the unity of the catholic church

Since, as previously reported, Gerry Matatics web site went bye-bye, his old pal Bob Sungenis has swooped in to provide a response to Karl Keating’s scathing email. We’re seeing the precursors to another all out mud-slinging fest between these fine, upstanding examples of how the Roman Catholic Church assures unity among it’s body of believers.

Regarding Keating’s latest e-mailing, Sungenis quips, “After reading this I felt like getting on a plane to San Diego and walking into Mr. Keating’s office and giving him a few choice Christian admonishments, but I decided against it, since I might be tempted to scream at him just like Gerry Matatics did.”

You can read Sungenis’ complete response here, as he then goes on to condemn Catholic Answer’s method of evangelism in a response to one of their reader-letters. All this is very amusing to me, since it’s been my constant assertion that the unity claimed by the Roman Catholic church just doesn’t exists, except in name alone.

I am a Canadian, and so are a lot of other people. Yes, we are united in the sense that we are all obligated to follow the federal laws and statutes of this nation, but there’s barely two Canadians anywhere that can agree on the suitability or interpretation of the assorted laws, government legislation, taxation, etc. I am a Christian. Yes, all Christians are united in the sense that we are obligated to follow the statutes of God, but barely two Christians agree entirely on what those are, and how they are to be interpreted. One advantage of being a Protestant, however, is that myself and my Pentecostal brother can sit down with the Scriptures and talk over our interpretations and understandings of various passages. Meanwhile, if I were Roman Catholic, I’d have not only the expanded Scriptures, but every Papal bull & encyclical, church council canons, the writings of the early church fathers, plus the verbal statements of all the current authorities to interpret and attempt to understand in such a way that it could be applied. When is it an ex-cathedra statement? When is it not? What degree is bound by historical context, which is not? When the Council of Florence declared ”those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life” where they right? Was Pope John Paul II making an infallible statement when he said, “Through the practice of what is good in their own religious traditions, and following the dictates of their consciences, members of other religions positively respond to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even though they may not recognize Him as their Savior.”

When Catholic Answers, in their article entitled “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth” states, “Although popular with many “Bible Christian” churches, the “Bible alone” theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among “Bible-believing” religions. Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians.” they seem to believe it is a better thing to have tens of thousands of devotional groups, monastic organizations, and folks pledging themselves to their favorite patron saint, just as long as we’re all united under the name “Catholic.”

If this so-called “unity” is just words, it doesn’t really mean anything. It reminds me of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Lutheran and Catholic churches. Even though many of the words used therein are understood in two entirely different ways by the different parties, they can call it a joint declaration – but it’s just words. It has no practical application. In his opening statement at The Great Debate with James White in 2001 on Long Island, Father Peter Stravinskas commented, “…I really wish the title of this would be a little different. I would frankly prefer something like “The Great Conversation” or “The Great Dialogue”. Why? Well, because I think we should have learned a lesson from history that, for example, the medieval disputations with the Jews did little to bring them to Christ or to His Church. Nor did their 16th century equivalent do all that much for Martin Luther. In our own time, however, we have found a couple of very promising things occur. First of all, the Catholic dialogue with Nestorian Church, which broke from Catholic unity about 15 centuries ago, has, as a matter of fact, resulted in a theological consensus, poising us for serious talks on organic reunion. And secondly, the very impressive fruit of the Lutheran/Catholic dialogue which has been the Joint Declaration on Justification. I think these results were achieved because we decided to set aside an approach which might be termed “a theology of confrontation” in favor of a “theology of convergence,” which should not be confused, however, with compromise. In other words what I hope is that we can try to find some language which stresses important areas of agreement, which can then help us move more confidently into areas of continued disagreement.” (Emphasis mine)

Ah, so let us find unity in phrases and words subject to personal equivocation. How is that better? Is that going to circumvent “untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians?” Of course not. Whether you’re Catholic or Protestant, we all agree that God gave us the Scriptures, and that the Gospel of the grace of God is contained therein, expressed in words. The moment that we are ashamed of those words, does that not make us ashamed of the very Gospel itself? (Romans 1:16)

I think this idea of unity is all well and good, but lets talk about practical unity, not this fluffy, arbitrary word-redefining kind.

the joy of being rich!

