My friend Jon Amos recently posted on his blog about how myself and Dave Hodges are ridiculous for claiming that the claims of the Catholic Church are either true or an abhorrent falsehood. I replied and my comment is the post below. Jon’s original post can be found here, along with the rest of his blog which I definitely recommend.
Jon,
I’ve been meaning to reply to this since you wrote it, just haven’t gotten up the gumption till now.
You seem to be looking at the Catholic Church and saying ‘Well, one thing taken with another, they’re not all bad’. I appreciate your charity and I would extend as much in kind as my faith allows. One thing taken with another, protestant communities are not all bad, but I cannot concede that they are true Churches. As the Church teaches, they have some marks of the Church, they have the Scriptures, they have some sacraments, they sincerely try to be the Church and that is, in a sense, commendable.
But the analogy simply doesn’t work in reverse. For the same reason that Lewis’s infamous quote about Jesus holds true. His claims are simply too ridiculous to be merely a good option amongst moral philosophies. He claims to be God, and if you do that you are either telling the truth, loony, or a very wicked person indeed.
The reason your framework works for protestantism, and allows for some good Catholics, is precisely because protestantism claims to be one good option among many. You would, I assume, be fine with the statement that there are some good Catholics, some good protestants, some good Orthodox, some good Monophysites, and they’re all good Christians with varying degrees of truth and falsehood. Obviously you believe yourself to be in a denomination closer to the truth than others, otherwise you wouldn’t be there, but others have a good deal of truth and a lot to offer as well. Besides, you’ve got your share of errors.
But the Catholic Church does not claim this about herself. She claims to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of which all other churches are mere imitations with varying degrees of falsehood. She claims to be THE fullness of the Church, in which nothing is lacking and to which nothing can be added. This, like the claims of Jesus, is either true or ridiculous (which, as far as I’m concerned makes perfect sense considering that what’s true of the head must be true of the body) or profoundly wicked and deceptive. To claim you are the fountainhead of all truth on the earth, if indeed you are not, is extraordinarily wicked, as you will lead many to sin and false belief with your headstrong claims to absolute knowledge. Such a claim cannot be benign.
Jon, I do understand that when you get a new hammer everything looks like a nail, and converts do say extreme and incendiary things in all contexts of conversion. But I think it’s fair to say that I’m not just latching on to an extreme fringe element of Catholicism here and neither is Dave. These extreme claims about the exclusivity of the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church are the modern, post-Vatican II teachings of the Catholic Church.
I’m sure you must have read the recent statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church”. It clearly teaches, from the documents of Vat. II among other sources, these very ideas of the fullness of the faith resting in the Catholic Church and the protestant communities not being true particular Churches because of their lack in Apostolic Succession. There may be liberal Catholic scholars who disagree with it, but it is the current and ancient dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, but it’s kind of a big topic. Thanks for the post, and, sincerely, thank you for your charity towards the Catholic Church. Many protestants won’t extend nearly so much.
In Pax Christi,
Matt
21 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 15, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Jeb Salad
But Matt, why can’t you just accept that you’re immature and stop disturbing your superiors?
November 15, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Mike Terrell
Matt,
This may not make one bit of difference, but since you have a comment box and I know how to use it, allow me to verbally nod in full agreement.
In the interest of full disclosure for any relatively new readers here, my amen certainly doesn’t do anything to discharge the accusation of being “too new a convert” to have a legitimate argument. I have only been Catholic for two years.
For nearly two and a half years, I have held the belief (without wavering even in the slightest) that Matt is articulating, and I have done so without beating anyone over the head with my new-convert-zeal. But evidently, there is a committee somewhere that has set some kind of parameters on how soon a convert can be taken seriously.
I should also add…as has been touched on recently through Dave Armstrong’s blog…that it is helpful for us Catholics to reflect on the gracious posture of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
November 16, 2007 at 4:51 am
Dave Hodges
I was originally going to respond to Jon’s post as well, but decided against it. The only thing worth addressing in my opinion is that he claims that our position is only something endemic to “cage-stage” Catholics and that real Catholics (i.e. lukewarm, haven’t-been-to-Mass-in-six-months Catholics) would never believe such exclusive claims about the Catholic Church.
