Thank you for posting. There is a lot of good stuff in here, and it’s quite edifying as I am a Confessional Lutheran who, from time to time, feels the allure of Rome. How could I not — I’m engaged to a Roman Catholic! That said, though I do have some points…
First, on the point that the Roman Catholic Church, as we know it today, being the church Christ founded: the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox make the exact same claim and make the same claim to apostolic succession, as other commenters note. This has only further been muddied by church history suggesting the Bishop of Rome as merely an authority, rather than the supreme authority, among bishops (again, as EO/OO and the Reformers argue). I struggle with these conflicting claims, and it has certainly given me pause to wholeheartedly commit to swimming the Tiber, though I understand why one would commit to any particular side of this historical debate.
Another hang-up I’ve consistently had on the primacy/supremacy of the Pope is the interpretation of that passage from the Gospel of Matthew that you quote. In his retractions he wrote later in his life, St. Augustine stated:
“I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church,’ as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God’; and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, ‘Thou art Peter.’ But the rock was Christ, [1 Cor 10:4] whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable." (Retract., i, 21)
Pair this with many instances of Scripture where God is called a rock: 2 Samuel 22:2, Psalm 18:46, Psalm 62:6, Psalm 144:1, Isaiah 26:4, Exodus 33:21, etc. This, of course, was not the unanimous interpretation of the Church Fathers when it came to that verse (the lack of censure or outcry toward St. Augustine for saying such a thing also suggests this was not his view alone nor a doctrinal error against the church on his part), but this does dig at a deeper issue the Reformers pointed out rather effectively in the Book of Concord, among other confessionals: the Early Church is not as unified and theologically consistent as RC apologetics would have you believe.
As for the idea that the Roman Catholic Church being incapable of corruption, I suppose I should start out by saying as institutions operated by men, it is my belief that any church denomination may encounter corruption from time to time; my denomination, the LCMS, is certainly not immune, but given the counter-reformation presented by the Council of Trent, and an agreement with many of Luther’s theses, Rome admits it can err or encounter corruption as well, albeit not of a doctrinal nature, as it would assert.
That aside, you choose an interesting translation of Matthew 16:18 to cite. Most translations I read do not use “the powers of death”; rather, most say “the gates of Hell” or “the gates of Hades” will not prevail against it or overcome it (“it” being the church). I find this interesting, because most commentaries I read note that a gate is a defensive structure, and this passage takes on a very different meaning when we view the church as on the offensive rather than the defensive against Hell. It also does not foreclose the possibility of corruption or error occurring from time to time, merely that such corruption or error will not prove fatal to the church or “lift the siege” in keeping with Jesus’ imagery.
All this is to say that I respect your journey from non-denominationalism to Roman Catholicism and admire your willingness to share your testimony; I am certainly grateful for it! I merely wish to proffer my own responses to some of your points, with no intention of changing your mind; rather, I hope my response inspires further reflection and study of these things. I resolved to sit down with both my LCMS pastor and an ecumenically-minded Roman Catholic priest to discuss these and other topics in greater detail, as I too have much to learn.
This is really much appreciated brother, thank you for taking the time to comment, Augustine's quote is really interesting, what's the book/source for that? Definitely interesting in reading more. About the Orthodox Churches, I admit I need to study the history of the schism more haha. God bless you brother, and it's really cool to read comments like this one, which help me keep learning and moving forward in faith.
Of course! As for the citation, I cited chapter 21 but it’s actually chapter 20 of St. Augustine’s Retractions, titled “One Book Against A Letter Of The Heretic Donatus.”
Great question, and the honest answer is: I don't know enough about the schism to give a good answer. Orthodoxy is definitely closer to Catholicism than Protestantism though, so I think most of the arguments work in support or Orthodoxy (except the issue of Papal authority, which I'll mention in the next article).