No, I don’t mean wealthy, I mean Rich Pierce, President of Alpha & Omega ministries! I was being a pain earlier, bugging him about the fact that he hadn’t uploaded yesterday’s Dividing Line yet, but the truth is – this guy works his [edited by cds] off. Consider what it takes to handle all the incoming email, book-orders, the webcast, and somehow (by the grace of God) put up with James’ accents!

Let’s have three cheers for Rich Pierce (aka AOMin on the chat channel)! Leave your comments of praise for all his excellent work.

Oh, and you can listen to yesterday’s Dividing Line here…

www.gerrymatatics.org

It seems Gerry Matatics web site (http://www.gerrymatatics.org) has vanished. While his whois information is still there, and the domain doesn’t expire until next year, his host’s nameservers are completely ignorant of the domain. If anyone knows any further info, leave a comment. Maybe Karl Keating’s advice that Gerry “would do the Church a favor by finding another line of work” flicked a switch?

Speaking of web sites… are you Nigerian? Are you profanely wealthy? Feel the urge to send email announcing it to complete strangers? Here’s a website for you!

what assurance?

What I find fascinating about Roman Catholic “assurance” is the fact that it’s no assurance at all. One cannot say, with infallibility today, that Pope John Paul II’s teachings will not be overturned by a later Pope. One cannot say, with confidence, that a given interpretation of a Papal encyclical is accurate. I, as a Protestant, can’t even be sure that, as I address a Roman Catholic individual, I’m addressing the official teachings of the Church, or simply that individual’s interpretation of the teachings.

However, the constant drum-beat is “for two thousand years this has been the constant teaching of the church” and yet there is hardly one single teaching in all of Church history that can truly stand on that statement. Even the doctrine of the Trinity was subject to strange understandings in the early church. That is not to say that it’s untrue. Unfortunately, the idea of determining a doctrinal pedigree with any kind of universal consensus to feed our desires for assurance is a fruitless exercise.

Now, to make matters more confusing, one can’t even determine who to “give an answer” to in such a way that it will be effective. Obviously, we are to give an answer to anyone who asks, but when referencing someone who may be “representative” of a position, it’s becoming more and more difficult to find a subject that will be accepted by the person you’re speaking with. The traditionalists don’t like the modernists. The modernists don’t like the fundamentalists. Some groups who claim to be “True Catholic” have disowned John Paul II, thus earning for themselves the label “schismatic heretics.” Check out the amazing claims of groups like TrueCatholic.org. Then turn around and check out the extreme traditionalists, people like Robert Sungenis, who are comfortable saying things like “To my knowledge, there is no ex cathedra established procedure for formally acting upon and removing a heretical pope from office. If there was, I would have appealed to it long ago.” See anything in common?

Recently, as I made some comments regarding the doctrine of Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity, a young lady asked, “…why are you arguing points of Catholic theology with Gerry Matatics, might I ask? Last I heard, he was on the fringes of Catholicism, and can hardly be called orthodox.” This falls in line with Karl Keating’s recent report on Gerry’s unusual behavior, as documented in his recent email:

Last week I was the object of screaming by Gerry Matatics. After thirteen years’ absence, he came to San Diego to give a talk. The evening ended with him gesticulating and yelling at me at the top of his lungs. It was a weird and disturbing sight.

[...]

Toward the end of the evening, Matatics referred to my January 13 E-Letter, which may be found at http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp

In that E-Letter I wrote about “The Point,” a little journal printed by Feeney’s original group in the 1950s. I listed the titles of the twelve issues published in 1957. All but one was about Jews and the problems they allegedly cause. I said that Feeney’s group was “preoccupied with the Jews, to the point of obsession.”

Not so, said Matatics. The Feeneyites were not obsessed with Jews. They simply were concerned about the salvation of Jews. I rolled my eyes.

In the U.S. of the 1950s, Jews were outnumbered by Protestants. They also were outnumbered by people of no religion. Jews then, as now, represented about two percent of the American population. Subtract Catholics from the mix, and Jews represented about three percent of the population.

So why were eleven out of twelve issues of “The Point” focused on perceived problems with Jews? Where were the articles about Protestants, members of Eastern religions, and unbelievers? They, too, by Feeneyite standards, are not on the road to salvation. Why so much supposed solicitude for Jews but not for Baptists or Hindus or agnostics?

I reminded Matatics’s audience that Feeney’s men used to go to Boston Common and give public lectures. When talking about Jews, they used slurs such as “kike.”

A woman in the small audience asked what “kike” meant. I explained that, with respect to Jews, it was the analogue of the “n-word.”

Someone using the latter word to refer to blacks is suspected of racism–and rightly so. Similarly, someone using “kike” to refer to Jews is suspected of anti-Semitism.

Matatics turned up the volume. His friends at the Saint Benedict Center were not anti-Semites, he yelled.

I didn’t say they were, I replied. I had been writing about the original Feeneyite group of the 1950s. In my E-Letter I noted that today’s Saint Benedict Center reprints articles from “The Point.” I asked whether today’s group repudiates the anti-Semitism of the 1950s. My words were lost in the din caused by Matatics and his fans.

He was visibly agitated. His voice went from a yell to a scream and eventually broke. He was on a rant. I couldn’t make out what he was saying, and I couldn’t get a word in.

But I could get out. I was standing by the door, and I went through it, Matatics screaming after me. I was relieved that he didn’t chase me as I made for the hotel’s exit.

As I stood in the night chill, several people gathered around me, shaking their heads at what they had witnessed. One smiled consolingly and said the evening had reduced my time in purgatory.

Maybe, maybe not. But I know it reduced, almost to oblivion, the residual regard I had for Gerry Matatics, and it reaffirmed my belief that he would do the Church a favor by finding another line of work.

Now, I don’t know whether Keating’s report is an exaggeration or not and, quite frankly, that isn’t the point. I do, however, think it’s absolutely amazing to watch as these people who claim to represent an infallible Church, that is SUPPOSED to provide assurance and unity are all nipping at each others heals as they desperately try to undermine each others positions and interpretations of Papal teachings and church history.

Umm, forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that what they claim is wrong with Protestantism?

dividing line

Great Dividing Line tonight (other than the accents), with a few callers with interesting questions, as well as a reading from Karl Keatings latest emailing. Hilarious!

Click here to listen to it

god-blogger

lol! I guess my blog was reviewed briefly by BlogsCanada at the end of December. Just came across it today. This is kinda cute:

God-blogger, Pete, at pete’s house of infinite ramblings reminds us of the true meaning of Christmas. Pete also has an interesting post about teens who wish they hadn’t had sex – yet.

God-blogger? I kinda like that!

cold snap!

Brrr! Woke up to a very chilly Sunday morning, and it looks like it’s going to continue all this week. I bundled up in my new winter coat and gloves (thank you, honey!) and headed out to brush the car off on Sunday morning. As I turned to the door, the panicked deck-officer cried out, “Your Tauntaun will freeze before you reach the first marker!” Sneering, I pulled my hood over my head and snorted, “Then I’ll see you at church!”

Oh, hang on – that’s not what happened. Sorry about that, sometimes I get confused. Anyway, it’s been hovering around -20° (that’s -4° for you silly Fahrenheit people). While many might consider such cold unlivable, I grew up in Smith Falls, Ontario. I am, therefore, familiar with -40° winter days (that’s -40° for you silly Fahrenheit people). I’ve learned to appreciate the moderating effect of the Atlantic ocean.

If any of you from, say, the Phoenix area would like some free snow, you’re welcome to come up and take it with you. We’ll keep it cold for you. But in case you’re wondering how we pass the time up here when it’s this cold: Check out our national winter sport…

what’s cooking

Ah Saturday! How hath I missed thee! Got up bright n’ early this morning and refilled my caffine tank, and started baking. While I know there’s lots of traditional folks out there who believe it’s the women’s responsibility to do the cooking, that’s not so in my house. I really enjoy cooking, and now that we have a dishwasher, I don’t mind the mess and hassle of baking.

So I whipped up a bunch of cookies. If you’re a parent, and you want to make a batch of chocolate chip cookies for lunches and so forth, I found a great recipe. They’re not the soft chewy ones that I love, but they make a whole bunch, and my daughter likes ‘em:

Chocolate Chip Cookies
3 cups margarine, softened 2 1/2 cups white sugar 2 1/2 cups packed brown sugar 2 teaspoons vanilla extract 4 eggs	8 cups all-purpose flour 4 teaspoons baking soda 1 teaspoon salt 4 cups semisweet chocolate chips
1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). 2. In a large bowl, cream together margarine, white sugar, and brown sugar until smooth. Beat in the eggs and vanilla. In a separate bowl, mix together flour, baking soda, and salt. Add to egg mixture, and mix well. Stir in chocolate chips. Instead of just dropping them onto the cookie sheet, I roll the cookies into balls – it makes them all look very uniform and nice! 3. Bake in preheated oven for 12 to15 minutes, or until light brown. Cool on a wire rack. Yields about 84 cookies!

unsightly dust buildup?

