Sometimes the debate between Catholics and Protestants is based on the issue of righteousness or justification. What is needed for a person to be justified before God? Is faith alone needed? Or are good works also necessary? Over the past few years, I have been having a debate with a Protestant friend, a good man whose sincere faith in Jesus would put many a Catholic to shame, myself included. His point is often this: if we can all agree that adhesion to Jesus is the key thing, then why bother trying to discern which “denomination” is the correct one? That would just lead to endless debate on a matter that cannot be easily agreed on to everyone’s satisfaction.
Eventually, after some discussion, I made him a reply that is largely reproduced here below. The intention behind the reply is to acknowledge that which is genuine and authentic in the Protestant approach to faith, without dismissing or undervaluing what is essential in the Catholic way. Sometimes we go at loggerheads with Protestants and fail to make clear that we do indeed appreciate their immense strengths. Perhaps the best way to show them the riches of Catholicism is to begin by clarifying what we consider good and legitimate in their spirituality?
Adherence to Christ AND adherence to the Church
We could put it this way (the percentages that follow are just illustrative and are not to be taken too seriously): in the life of faith, we could say that personal adherence to Christ is ninety-five percent of everything that matters, but then there is a further five percent that is also essential. What is that further five percent? It is adherence to the Church founded by Christ. This involves acceptance of the apostolic traditions – Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle (2 Thess 2,15); submission to the authority of the Church to mediate disputes and clarify doctrine (as shown, for example, by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15); and respect for the way in which the unbroken liturgical life of the Church from the beginning sheds light on the meaning of passages of Scripture (for example, we can trace an unbroken and uniform understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist right through the Apostolic Fathers to the present day).
So let us accept for the moment this rather crude view that the correct Christian life involves ninety-five percent adherence to Christ and five percent adherence to the Church. Of course, this division is a bit arbitrary, because for the Catholic at least it doesn’t feel like any sort of a division. But a non-Catholic might justifiably ask: if adherence to Christ is ninety-five percent of what matters, why not just focus on getting that right instead of wasting time worrying about which “denomination” is “right”?
Because the five percent is significant too! If the five percent is wrong, then we can end up with images of Christ, salvation history, an account of the sacraments, the nature of humanity, the resurrection of Christ in the flesh, etc., that are very distorted. It is essential to have both the ninety-five percent and the five percent in order.
Comparative Righteousness Is Not Everything
To illustrate: take a committed Jehovah’s witness (who holds that the Holy Spirit is not a divine person, and rejects other apostolic teachings), a committed Anglican (who rejects the Petrine ministry, and other apostolic teachings), and a lukewarm Catholic (who intellectually assents to the entire spectrum of apostolic teachings but lives a life of abject materialism). The Jehovah’s Witness and the Anglican have a high percentage of what is needed for full discipleship (sincere adherence to Jesus); whilst the Catholic has five percent of what is required (assent to the content of the apostolic faith) but is missing much of the ninety-five percent!
Which of the three is least righteous before God? The answer is clear – the materialistic Catholic. But this doesn’t mean that the five percent is irrelevant! In fact, if this five percent isn’t right, then we can end up far from the faith that was handed on by the apostles. A simple look at history bears this out.
The Church is the Bulwark Against Deviant Views of Christ
In the first fifteen centuries (if we exclude for a moment the great schism between east and west), the authority of the successors of Peter and the apostles largely prevailed. And this had the effect that Christ intended when he instituted the Church, which was the preservation and transmission of the apostolic faith. The best examples of this are the Christological heresies. Without the great councils of the Church (Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Ephesus), under the successors of Peter and the apostles, the faith and the Christian community would have been fragmented into multiple sects all holding to different views of Christ, his relationship to the other members of the Trinity, the incarnation, the passion, and the resurrection. The faith would have been decimated, the understanding of Christ distorted, his divinity trivialised, his true humanity questioned, the Holy Spirit denied, the reality of the three persons in the Trinity obscured, the absolute gratuity of salvation rejected, and more. “Christians” with drastically wrong views of Christ – for example, many sincere Arians in the fourth century – were still genuinely committed to Jesus, but it would be a mistake to claim that such fine commitment rendered their aberrant understanding of Christ irrelevant.
The Abandonment of Belief in the Real Presence
There are many other examples, but perhaps the saddest has been the rejection by the reformed churches of the belief of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This belief was held unbroken by the Church from apostolic times right up to the reformation. St Ignatius of Antioch (writing before 110AD), Justin Martyr (about 150AD), Irenaeus soon afterward, and a steady stream of other writers, have testified to this belief in a strikingly uniform way. Catholics have never needed John 6 to justify the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. It was already implicit in the worship of the Church before John 6 was even written, and the successors of the apostles (including those in the Orthodox church) have held to the belief unwaveringly. This belief is part of the “five percent”, part of what is essential if the truths of the apostolic faith are to be conserved integrally and passed on.
Christ Established Proper Authority for the Interpretation of Scripture
To summarize: what my good Protestant friend emphasizes is what every follower of Jesus should emphasize: the need for personal abandonment to Christ. But Jesus did not leave us alone as orphans or individuals before him. He established a community founded upon the apostles and under Peter. We may appear to relate to Christ as individuals much of the time, but we do so always as a body, which has various members with different roles. Some of those roles involve positions of authority to teach and interpret, positions that were effectively established by Christ himself when he conferred authority on Peter and the apostles.