Hello sir! Stumbled upon these open letters and they have been such a blessing. Thank you for your honesty and intentionality! Something of which I have a hard time coming to terms with is church institutional theology and biblical imagery of who the people of God are. Because in theory, these are synonyms for one another are they not? Yet, when I compare these two things I get conflicting data. Christian institutionalism seems to say something as to the effect (although this is simplistic) the people of God are marked by being found in X church in which Christ founded. However, biblical imagery for the people of God both in the OT and NT says, yes you may be the seed of Abraham, and even sit in the seat of Moses (ie within the “right” institution) however, being a true “Israelite” isn’t your ties to Abraham and being within ethnic Israel, and being physically circumcised, it is your allegiance to Yahweh alone, and being circumcised in heart which makes you a true Jew, Israelite, and a son of God (and I believe the same can be imported and said about the Church, of which by Paul’s reasoning in the letter to the Romans, is the true Israel by following after Messiah). To me, this feels vastly different to the church as mainly an institution theology, however, this doesn’t mean that the church is purely invisible. Rather when I survey church history, and the fruits of believers all around me (from literally every major church tradition, including non-denom Protestants!) it makes me conclude that the Church is where Christ is present. And where I see Christ present in an institution, there the Church is. All of that to say, currently my understanding of all of this is that Christ isn’t bound to one institution; however, He is present and establishes His Church wherever the gospel is advanced in His good and mighty name. I’d love to know your thoughts on this perspective. Very thankful for you my friend. Peace and blessings in the love of our Lord. -Carter
Hey Carter, thank you for your comment and for the kind words! Glad you enjoyed the article. I think you make a good point, that "Christ isn't bound to one institution", and that's exactly why the Catholic Church is Universal (Catholic literally means universal): it's the body of believers. But then you might ask, who is a believer? And that's where the differences in denominations come into play. I think it's not enough to simply say "I believe in Christ". That's not real faith, just superficial belief. Which is why the claim that there is no salvation outside the Church is made. To my understanding, that means that "believing in Christ" is following Him according to the institution that He left for us, in short.
That's a summary of what I think to be the case but this is something that's definitely worth discussing further.
Lovely! I’m glad you’ve been pointing out the pit falls of easy believeism, also clarifying what you mean by “no salvation outside the church” as in outside the bounds of Christs grace is helpful for my own understanding. I unfortunately think though that a form of easy belief can crop up in both sides of the pond so to speak, the way you experienced it in your former non-denom setting (intellectual assent to certain statements as a justification for sin) and I’ve also seen it in more traditional sacramental forms of worship, in that if I do the right things (go to confession, go to mass, take the Eucharist, pray my Hail Marys X amount of times, etc) I dont have to worry too much about heart change (circumcising the heart) because I’m partaking in the sacraments. And I think each alternative fails to consider the whole truth of scripture, in that a careful exegetical understanding of belief in Christ (in which is also reflective of strands of tradition) is that belief must come with trust and if you trust something you’re going to utilize it (utilizing faith in Christ being accepting the fruit of the Spirit and outpouring such fruit to others, doing good works that is). This is a reality that we all must constantly be submitting to as we are all tempted to believe easy and not truly understand what it means to carry our cross daily and present our bodies to Christ as a loving sacrifice holy and pleasing to God!
Thanks for posting. I stumbled upon your stack recently, and as a member of a PCA church, understandably, I can appreciate drawing a line in the sand of what the church is. Heck, I have been in conversations recently where we have chatted through some of these same things. I would assert that the true, protected Church is the one catholic church purchased by the blood of Christ. It is interesting to say that the one protected church is the Catholic church, and there is no room for others. I would obviously disagree, however, I would say that there are those parading around as "churches" who seem to be a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
If we were to assume for a minute that the Chestertonian idea of orthodoxy and "the old way" being the right way is mostly level ground for both of us. Assume we have similar thoughts on Biblical ideas. (It seems we do.) Let's even say for a minute that I am ok with honoring the Saints, but have a hang-up on the whole intercession vs. praying to thing. I am so thankful for St. Benedict, St. Augustine, etc., but I have one intercessor, Christ. (It gets messy, right? I mean, I definitely ask my buddies to pray for me... am I inconsistent? IDK)
Ok. So there we are. Able to have a coffee together and enjoy brotherhood, but still disagree on a significant thing. As Tevye sang, "TRADITION!"
