. I still remember the pain I felt when I first understood (with James Dunn’s help) what Paul was on about in Galatians 2, when he attacked Peter for withdrawing from table fellowship. The division of the church, especially since the Reformation, has largely been a story of horror and tragedy, with the occasional act of faithful separation thrown in. I regard the division of the church as one of the great evils of the modern world, which has seen more than its share of evils (many of which are, I believe, quite closely related to the division of the church). What more horrific sight can we imagine than to see Christ again crucified? Christ is not divided. I think our main response to this half-millennium of Western division, and millennium-plus of East-West division should be deep mourning and repentance.

My Protestantism, my reformed catholicity, isn’t at all in conflict with that passion for church unity. There is no tension at all. On the contrary, it’sbecause I am so passionate to see the church reunited that I, not grudgingly but cheerfully, stay where I am. My summary reason for staying put is simple: I’m too catholic to become Catholic or Orthodox.

I agree with the standard Protestant objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy: Certain Catholic teachings and practices obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ; prayers through Mary and the saints are not encouraged or permitted by Scripture, and they distract from the one Mediator, Jesus; I do not accept the Papal claims of Vatican I; I believe iconodules violate the second commandment by engaging in liturgical idolatry; venerating the Host is also liturgical idolatry; in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, tradition muzzles the word of God. I’m encouraged by many of the developments in Catholicism before and since Vatican II, but Vatican II created issues of its own (cf. the treatment of Islam in Lumen Gentium).

Here’s the question I would ask to any Protestant considering a move: What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople? Are you willing to start going to a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome? How is that different from Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles? Are you willing to say that every faithful saint you have known is living a sub-Christian existence because they are not in churches that claim apostolic succession, no matter how fruitful their lives have been in faith, hope, and love? For myself, I would have to agree that my ordination is invalid, and that I have never presided over an actual Eucharist. To become Catholic, I would have to begin regarding my Protestant brothers as ambiguously situated “separated brothers,” rather than full brothers in the divine Brother, Jesus. To become Orthodox, I would likely have to go through the whole process of initiation again, as if I were never baptized. And what is that saying about all my Protestant brothers who have been “inadequately” baptized? Why should I distance myself from other Christians like that? I’m too catholic to do that.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy are impressive for their heritage, the seriousness of much of their theology, the seriousness with which they take Christian cultural engagement. Both, especially the Catholic church, are impressive for their sheer size. But when I attend Mass and am denied access to the table of my Lord Jesus together with my Catholic brothers, I can’t help wondering what really is the difference between Catholics and the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans or the Continental Reformed who practice closed communion. My Catholic friends take offense at this, but I can’t escape it: Size and history apart, how is Catholicism different from a gigantic sect? Doesn’t Orthodoxy come under the same Pauline condemnation as the fundamentalist Baptist churches who close their table to everyone outside? To become Catholic I would had to contract my ecclesial world. I would have to become less catholic – less catholic than Jesus is. Which is why I will continue to say: I’m too catholic to become Catholic.

One final reason has to do with time. I cut my theological teeth, and still cut them, on James Jordan’s biblical theology. At the end of Through New Eyes, Jordan argues just as the temple was unimaginable to Israelites living through the collapse of the tabernacle system, so the future of the church is unimaginable to us. We can’t see the future; we can’t know how God is going to put back the fragmented pieces of His church. We can trust and hope that He is and will, but all we have access to are the configurations of the past and present. It’s tempting to imagine that the future of the church will be an extension of some present tradition – Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist, whatever. But the future never is a simple extension of the past and present (how can it be, with the massive surge in Christianity in the global South?). So I remain contentedly and firmly in my reformed catholicity, but I remain also eager and impatient for the church to come. Of that church we know nothing except that it will be like nothing we know. We worship a living God, which means (Jenson tells us) a God of constant surprises.

-————————————————————————————————————

Dr. Leithart:
I agree with the standard Protestant objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy: Certain Catholic teachings and practices obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ; prayers through Mary and the saints are not encouraged or permitted by Scripture, and they distract from the one Mediator, Jesus; I do not accept the Papal claims of Vatican I; I believe iconodules violate the second commandment by engaging in liturgical idolatry; venerating the Host is also liturgical idolatry; in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, tradition muzzles the word of God. I’m encouraged by many of the developments in Catholicism before and since Vatican II, but Vatican II created issues of its own (cf. the treatment of Islam in Lumen Gentium).