Sure, when I read Scripture for my own edification (which is ninety-five percent of the time) then I do so in a personal way, guided by the Holy Spirit. But there is also that “five percent” which is not my domain for interpretation. In this, I must bow before legitimate authority and with respect to the apostolic traditions handed on and conserved by the Church. John 6, to take one example, is a “hard teaching”, as Jesus’ own listeners complained. Should I walk away from the interpretation that has been conserved faithfully by the Church? Is it enough to apply my own symbolic interpretation that is easier to swallow (no pun intended)? If I walk away though, am I walking away from something that gives life? To paraphrase Peter “To whom shall we go if we walk away from your teaching and apply our own interpretation? You have the message of eternal life”.
Edward Benet blogs at www.immaculatemother.org/blog
9 thoughts on “Is It Better To Be a Good Protestant Than a Bad Catholic?”
Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Kyle: The basic message brought by Christ is found in Scripture. He fulfilled the Mosaic Law; therefore, Christianity is not a religion of attempting to arrive at righteousness by obeying the rules and regulations of the Law: or any religious laws (see Colossians 2:20-23).
It is a religion of faith in Christ, and His Spirit which inhabits us.
This is the Christianity of the New Testament.
Getting back to this would be a departure from the current views of what is in the Bible.
I think the Christology debates of the early church are important to talk about, but I think we often fall into a trap of applying our views of the contemporary church to the early church. The idea of unity in belief being important came from Constantine after his conversion. Once Constantine converted, he wanted unity in the church because that helped foster unity in his earthly empire. Constantine may have genuinely loved God, but the desire to unite the early church in belief (doctrine) likely had more to do with earthly benefits for himself. Constantine is the person who called the council – not the bishops. And Constantine didn’t really care which side of the debate won – he would’ve been fine if the Aryan view won out as long as there was unity behind a winning idea. Prior to Constantine, the Aryans weren’t heretics. They were Christians. And at least one source says they outnumbered non-Aryans. The idea of formal unity came from Constantine rather than Jesus. If we look at Jesus and his earliest followers, they didn’t believe in the trinity or original sin or any of our other modern beliefs – and they were still Christians. The idea of heresy and heretics came from Constantine’s idea of the church, not from Jesus. And we need to remember that the current structure of the church also came about because of humans – not Jesus. Jesus was not the one who asked for a detailed, formalized set of rules or an incredibly formal, monarchial power structure. We did that all on our own well after Jesus ascended to heaven.
Long story short – I agree with the author that the best thing to do is follow Christ regardless of which denomination you find yourself in. Being Christian (as in following Christ’s teachings of love for God and love for your neighbor) is the most important.
Well said, as usual.
Nowadays, I don’t see where it’s possible to have the Constantine type of unity that some would like to have in the Church. It wasn’t there in the New Testament Church. Why would we expect to have it now? When Paul saw that all Asia turned away from him, he didn’t send out the troops to deal with it (see 2Timothy 1:15).
Bibles are readily available for anyone to read if they choose to do so. They aren’t accessible only for the few as was the case centuries ago. This may be the only thing that Christians will have in common in the future. The Church compiled the Bible in the fourth century for its own use, but it has spread out in ways that could not have been imagined at that time.
I agree that the bible becoming accessible changed a lot and that the Constantine idea of unity is only a pipe dream. I don’t think that type of unity should be a goal. Having that type of unity as a goal causes infighting and behavior that turns people away from Christianity in general.
I also think access to additional historical information outside of the bible is currently causing massive changes to Christianity. So much in the bible that we used to take literally has been proven to be wrong in the past couple centuries (i.e. world being created in seven days) or we are told to ignore (i.e. many of the Old Testament rules). At a high level, this is eroding trust in anyone who says the bible is the unerring word of God. Protestant, bible based churches are being hit hard by this. The Catholic church will have less fallout from the changing views on the bible, but they are experiencing their own fallout as the supposedly infallible leaders are shown to be corrupt (and obviously fallible). Christianity needs a reset back to the basic message of Christ if it wants to stem the massive declines occurring in the western world. The garbage added by humans over the years is clouding the basic message brought by Christ.
The example (choice) of JW’s paired with Anglicans is a very poor analogy as the most lapsed Catholic has more integrity in their lackluster belief than any member of a kingdom hall. JW’s
do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, they celebrate good Friday as a heroic act and do not
believe He is divine or resurrected. They are anti-family and I applaud the Russians for having the wherewithal to ban the cult from within their country.
Catholic – Protestant dialog has certainly improved.
When we read Scripture for our own edification, and we are personally guided by the Holy Spirit when we do so, does the Holy Spirit personally guide us in only 95% of what we read? I think that we should allow the Spirit of Truth to work in us without superimposing limits on His guidance.
The apostolic traditions that are essential are preserved in Scripture. Vatican II, in Dei Verbum 21 says: “Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture.”
At one time, most people did not have their own private Bibles because they were handwritten: and most had to hear Scripture orally from someone else. The person or organization that had access, could select what was important for them to teach. This is no longer the case because we can now read all of it for ourselves if we choose. I found this to be important in my life because I found information in Scripture that was not taught to me in my Catholic upbringing but has become essential in my relationship with God.
When we read source documents for ourselves, we often see things that are important for us, but not important for someone who reports on their contents. This happens often; therefore, I prefer to read source documents for myself whenever possible.