Tradition, I love it. I love the patristics, I love knowing why our church practices the way we do, but I just can't put human tradition on the same level as God-breathed Scripture. I would love to hear more about how you overcame this hurdle that has proven to be a serious block between Catholics and Protestants. Maybe your next post will address that, but whatever it addresses, I am excited to read it.
Thank you so much for reading brother, truly appreciate you being here and the kind words. I also love having these conversations and I think it's very good that we are able to share opinions and discuss matters of faith without falling for the name calling that has become so prevalent in discussions among different denominations lol. I like your take and the concerns you raise are definitely valid, the Scripture vs. Tradition one specifically, as it's one that has caused a lot of division. I'll address it in the next part of this series, and share the way I view it which can hopefully clarify the Catholic view on that topic.
Very good! That is how the protestants endup jointing us, in the true and only Church. Institureated by our King, Jesus Christ! You're halfway there brother! May God Bless you! 🙏🙏🙏🕊
You were taught LIES. It doesn’t matter how devoted you are to your beliefs when they are lies. There is no gold star for devotion. Neither you, acting as a Catholic, nor your beliefs are entitled to respect.
I am a practicing Catholic, but I am Christian first. Than catholic by tradition. In your theological journey, you must study the reformation and history. You must know biblical doctrine, than the expositions of the church fathers.....Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Jerome. Than learn the reformation, Luther, Calvin, Owen and the Papacy. The Catholic Church has put to death more Christians than any other organized institution. They have forbidden translations of Bible into common language and have refused reform through out centuries. Check out Tyndale on why he was executed. Watch Macarthurs video on Usurping the Seat of Christ. The Catholic Church is a organization that still serves many Christian believers, but it is not adequate. You must foster your own relationship with Christ. Whence you put all these puzzle pieces together you will understand the shortcomings and interpretations of Biblical doctrine..... aka grace, salvation, justification, God's providence and eschatology.
Thank you for posting. There is a lot of good stuff in here, and it’s quite edifying as I am a Confessional Lutheran who, from time to time, feels the allure of Rome. How could I not — I’m engaged to a Roman Catholic! That said, though I do have some points…
First, on the point that the Roman Catholic Church, as we know it today, being the church Christ founded: the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox make the exact same claim and make the same claim to apostolic succession, as other commenters note. This has only further been muddied by church history suggesting the Bishop of Rome as merely an authority, rather than the supreme authority, among bishops (again, as EO/OO and the Reformers argue). I struggle with these conflicting claims, and it has certainly given me pause to wholeheartedly commit to swimming the Tiber, though I understand why one would commit to any particular side of this historical debate.
Another hang-up I’ve consistently had on the primacy/supremacy of the Pope is the interpretation of that passage from the Gospel of Matthew that you quote. In his retractions he wrote later in his life, St. Augustine stated:
“I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, ‘Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church,’ as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God’; and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, ‘Thou art Peter.’ But the rock was Christ, [1 Cor 10:4] whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable." (Retract., i, 21)
Pair this with many instances of Scripture where God is called a rock: 2 Samuel 22:2, Psalm 18:46, Psalm 62:6, Psalm 144:1, Isaiah 26:4, Exodus 33:21, etc. This, of course, was not the unanimous interpretation of the Church Fathers when it came to that verse (the lack of censure or outcry toward St. Augustine for saying such a thing also suggests this was not his view alone nor a doctrinal error against the church on his part), but this does dig at a deeper issue the Reformers pointed out rather effectively in the Book of Concord, among other confessionals: the Early Church is not as unified and theologically consistent as RC apologetics would have you believe.
As for the idea that the Roman Catholic Church being incapable of corruption, I suppose I should start out by saying as institutions operated by men, it is my belief that any church denomination may encounter corruption from time to time; my denomination, the LCMS, is certainly not immune, but given the counter-reformation presented by the Council of Trent, and an agreement with many of Luther’s theses, Rome admits it can err or encounter corruption as well, albeit not of a doctrinal nature, as it would assert.