John Martignoni:

Okay, now we’re starting to get to the core of it here. Dr. Leithart agrees with the “standard Protestant objections to Catholicism and Orthodoxy.” He pronounces that "certain Catholic teachings and practices obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ." Then there’s those troublesome practices of prayers to Mary and the Saints. And, of course, all of that “tradition that muzzles the Word of God.” Let’s also not forget that Catholics worship statues and a piece of bread – both acts of “liturgical idolatry.” And, of course, he doesn’t accept the Papal claim of infallibility. How can the Pope be infallible, after all, if he disagrees with Dr. Leithart? I mean, here he is, infallibly pronouncing on doctrine and dogma for Catholics, and Orthodox, alike. So, since Dr. Leithart is infallible, the Pope obviously cannot be.

Again, this is why I always say that to be Protestant is to deny, ignore, or twist logic. Think about what he’s saying here. Forget all the other infallible pronouncements he makes and let’s just focus on the “liturgical idolatry” part of what he said. He accuses Catholics of worshipping statues. He apparently thinks we believe statues are actually gods (that’s the whole thing about "iconodules" and the 2nd commandment) – “liturgical idolatry,” he calls it. He also accuses us of worshipping a piece of bread as being a god. Again, in this practice, he charges us with “liturgical idolatry.” Yet, one of the main themes of his blog post is that the Catholic Church is not being very “catholic” because it will not allow him to participate in their liturgical idolatry! How bizarre is that?! He gets upset because we will not allow him to fellowship with us at our table of liturgical idolatry! This man is taking Catholics to task for not allowing him to participate in what he calls liturgical idolatry! The breadth and depth of the absurdity of what this man is saying truly boggles my mind. He just flicked logic out the window of his car like it was a used up cigarette butt.

Dr. Leithart:

I agree with those objections, but those are not the primary driving reasons that keep me Protestant. I have strong objections to some brands of Protestantism, after all. My Protestantism – better, reformed catholicity – is not fundamentally anti-. It’s pro-, pro-church, pro-ecumenism, pro-unity, pro-One Body of the One Lord. It’s not that I’m too anti-Catholic to be Catholic. I’m too catholic to be Catholic.

John Martignoni
Sorry, but he’s not “too Catholic to be Catholic,” he’s too full of himself to be Catholic. Can you believe what he’s saying here? The fact that he thinks Catholics commit liturgical idolatry by worshipping statues and a piece of bread; that Catholic teachings “obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ;” that our prayers to Mary and the Saints distract from Jesus; that we make false claims about the Pope; and that our tradition “muzzles the word of God;” and, yet, these are not the “primary” reasons for him remaining Protestant! My goodness, what could be more egregious than worshipping false gods? You want to know what’s more egregious than that? We don’t invite him to participate in our liturgical idolatry, that’s what is more egregious than worshipping false gods..

He’s not “anti” heresy, or “anti” the worship of false gods, or “anti” tradition that “muzzles the word of God,” or “anti” practices that “distract from the one Mediator, Jesus,” rather, he is “pro-church, pro-ecumenism, pro-unity, pro-One Body of the One Lord.” What does that mean? It’s all a lot of nice sounding words, but in the end, it’s just a load of Martin Luther.

How is he pro-ecumenism and pro-unity and pro-church? Well, for him, it all basically boils down to fellowshipping at the Eucharistic table. How is it he is too catholic to be Catholic? Well, unlike those horrible Catholics who exclude him from their liturgical idolatry, he is more than happy to invite Catholics – Catholics who worship false gods; Catholics who believe in traditions that “muzzle the word of God;” Catholics who commit “liturgical idolatry;” Catholics whose teachings “obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ” – to fellowship with him at table.

You know, he cited the example of Paul taking Peter to task for “withdrawing from table fellowship” with the Gentile Christians, and, of course, Dr. Leithart would never withdraw from table fellowship with fellow Christians – that’s why he’s “too catholic to be Catholic.” But I have to ask: Does he really think Paul would have fellowshipped at table with people committing “liturgical idolatry?” Would Paul have fellowshipped at table with people who worshipped false gods? Would Paul have fellowshipped at table with people who held to traditions that “muzzled the word of God?” Yet, Dr. Leithart is apparently more than happy to do so with Catholics who, by his own words, do all of these things. I guess, when you get down to it, Dr. Leithart is probably more too catholic to be Pauline as well.

And, notice, not only does he pronounce authoritatively regarding Catholic doctrine and practice, but here he pronounces that there are “some brands of Protestantism” that he “has strong objections to.” Again, showing himself to be the Pope. The Catholics are wrong. The Orthodox are wrong. And, hey, guess what, those Protestants that disagree with me…well, they’re wrong, too. As Gomer Pyle used to say, “Surprise, surprise!” Pope Peter II.