This is, of course, ridiculous as it is pretty easy to demonstrate that every generation of Popes and Catholic teachers have all been pretty unanimous in their belief that there is no salvation outside the Church. Unless he wants to call Pope St. Pius V a “cage-stage” convert, his post is just bullocks.
November 16, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Joshua
Yes, Dave, you must be right. What an idiot Jon is! There is NO WAY you could have read into his comments. I mean, what am I even thinking? A genius like you could NEVER be wrong! Seriously, man, is there some sort of form you have to sign saying that you’ll be a total ass once you convert to Catholicism? Cause that’s pretty much all I’ve seen, especially in your dealings with Remy and Jon. As for me, I like it that even after heatedly debating the finer points of our faith, I can go back to being brothers in Christ with those I’m debating, rather than damning them to hell. But whatever, I’m sure you’ll just bold parts of my text, poke holes in them with what some Pope said, and throw some veiled insults my way. After all, I’m just a dumbass Protestant quack whose post is all bollocks. BTW, if you’re going to use a British word, at least spell it right.
November 16, 2007 at 7:23 pm
mattyonke
Josh,
Come on. Granted, Dave comes on a bit strong, but Jon did make an entire post implying that a well reasoned set of opinions about the nature of the Church (held by many respected theologians throughout history) is the result of the fact that we’re just stupid converts, enamored with our new toy, and when we grow up, like you enlightened protestants, we’ll see the real truth.
Now, I hyperbolize, but honestly, tell me that whole post wasn’t one big thinly veiled insult. I mean, did you read it? I wasn’t that offended by it, but it sure wasn’t a model of Christian charity. As you can see from the above comments, we Catholic converts get this a lot. The whole “Oh, he’s just a convert, in ten years he’ll calm down and stop believing all that mumbo jumbo about ‘x’ {where ‘x’=any incendiary Catholic doctrine}. Which not only fails to deal with the argument, but is a bit demeaning.
It’s kind of like a six year old telling a five year old that he’ll get it when he grows up. And it implies that the convictions we’ve lost family and friends over are just stupid notions that everyone else in the world can clearly see are false and that we’re fools for thinking otherwise.
Again, I realize Dave can be seen as insulting, but I get tired of this ‘Catholics are always big jerks’ thing. Jon made a post that essentially called Dave and I blind Zealots. I can’t say as I blame Dave for not wanting to respond to it.
Kisses,
Matt
November 16, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Dave Hodges
Joshua, you could cut the irony here with a knife.
November 17, 2007 at 12:04 am
Joshua
Matt,
Come on. Seriously. You’re right, Jon’s post probably was a bit demeaning, as far as that goes. But I submit that any post saying “you’re wrong about x” is a bit demeaning. Do you really see no difference between Jon’s post and every single word that comes out of Dave Hodges’ mouth? I really grow weary of statements that throw the words “idiot”, “ridiculous”, etc. ad nauseum around – which is all I was saying, having witnessed now 3 exchanges between Dave and Remy/Jon. You probably weren’t offended by Jon’s post because you KNOW Jon, and you know that he didn’t mean to offend you (which he didn’t), and, well, HE’S JON. Honestly, I appreciated your response (although I disagree) – is it really that hard to be charitable, as you were? I don’t think so. Hence my post. You get tired of the “Catholics are big jerks” argument, I get tired of Catholics BEING big jerks. I know that sounds like me whining about you big Catholic bullies, and I probably shouldn’t have gotten involved, but I don’t know this Dave dude, and already I don’t like him. To be perfectly honest and blunt, it’s crap like that that turns me off to the whole idea of Catholicism period. Whatever, I don’t have anything I want to offer to the arc of the idea anyway, so peace out.
November 17, 2007 at 12:08 am
Joshua
Irony? Not sure I agree, since I was mostly being self-demeaning in a very sarcastic way, as is my nature. But whatever, sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire. If I was going to debate you on specific points, or talk to you at all about these things, I certainly wouldn’t call your posts idiotic or ridiculous, because when you get down to it, your arguments are normally cogent and well-thought out. Then again, I wouldn’t debate you, because I’ve seen how much good it does. And by that I mean zero.
November 17, 2007 at 12:19 am
Dave Hodges
Joshua, I don’t know you either. But I didn’t call anybody an idiot. The only person to use that word is you.
Firstly, the gist of Jon’s argument was this:
“Only over-zealous, cage-stage converts actually believe in the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church.”
The implication is that “true, smart, wise, and prudent Catholics” are those that agree with Jon in rejecting what the Catholic Church teaches.
But this is demonstrably false as I can show how every single Pope who ever existed believed in the exclusive claims of the Catholic Church. This is just a factual statement. I’m not attacking Jon, Remy, or anybody else. If he wants to call me a cage-stage convert for believing the Catechism, then he needs also to call every Catholic who believes the Catechism a cage-stage convert.
I have looked at my conversations with Remy and Jon. I don’t know what problems you have with them. Please, be specific about your problems with them, and I’d be happy to make things right where offence has been given. I think you probably read a negative tone into my posts because you disagree with them. Try reading them with a neutral tone, as that is usually how I intend them.
And yes, it is rather ironic that in a comment accusing Catholics of being “asses”, you base that on a few conversations read online between some friends of yours and a guy you admit that you don’t know.
November 17, 2007 at 1:12 am
Joshua
I asked a question about being an ass, because that is what I’ve seen from you online. Whether or not you intended them that way or not, they came across that way, not because I disagree, but because of how you wrote them. I fail to see how calling a spade a spade is ironic. From your exchange with Remy:
“Right on! All those people who need mouths and tongues to pray are obviously obsessed with physicality. I’ve seen people like this who actually fold their hands when they pray and close their eyes and all that. Sometimes they even kneel. What a bunch of lunatics. Prayer should be something done entirely in the mind and no attention should ever be made to externals. Face it, God wants us to be disembodied spirits in Heaven, not rejoined with our dirty physical corpses.”
Whether or not you realize it, my initial comment was mocking this exchange you had with Remy on Gibbs’ blog. Yes, this is the picture of a neutral argument. Nice one!
“Yes, you could respond with that and it would be a typical idiotic Protestant retort, but nobody is talking about making golden calves or any such thing. We were talking about icons, and a calf is not the icon of God. Our Incarnate Lord was.”
I don’t know about you, but I see the word idiot here. Then again, maybe I’m blind.
” It is not the absurd either/or dichotomy that you are portraying.”
So bascially, anything that disagrees with you is absurd? Again, you’re free to write however you want, but these comments add up and speak for themselves. This is not a one-time thing. Sarcastic comments like this peppered your original exchange with Jon, as well. Dude, again, I’m not necessarily attacking what you’re saying, although I disagree. And perhaps I was a bit strong in my comments. But from everything I’ve seen, although your comments many times are witty and smart, they are said with a smug arrogance that I find repulsive.
“That’s pretty pathetic.” – from your latest post against Jordan.
See, if I’m reading all of this for the first time, having never met any of these people, I’m thinking you have some serious anger issues with these Protestant nut-jobs. But what do I know? I’m one of them!
November 17, 2007 at 2:27 am
Dave Hodges
Yes, and I fail to see how calling a spade a spade is being an ass. The irony thickens.
I’ve had enough exchanges with Remy that to pick out the one sarcastic post I did in response to him is hardly representative. But my sarcasm couldn’t possibly be objectionable to you as you mimicked the same sarcasm in response to me. How did you say it, to fight fire with fire? Fair enough, Josh, but don’t step on a moral high horse here when you’re perfectly willing to use the same rhetorical devices.
I didn’t say that anybody who disagrees with me is absurd. I said that the false dichotomy was absurd. And it is. What was it you said about calling a spade a spade?
My initial intercourse with Jon was heated and I may have gone overboard. But he was admitting and bragging about stealing the Eucharist from Catholic priests, and that is a pretty serious matter. To top it off, he was parading his actions as “Jesus’ rules” but couldn’t tell me where Jesus allowed him to do it.
I’m sorry your first impression of me is so crumby. I’ll try to be more charitable in my discourse with others online. The last thing I want is to turn people off to the Catholic faith.
November 17, 2007 at 2:37 am
mattyonke
Thanks for that Dave. For what it’s worth, I don’t think you were that far out of line.
In Pax Christi,
Matt
November 17, 2007 at 3:17 am
Matthew N. Petersen
Well,
If I can have any say, I think that Dave is a bit bombastic at times, but that means that he takes these matters seriously, as he should. And friendly sarcasm is not bad. His exchange with Remy was a bit tough, but that’s because it was friendly. It wasn’t silly diplomatic posturing, he laid it out there, took Remy seriously as a person, and argued for his own positoin. He was a bit sarcastic, but not overly much so.