That aside, you choose an interesting translation of Matthew 16:18 to cite. Most translations I read do not use “the powers of death”; rather, most say “the gates of Hell” or “the gates of Hades” will not prevail against it or overcome it (“it” being the church). I find this interesting, because most commentaries I read note that a gate is a defensive structure, and this passage takes on a very different meaning when we view the church as on the offensive rather than the defensive against Hell. It also does not foreclose the possibility of corruption or error occurring from time to time, merely that such corruption or error will not prove fatal to the church or “lift the siege” in keeping with Jesus’ imagery.
All this is to say that I respect your journey from non-denominationalism to Roman Catholicism and admire your willingness to share your testimony; I am certainly grateful for it! I merely wish to proffer my own responses to some of your points, with no intention of changing your mind; rather, I hope my response inspires further reflection and study of these things. I resolved to sit down with both my LCMS pastor and an ecumenically-minded Roman Catholic priest to discuss these and other topics in greater detail, as I too have much to learn.
Praise be to God, brother.
This is really much appreciated brother, thank you for taking the time to comment, Augustine's quote is really interesting, what's the book/source for that? Definitely interesting in reading more. About the Orthodox Churches, I admit I need to study the history of the schism more haha. God bless you brother, and it's really cool to read comments like this one, which help me keep learning and moving forward in faith.
Of course! As for the citation, I cited chapter 21 but it’s actually chapter 20 of St. Augustine’s Retractions, titled “One Book Against A Letter Of The Heretic Donatus.”
Good read!
Question:
What would you say of the Orthodox Church which asserts the very same things you say about the Catholic Church
Great question, and the honest answer is: I don't know enough about the schism to give a good answer. Orthodoxy is definitely closer to Catholicism than Protestantism though, so I think most of the arguments work in support or Orthodoxy (except the issue of Papal authority, which I'll mention in the next article).
Hello sir! Stumbled upon these open letters and they have been such a blessing. Thank you for your honesty and intentionality! Something of which I have a hard time coming to terms with is church institutional theology and biblical imagery of who the people of God are. Because in theory, these are synonyms for one another are they not? Yet, when I compare these two things I get conflicting data. Christian institutionalism seems to say something as to the effect (although this is simplistic) the people of God are marked by being found in X church in which Christ founded. However, biblical imagery for the people of God both in the OT and NT says, yes you may be the seed of Abraham, and even sit in the seat of Moses (ie within the “right” institution) however, being a true “Israelite” isn’t your ties to Abraham and being within ethnic Israel, and being physically circumcised, it is your allegiance to Yahweh alone, and being circumcised in heart which makes you a true Jew, Israelite, and a son of God (and I believe the same can be imported and said about the Church, of which by Paul’s reasoning in the letter to the Romans, is the true Israel by following after Messiah). To me, this feels vastly different to the church as mainly an institution theology, however, this doesn’t mean that the church is purely invisible. Rather when I survey church history, and the fruits of believers all around me (from literally every major church tradition, including non-denom Protestants!) it makes me conclude that the Church is where Christ is present. And where I see Christ present in an institution, there the Church is. All of that to say, currently my understanding of all of this is that Christ isn’t bound to one institution; however, He is present and establishes His Church wherever the gospel is advanced in His good and mighty name. I’d love to know your thoughts on this perspective. Very thankful for you my friend. Peace and blessings in the love of our Lord. -Carter
Hey Carter, thank you for your comment and for the kind words! Glad you enjoyed the article. I think you make a good point, that "Christ isn't bound to one institution", and that's exactly why the Catholic Church is Universal (Catholic literally means universal): it's the body of believers. But then you might ask, who is a believer? And that's where the differences in denominations come into play. I think it's not enough to simply say "I believe in Christ". That's not real faith, just superficial belief. Which is why the claim that there is no salvation outside the Church is made. To my understanding, that means that "believing in Christ" is following Him according to the institution that He left for us, in short.
That's a summary of what I think to be the case but this is something that's definitely worth discussing further.
God bless friend!