Dr. Leithart:
Here’s the question I would ask to any Protestant considering a move: What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople? Are you willing to start going to a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome? How is that different from Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with Gentiles? Are you willing to say that every faithful saint you have known is living a sub-Christian existence because they are not in churches that claim apostolic succession, no matter how fruitful their lives have been in faith, hope, and love? For myself, I would have to agree that my ordination is invalid, and that I have never presided over an actual Eucharist. To become Catholic, I would have to begin regarding my Protestant brothers as ambiguously situated “separated brothers,” rather than full brothers in the divine Brother, Jesus. To become Orthodox, I would likely have to go through the whole process of initiation again, as if I were never baptized. And what is that saying about all my Protestant brothers who have been “inadequately” baptized? Why should I distance myself from other Christians like that? I’m too catholic to do that.

John Martignoni
Aye, and there’s the rub. Buried in the middle of that paragraph is the seed from which all of this has sprouted. Here’s the question I would ask Dr. Leithart: Doesn’t all of this really come down to the fact that you “feel” your ordination is valid, and that feeling, that sense of self-worth that you receive from your position, is more important to you than doctrinal truth? Isn’t all of this “too catholic to be Catholic” nonsense really all about the fact that you feel personally slighted by the Catholic Church not allowing you to receive the Eucharist at her altars? Which means the Catholic Church is essentially making a statement that not only casts doubts on the legitimacy of some of your beliefs, but, more importantly to you, they are making a statement that casts doubts on the legitimacy of how you identify yourself – Ordained Minister and Pastor. And you are, in essence, unwilling to even consider the fact that your ordination may indeed be invalid. You are unwilling to even consider the possibility of having to make that sacrifice in order to heal the divisions in the Body of Christ.

Yet, here is the Catholic Church – with their ever so un-catholic rules and regulations – pretty much keeping that possibility hanging out there in front of you. So, you have to do what you can to de-legitimize the Catholic position. You have to do what you can to keep yourself from even having to think about the possibility that your ordination may indeed be invalid. You are quite comfortable being Pope, thank you, and you don’t want anyone to upset that apple cart, so you will engage in whatever logical and theological contortions are necessary to maintain your papacy

The thing here, is that Dr. Leithart never once asks the question…does not even seem to be concerned with the question…of: What is the truth? What if it is true, as Catholics claim, that Protestants are not living a “sub-Christian existence,” as Dr. Leithart wants to characterize it, but rather they are not living the full and complete Christian existence, as a Catholic might characterize it? What if the Catholic claims regarding the Eucharist, for example, are true, and that it is the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ? Wouldn’t Dr. Leithart run to the Church where he could actually receive and be in union with the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Apparently not. At least, not as long as the Catholic Church “withdraws from table fellowship” with those who do not share her beliefs. It seems that more important to Dr. Leithart than questions regarding the truth of this or that doctrine, is a question of “inclusiveness.”

Furthermore, there is something in this paragraph that I simply had to comment on. Look at what he says about apostolic succession. He basically says that apostolic succession is of absolutely no importance. He admits that the Protestant churches do not even “claim” apostolic succession. Well, if they don’t even claim it, then can we not be 100% sure that their ordinations are not valid? After all, if they don’t have apostolic succession, then by what authority do they ordain their ministers? By Martin Luther’s authority? John Calvin’s? Zwingli’s? Joe Blow’s? He knows that he is not in the line of legitimate apostolic succession, yet, it’s no big deal. Why not? Because if it was a big deal…if apostolic succession actually mattered – and I can’t imagine why having an unbroken chain of the laying on of hands reaching back to the Apostles could possibly be of any significance – if that actually mattered, then he would have to admit that his ordination is invalid. And he just cannot bring himself, again, to even considering that possibility.

Dr. Leithart:
Catholicism and Orthodoxy are impressive for their heritage, the seriousness of much of their theology, the seriousness with which they take Christian cultural engagement. Both, especially the Catholic church, are impressive for their sheer size. But when I attend Mass and am denied access to the table of my Lord Jesus together with my Catholic brothers, I can’t help wondering what really is the difference between Catholics and the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans or the Continental Reformed who practice closed communion. My Catholic friends take offense at this, but I can’t escape it: Size and history apart, how is Catholicism different from a gigantic sect? Doesn’t Orthodoxy come under the same Pauline condemnation as the fundamentalist Baptist churches who close their table to everyone outside? To become Catholic I would had to contract my ecclesial world. I would have to become less catholic – less catholic than Jesus is. Which is why I will continue to say: I’m too catholic to become Catholic.

John Martignoni
Again, the overarching concern for Dr. Leithart is not truth, not correct doctrine, rather it is inclusiveness. He apparently believes that Jesus is an all-inclusive "catholic,” and he does not want to become “less catholic than Jesus is.” Apparently, that verse where Jesus says He has come to bring division (Luke 12:51) isn’t in Dr. Leithart’s Bible. Jesus says He is bringing division, because the truth divides. And the truth is, that if the Catholics are right in their beliefs, then we are perfectly right and just to “withdraw from table fellowship” with the Protestants.

