In an effort to defend its many divisions and serious doctrinal contradictions, Protestant Christian apologists often claim that Catholic representations of Protestant doctrinal disunity are exaggerated -- caricatures of what it means to be Protestant. Further, they point the finger at disunity in the Catholic Church, whose laymen and theologians on an uncomfortably large scale disagree on big issues.
Therefore, the Protestant apologist says, since the Catholic Church itself is no doctrinal monolith, then neither can Protestant churches be condemned for their differences, especially since most of them agree on the "essential issues."
But I say unto you, that there is a big difference between Catholic divisions and Protestant divisions.
All the various Protestant churches can and do have their own doctrinal creeds, their official beliefs. Therefore, one church, for example, can officially teach that baptism is necessary for salvation, while the church across the street can teach that it is not necessary for salvation.
The individual Christian, then, is free to join up with either of these churches (or still others) depending on his or her own interpretation of Scripture. As their interpretations evolve, for better or for worse, they may seek to attend a new "fellowship," or even start one of their own.
In the name of "can't we all just get along?", many non-denominational churches widen their acceptable doctrinal boundaries to accomodate as many people as they can. If you want to believe Jesus is God, great. If you want to believe Jesus is a divinely sent created being, that's okay, too, as long as we all believe in Jesus. In this way, by avoiding the responsiblity of defining and defending truth, they seem to encourage doctrinal disharmony. Truth is sacrificed in the name of acceptance.
On the other hand, there is no dispute about what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Now, you can find a complete and faithful summary of her teachings in the recently published Catechism of the Catholic Church. Therefore, if a Catholic layperson or theologian disagrees with the teachings of the Church, then it's his own fidelity that comes into question, not that of the Church.
The Church's teachings are widely known and open to public scrutiny, and she promulgates, defends, and preserves them with tenacity. For two thousand years, her teachings have never changed or compromised, but rather developed and strengthened. Yes, as a teacher of truth, she is a monolith. But unfortunately her members are not always faithful, and there are tares among the wheat, as Jesus explained.
The non-Catholic Christian may be a holy person, sincere in his love of God, but he does not have access to all the sacraments offered by God through the Church, nor does he have the advantage of learning the fullness of the faith as handed down by the apostles. He is forced to do the best he can with the Bible alone, which, perhaps unknown to him, is itself a gift handed down by the Catholic Church. Understandably, he will frequently err in his judgments, oftentimes falling into serious error.
All of this is not to say that Catholics aren't free to hold various theological positions. No, the Church extends this freedom quite liberally, but only in matters that have not already been defined. Catholics can speculate about what a particular scripture might mean; whether all, the majority, or the minority of mankind will ultimately be saved; in what manner God predestines us; or any number of other issues that aren't already defined authoritatively, or as dogma.
It seems the faithful Catholic enjoys what the Protestant apologist desires for himself: freedom to theologize within the boundaries of Christian dogma. The difference is that the Protestant has no way to determine where those boundaries lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment