“Reformation Day” Exchange

A while back I had an exchange on Facebook about “Reformation Day” and I have long-intended to write a post about it. Here’s what what one of my friends posted on All Hallows’ Eve:

Happy Reformation Day!

Calvinism and Catholicism are both evil and un-Christian.

Okay, that’s a certainly a bold start! As is often my way, I asked about my friend’s conception of Christian history, asking if there was anyone you can point to in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th Century whom he regarded as a Christian. He responded:

Depends on what one means by “Christian.”

I replied that this was rather my point – who did he consider as a Christian in those early centuries. In reply, he wrote:

You mean like, why does it matter what I think a Christian is? Who am I to say what a Christian is? That sort of thing? Good point. It doesn’t matter what I think or say.

Do you mean, it doesn’t matter what ANY individual person regards a “true Christian” to be? That’s also a good point. Also true. Because there is a standard, right? There is a way to be Christian or non-Christian no matter what ANYONE says about it. If it’s true, it’s true. It is what it is regardless of anyone’s opinion.

Isn’t it a little strange that the man who boldly declared “Calvinism and Catholicism are both evil and un-Christian” suddenly counts himself as unworthy of identifying a Christian in a four-hundred year time range? I tried rephrasing my question, asking him:

1. If someone affirms either Catholic or Calvinistic doctrine, is that person a Christian?

2. Which figures in the early centuries held to a Christian faith which you’d recognise as your own?

Christians in Catholicism and Calvinism?

He conceded that some Catholics and Calvinists are Christians (Hallelujah!) but then tried to muddy the waters:

But you asked “if someone affirms doctrine.” Well, there lies a problem. Not all doctrine is “salvific,” not all salvific doctrine is clear, not all clear doctrine is understood, etc. Neither Catholicism nor Calvinism is monolithic. There are differing beliefs within each and there are factions of both that would call its other factions “not true Catholics” or “not true Calvinists.”

Calvinism certainly isn’t monolithic but there is a body of doctrine in Catholicism which one must affirm else one is not Catholic. Dissenting Catholics are just that… dissenting. There are also areas of theology which disagreement is permitted, but there are also hard lines which, when crossed, places oneself outside of Catholicism.

This response wasn’t really pursued, so we then turned to the Early Church…

After Paul…

If you recall, I had asked if there were any figures in the early centuries who held to a faith which he would recongise as his own. He responded:

After Paul? I don’t know. I would have to be a better student of the “early church” to try to figure that out.

That’s one heck of an admission, not being able to name a single Christian after St. Paul. This is often my experience with Protestants, with their knowledge of Church history ending in the 1st Century and not starting again until 1,500 years later!

Since my friend didn’t seem to know much about the Early Church, I shared my post which presents evidence for twenty-one very Catholic-sounding doctrines prior to the rise of the Emperor Constantine (since he is the one often blamed). I asked him, if him found Catholic doctrine affirmed by the Early Church would he say that the theology of the Early Church is evil and unchristian?

The Church is Catholic

I was rather disappointed that my friend picked the most banal of the doctrines:

It’d take a while to get through that whole list. Let’s use the first point as an example, though. “The Church is Catholic.”

Evangelicals are usually the ones to object to the term “Catholic Church” and usually have some ahistorical nonsense about the term being invented in 1300 (literally had a guy tell me that last week), but virtually all mainline Protestant denominations say the Nicene Creed which includes this phrase.

Even just a glance through the list at the top of the article should have given you a clue as to some of the doctrinal positions in the Early Church (saintly intercession, sacrifice of the Mass, confession, prayer for the dead, baptismal regeneration even for infants, Marian doctrines etc). If these doctrines are evil, you have to say the beliefs of the Early Church were evil… and these are the people who were martyred under the Roman persecutions, who discerned the Biblical canon, and who articulated the doctrine of the Trinity.

who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins…

The Nicene Creed

He then proceeded to re-interprete what Ignatius says:

How is that to be interpreted? If someone in the 1st century – say after the fall of the temple – were to say, “The ecclesia is universal” what would they mean? They would mean that Yeshua the Messiah is Melech ha olam. He’s king over the whole universe, and those who belong to Him, believe in Him, follow and obey Him, are to be found all over the earth and yet are one “body of Messiah.”

This is a good message.

Notice the morphing of Ignatius’ reference to “the Catholic Church” becomes “The ecclesia is universal” and then he pivots from talking about what it means for the the Church to be universal, to what it means for Christ to be King.

If, however, you have someone in Rome, say, who has separated themselves from their Jewish brothers and they are saying, “The Holy Roman Church is Universal” and by saying that, they mean that if you are not a tax-paying member of their cult then you cannot call yourself a Christian – but that “true” Christians belong to the Roman Church, no matter where in the world they are located…

…this is religiosity.

Next he presents a strawman of someone being a “tax-paying member” (what on earth does that even mean) of “The Holy Roman Church” (a huge anachronism). Even then he just discards it as “religiosity” without evidence or argument.

As far as the quote you offer from Ignatius of Antioch, I don’t see how that supports your case that “The Church is Catholic.” But sure, if the organization thinks that there is a “proper” way, according to the dictates of their organization, to administer the Eucharist…fine. I have no problem with organizations making their own standard operating policies and procedures.

“Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the [universal] Church.” It’s a nice sentiment. It’s a play off of, ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name…” It has no bearing on whether the “true Ecclesia” is the organization that was begun in Rome or not. It’s unrelated, as far as I can see.

How can someone read Ignatius talking about “the Catholic Church” and yet say they “don’t see how that supports your case that ‘The Church is Catholic'”?! “The Catholic Church” is a phrased used throughout the patristic corpus to refer to an identifiable group which does not include heretics.

Ignatius does indeed assert that the Catholic Church is the true ecclesia, administered through a three-fold hierarchy of Holy Orders where Rome “presides over love” (Epistle to the Romans). The Docetists aren’t in communion with them “because they do not confess the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, in His loving-kindness, raised from the dead. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, perish in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again.”

Standing alone?

In an attempt to get my friend to really wrestle with the core of the dilemma I was present, I asked him this: if you couldn’t find anyone in the Early Church who held to your beliefs, would that give you any pause?

After nearly a week of silence, he’s left a message to say he’s working on his response. I’ll post again if does…