Lovely! I’m glad you’ve been pointing out the pit falls of easy believeism, also clarifying what you mean by “no salvation outside the church” as in outside the bounds of Christs grace is helpful for my own understanding. I unfortunately think though that a form of easy belief can crop up in both sides of the pond so to speak, the way you experienced it in your former non-denom setting (intellectual assent to certain statements as a justification for sin) and I’ve also seen it in more traditional sacramental forms of worship, in that if I do the right things (go to confession, go to mass, take the Eucharist, pray my Hail Marys X amount of times, etc) I dont have to worry too much about heart change (circumcising the heart) because I’m partaking in the sacraments. And I think each alternative fails to consider the whole truth of scripture, in that a careful exegetical understanding of belief in Christ (in which is also reflective of strands of tradition) is that belief must come with trust and if you trust something you’re going to utilize it (utilizing faith in Christ being accepting the fruit of the Spirit and outpouring such fruit to others, doing good works that is). This is a reality that we all must constantly be submitting to as we are all tempted to believe easy and not truly understand what it means to carry our cross daily and present our bodies to Christ as a loving sacrifice holy and pleasing to God!
Fantastic!
Thanks brother!
Hey!
Thanks for posting. I stumbled upon your stack recently, and as a member of a PCA church, understandably, I can appreciate drawing a line in the sand of what the church is. Heck, I have been in conversations recently where we have chatted through some of these same things. I would assert that the true, protected Church is the one catholic church purchased by the blood of Christ. It is interesting to say that the one protected church is the Catholic church, and there is no room for others. I would obviously disagree, however, I would say that there are those parading around as "churches" who seem to be a "wolf in sheep's clothing."
If we were to assume for a minute that the Chestertonian idea of orthodoxy and "the old way" being the right way is mostly level ground for both of us. Assume we have similar thoughts on Biblical ideas. (It seems we do.) Let's even say for a minute that I am ok with honoring the Saints, but have a hang-up on the whole intercession vs. praying to thing. I am so thankful for St. Benedict, St. Augustine, etc., but I have one intercessor, Christ. (It gets messy, right? I mean, I definitely ask my buddies to pray for me... am I inconsistent? IDK)
Ok. So there we are. Able to have a coffee together and enjoy brotherhood, but still disagree on a significant thing. As Tevye sang, "TRADITION!"
Tradition, I love it. I love the patristics, I love knowing why our church practices the way we do, but I just can't put human tradition on the same level as God-breathed Scripture. I would love to hear more about how you overcame this hurdle that has proven to be a serious block between Catholics and Protestants. Maybe your next post will address that, but whatever it addresses, I am excited to read it.
Thanks for sharing. I would love to engage more.
In Christ,
Grant
Thank you so much for reading brother, truly appreciate you being here and the kind words. I also love having these conversations and I think it's very good that we are able to share opinions and discuss matters of faith without falling for the name calling that has become so prevalent in discussions among different denominations lol. I like your take and the concerns you raise are definitely valid, the Scripture vs. Tradition one specifically, as it's one that has caused a lot of division. I'll address it in the next part of this series, and share the way I view it which can hopefully clarify the Catholic view on that topic.
God bless you and thanks again for reading!
Looking forward to it!
Very good! That is how the protestants endup jointing us, in the true and only Church. Institureated by our King, Jesus Christ! You're halfway there brother! May God Bless you! 🙏🙏🙏🕊
You believe what you’re taught. We know that.
You were taught LIES. It doesn’t matter how devoted you are to your beliefs when they are lies. There is no gold star for devotion. Neither you, acting as a Catholic, nor your beliefs are entitled to respect.
Sure
I am a practicing Catholic, but I am Christian first. Than catholic by tradition. In your theological journey, you must study the reformation and history. You must know biblical doctrine, than the expositions of the church fathers.....Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas, Jerome. Than learn the reformation, Luther, Calvin, Owen and the Papacy. The Catholic Church has put to death more Christians than any other organized institution. They have forbidden translations of Bible into common language and have refused reform through out centuries. Check out Tyndale on why he was executed. Watch Macarthurs video on Usurping the Seat of Christ. The Catholic Church is a organization that still serves many Christian believers, but it is not adequate. You must foster your own relationship with Christ. Whence you put all these puzzle pieces together you will understand the shortcomings and interpretations of Biblical doctrine..... aka grace, salvation, justification, God's providence and eschatology.