Dr. White put another response on his website to the assorted blogs out there. It’s starting to get a little ridiculous, since the entire discussion is primarily now focused on Galatians 2:4. False brothers snuck into the church to spy on the true believers, and make them slaves to works. Thusly, the “ex opere operato” camp seems to be saying, “See? They may have been false, but they were still brothers!” I guess, on the matter of Matthew 24:24, one could make the argument, “Well, false Christs are coming… but they’re still Christs.”

Before engaging the topic at hand, Dr. White mentions part of his reason for continuing this “battle of the blogs”: “…there is benefit to continuing the conversation simply because it is this very kind of exchange that, if the issue is left unresolved, leaves people believing the Word is incapable of communicating truth with clarity and force.”

Agreed. Sometimes the worst answer to a question/comment is no answer at all. In an email from a Catholic friend, he makes mention of some of the issues that helped bring about his conversion to Rome. One of the issues was the canon of Scripture, and the fact that, when he asked about it within his small group, it was never answered. Perhaps if someone had been there to give him a solid, historical response, things may have been different.

On the other hand, when you’re engaged in one of these discussions that seem to go on and on, with neither side willing to give an inch, at what point to you simply say, “Enough!” When is it appropriate to shake the dust from your feet, and move on? I find this an extraordinarily difficult call to make. I think back to my conversion less than four years ago, and the struggles I went through as my various humanistic precepts were chipped away like an antiquated river dam, desperately attempting to withstand the constant pounding of truth. Last year I was asked to lead a brief Bible study in the women’s Sunday-school class at my church (don’t ask!) and I started out by mentioning how awesome it was to be asked to teach Melanie’s class, since the last time I was in a small group with her, I denied the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, the existence of Satan, and a number of other issues.

Earlier this week, James asked me to dig up a backup of this funny little web page, and in doing so, I came across a number of other ancient treasures stashed on an old hard drive. Among them, I found a rant written on the subject of predestination. While the author was obviously still immature, and still trying to sort the matter out, what I found odd was that this individual chose to completely ignore every single scriptural passage regarding the free choice of God, or man’s inability. You’d think that during the course of discussing predestination, he might bring up Romans 8 or Ephesians 1. No, he chose to base his entire denial of unconditional election on Genesis 3:8-9, claiming that in God asking, “Where are you?” He was giving Adam the choice of how to respond.

I’ve read a lot of writings on unconditional election, and this has to be one of the most irrational and illogical I’ve encountered. While he makes a vain attempt to find a middle-ground, he misrepresents both the Calvinist and Arminian sides in order to make his own defense of libertarian free will seem like a moderate “middle ground.”

Now, as un-christianly as it may seem, in this case I feel very comfortable in declaring the author of this essay nothing short of a blustering buffoon. He was obviously a very immature Christian, and had not taken the time to carefully examine these things in scripture. I can declare these things because I know the author intimately: It’s me. I wrote that rant back in 2001. As embarrassing as it is, I’m putting it here because it makes a good point.

I wonder what would have happened if folks had knocked the dust from their shoes with me. I’m very thankful that they didn’t, and I was gradually brought into the truth. In reading that essay, I can also see how I could have easily been drawn into far more serious errors, and I thank God for restraining me. The folks I knew showed great patience with me, and permitted me the freedom to discover things for myself, while offering friendly nudges here n’ there to keep me from going completely rogue.

So, where does one draw the line? I don’t have the answer to that, but I’d love to hear your comments. At this point I’m willing to just say, “Okay, you do your thing, but please display the same patience that you displayed with me.” I was too quick to condemn Dr. White for getting lost in the blog-smog, and should have remembered what his tenacity did for me in my walk. God is so cool in the way He teaches.

On a side-note, I love subtle humor. Dr. White posts on his blog that he thinks I’m right when I say responding to blogs is a waste of time. Argh! I’m responding to his response! Will the madness never end? Keep on giving an answer for the hope you have, brother. Do it with the same gentleness and respect you showed me.

battle of the blogs -or- who made who?