Furthermore, if Dr. Leithart is right in what he says about the Catholics, then what in Sam Hill is he doing by offering table fellowship with us? Paul says in 1 Cor 11 that whoever “eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord” must do so in a worthy manner. Can Catholics who commit liturgical idolatry, receive in a worthy manner? Can Catholics who believe in traditions that “muzzle the word of God,” receive in a worthy manner? Can Catholics who pray to Mary and the Saints, and in so doing distract from Jesus, receive in a worthy manner? I don’t see how that could be possible. Yet, those things don’t seem to hold enough import for him to withdraw from table fellowship with Catholics.

What does Paul say to the Galatians, in chapter 5 of that epistle, if they wind up receiving ritual circumcision? He tells them they will be severed from Christ. Paul, Mr. Leithart’s inclusiveness hero, would apparently withdraw from table fellowship with the Galatian Christians if they receive circumcision. Surely receiving circumcision is not as bad as committing liturgical idolatry, is it? Surely it is not as bad as muzzling the word of God, is it? Surely it is not as bad as obscuring the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, is it? Yet, Paul would apparently withdraw from table fellowship with those Christians over something that seems to be much less of an offense than worshipping false gods…like the Catholics do. So, it seems that Mr. Leithart’s magnanimous acceptance of Catholics, and other such heretics, at table with himself, actually makes him more "catholic" than St. Paul ever was. Either that, or Dr. Leithart is saying things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever – logically or theologically. I wonder which it could be…?

Simply put, Dr. Leithart is wrong in oh so many ways in what he has written. He is wrong in what it means to be “catholic,” and he is wrong in what it means to be “Catholic.” Truth is, Jesus is not as “catholic” as Dr. Leithart, and neither is Paul, least ways, not in the way Dr. Leithart defines “catholic.” In fact, no one is as catholic as Dr. Leithart is.

Dr. Leithart:
One final reason has to do with time. I cut my theological teeth, and still cut them, on James Jordan’s biblical theology. At the end of Through New Eyes, Jordan argues just as the temple was unimaginable to Israelites living through the collapse of the tabernacle system, so the future of the church is unimaginable to us. We can’t see the future; we can’t know how God is going to put back the fragmented pieces of His church. We can trust and hope that He is and will, but all we have access to are the configurations of the past and present. It’s tempting to imagine that the future of the church will be an extension of some present tradition – Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist, whatever. But the future never is a simple extension of the past and present (how can it be, with the massive surge in Christianity in the global South?). So I remain contentedly and firmly in my reformed catholicity, but I remain also eager and impatient for the church to come. Of that church we know nothing except that it will be like nothing we know. We worship a living God, which means (Jenson tells us) a God of constant surprises.

John Martignoni:

You know, I could be wrong about this, but doesn’t it make more sense that the “catholicity” of the Church would necessitate that it retain a nature that Christians of all time, in all places, would be familiar with? Isn’t that what the word “catholic” implies – that it is the same across time and space? Yet, Dr. Leithart is talking about a future church that will be “like nothing we know.” Doesn’t sound like a very “catholic” church, does it? I guess maybe it would be a reformed catholic church.

Truth is, Dr. Leithart has to contend these things, because his church today is unlike anything Christians of the past would recognize. Least ways, no Christians before the 1500’s. The Christians of the 1st 15 centuries of the Church would not be at home in Dr. Leithart’s church. They would not recognize it, they would not know it, they would not understand it. The Christians of the first 15 centuries, however, would be right at home in the Catholic Church. Because it truly is catholic.

As I’ve mentioned, one of the basic problems of everything Dr. Leithart has said, is that truth seems to be, at best, a secondary concern. Whether your doctrines are true or not, does not seem to be a consideration for Dr. Leithart as to whether or not one should be accepted at the Eucharistic table. You believe in liturgical idolatry? Hey, not a problem…come on down. You believe in traditions that muzzle the word of God? Hey, not a problem…come on down. You have teachings and practices that obscure the free grace of God in Jesus Christ? Hey, not a problem…come on down. You, too, are welcome at the eminently catholic Dr. Peter Leithart’s Eucharistic table. Too catholic to be Catholic? Yeah, right.

Finally, there is one very significant underlying problem to all of Dr. Leithart’s arguments that he apparently has not even bothered to consider – the historical fact that we did not withdraw from table fellowship with you, you withdrew from table fellowship with us. That is the termite that gnaws at the wood of the Protestant soul.

In Conclusion

I hope all of you have a great week. Don’t forget, we’ve got 5 new CDs available from various folks, and please be thinking about the trip to Italy next June – we’ve already received interest from about a dozen folks so far. (For more information on that, see the “General Comments” in Issue #189 at www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter.)

How to be added to, or removed from, the list

If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to www.biblechristiansociety.com and click on the “Newsletter” page to sign up. It will take you about 10 seconds.

$RemovalHTML$