And I though Matt has occasionally been inappropriately bombastic (say on Bennet’s blog) he has quickly apologized.
You on the other hand, if you are the samee Josh that posted on birth control, have not been entirely friendly. Rather you have been the exact opposite.
Also it is noteworthy that Matt said that he as a Catholic can say Protestants are Christians, but that Protestants should take Catholics seriously, and not dismiss their claims. I think there is an error in his argument, but his argument was “Yes, based on your position, I can take you seriously, and still call you a Christian, but stop patronizing me.”
Matt
November 24, 2007 at 1:32 pm
jon
Here’s the reply comment I posted on my blog, for what it’s worth:
Matt, thanks for your kind response. I understand the claim of the Catholic Church, but I also think that some of her more faithful members and priests would disagree with this claim. (The Dallas priest with whom I had dinner the other night comes to mind.) Thanks to folks like them, the claim is more benign and will, I trust, eventually fade away.
2007-11-17 23:49:36
In other news, I joined a Facebook Group tonight called, “Evangelicals and Catholics [Drinking] Together.”
And I wish I could ignore the fact that Dave referred to having “intercourse” with me, but alas, I can’t. I’ll try to forget, though.
November 24, 2007 at 2:18 pm
jon
Guys, I’m also sorry if my post seemed (or was) demeaning. That was not my intent, any more than it’s your intent to be demeaning when you trumpet your tradition’s most exclusive claims. On both sides, we’re zealous about our beliefs and care enough about them – and about one another – to call it like we see it, try to persuade one another, etc, and I think the whole process can be good for all of us. “As iron sharpens iron…”
November 24, 2007 at 7:57 pm
mattyonke
Indeed. Thanks for stopping by Jon. I’ll check out that facebook group, loathe though I am to even set foot on those social networking sites. I just don’t understand them. I think I was born a few years too late. I’ll have to stick to my blog.
In Pax Christi,
Matt
November 25, 2007 at 12:28 am
jon
Here’s a somewhat related post that resonates with me, and the discussion in the comments is worth reading, too – I think you’ll especially like the one from 11/23/2007 2:15 PM by Aimee, currently the last one:
http://captainsacrament.blogspot.com/2007/11/some-catholic-converts-remain.html
December 5, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Sarah Hodges
Probably nobody is coming back here but this just really struck me as odd:
Jon says in his response: “I understand the claim of the Catholic Church, but I also think that some of her more faithful members and priests would disagree with this claim.”
OK, the Church claims something, and some members and priests disagree. I’m with you so far. But why the term “faithful”???
What exactly are they being faithful TO, Jon, by disagreeing with the Church’s claim?
If they also disagreed with the Church’s claim that Christ is two natures in one person, could they be considered “some of her more faithful members”? What if they disagreed with the Church’s claim of the Trinity? What if they disagreed with the Church’s claim that the Sacred Scriptures are infallible? What if they disagreed with the Church’s claim that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord? Would they still be considered “some of the more faithful members”? I’m kinda curious.
Or, as I suspect, is what they are really being “faithful” to actually your own personal beliefs, and not to the Church at all?
You are basically saying here that in your view, in order to be a faithful CATHOLIC, you have to disagree with the Catholic Church and (perhaps only happen to) agree with Jon Amos.
Please tell me that you see how this would seem absurd to one of those Catholics you would lump in the “cage stage” rather than, apparently, the “faithful” bucket.
In friendship, Sarah
December 5, 2007 at 10:31 pm
mattyonke
Sarah,
Jon would say they’re being faithful to the Scriptures, duh! Of course, that’s hi interpretation of the Scriptures, but let’s not quibble over details.
Thanks for stopping by!
Matt
December 5, 2007 at 10:32 pm
mattyonke
that should, of course, be his not hi.
November 15, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Nolite dare sanctum canibus neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos « Ut Unum Sint
[...] Of course, part of being a Catholic is believing what the Catholic Church teaches. If I wanted to be a Protestant, I would not have gone through the trouble of being reconciled to the Church. According to Mr. Amos, however, the only truly faithful Catholics are those who reject the Church’s teachings. For more on this, read his comment here. [...]