In case you missed the “special edition” of the Dividing Line Monday night, you can click here to listen to it. It was “special” mainly because Dr. White took off for New York on Tuesday and was therefore unable to do the regularly scheduled broadcast, but it was also a little unique because he chose to address the ongoing drama taking place on assorted Christian blogs.

Now, personally, I believe that trying to address all these blogs published by folks of assorted positions is pointless for two reasons. The first and foremost is simple ego. Just as Dave Hunt seemed willing to accept some correction prior to the publication of “What Love Is This?” it rapidly became clear that no correction would be accepted after the ink had saturated the pulp. People just aren’t overly open to correction after they’ve confidently put themselves out there. I’m no exception to that rule, but after seeing what’s been going on among these other folks, I’ve realized I’ve got to be more open to rebuke and correction.

Secondly, I believe that Dr. White’s attempts to respond to all these blogs, while admirable, is ultimately self-defeating. I can certainly understand his reasoning behind the attempt, but I’ve also seen how quickly things can get out of control until we end up with what we’ve had lately: The Battle Of The Blogs. I believe Dr. White’s time is much better spent engaging in other activities – like ensuring I’m getting the correct dosage of anti-psychotics.

Thankfully, I’ve been pretty much left out of this battle, since it’s definitely not something I’m anxious to engage in. One thing I’ve noticed as I read through the assorted entries is that there seems to be a misunderstanding that I’ve fallen victim to on more that a few occasions. To a degree, it has to do with accountability: Who’s to blame for error?

On more than one occasion, as I’ve engaged in discussions of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, people have misunderstood precisely who I am discussing. They think I’m bashing them, or their aunt, or their mom. They feel I’m leveling a personal attack against the typical Catholic individual. Nothing could be further from the truth! I know many Roman Catholics, and many I consider friends. There are even some that I would be comfortable calling “brothers” or “sisters.”

My argument is not with the Roman Catholic individual – it is with the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is the “infallible teaching magisterium” that I call into question. There are thousands of folks attending Catholic churches out there who have no idea that the Church still claims infallibility, and that every infallible pronouncement the Church has made in history must be accepted true today just as much as when it was originally pronounced (although, the Church is also allowed to put a new spin on historical pronouncements). Although, it is left up to the Roman Catholic apologists out there to say whether a pronouncement was infallible or not – they disagree with each other depending on their level of conservativeness.

So, speaking for myself, I recognize that there are many sincere folks out there who are members of fellowships that I consider to be in error. I also recognize that I have many brethren who are in other fellowships, not because of the teachings of the church, but for social, familial or comfortable reasons. I remember, years ago, trying to engage a Catholic friend of mine on the topic of purgatory, only to hear that the “Church doesn’t teach that anymore”. That statement was made out of ignorance, of course, and I could easily demonstrate otherwise today.

Some folks tend to make logical leaps, often based on thier own experience, or even their mood (I know I do it sometimes). When I posted an entry discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary, one young lady commented, “What do you have against the Virgin Mary, anyway?” She took a strange leap in assuming that because I believe Mary had anormal, God-honoring relationship with her husband that I must be anti-Mary or something. That makes no sense. The same is true that when I say, “The Roman Catholic Church is in error when it teaches that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice that provides satisfaction for sin, and turns away the wrath of God” – that does not equal, “I hate John Doe Catholic because he’s a big doodoo-head and a heretic!” That’s just ridiculous.

Are there saved people in the Roman Catholic Church? Yes.
Can the Roman Catholic Church save people? No.

As Bob Dylan said, though, “it’s only my opinion I may be right or wrong.”

“Where do you look for this hope that you know is there
And out there somewhere
And your feet can only walk down two kinds of roads
Your eyes can only look through two kinds of windows
Your nose can only smell two kinds of hallways
You can touch and twist
And turn two kinds of doorknobs
You can either go to the church of your choice
Or you can go to Brooklyn State Hospital
You’ll find God in the church of your choice
You’ll find Woody Guthrie in Brooklyn State Hospital

And though it’s only my opinion
I may be right or wrong
You’ll find them both
In the Grand Canyon
At sundown”

-Bob Dylan (“Last Thoughts on Woody Guthrie”)