Why can't you just be Catholic? What does "evangelical Catholic" even mean? Haven't we balkanized the Catholic Church enough, without adding another category?

I hope the ETS does not decide to exclude Catholics from membership -- this would be a step in the wrong direction, for many reasons. With so many challenges facing the people of faith, it's a pity some of the members of ETS want to take the time and energy to make sure evangelical Catholics, like myself, can't become a member of their organization. Prof. Beckwith has brilliantly and succinctly pointed out the self-contradiction at the heart of many Protestant critiques of Catholicism -- the refusal to acknowledge a reliance on extra-biblical beliefs, e.g., the Trinity. He also has reminded Catholics that their own faith is based primarily on the Word spoken in Scripture, a fact that ought to stimulate a great deal more Scripture study among Catholics than there appears to be.

I hope Prof. Beckwith will return with the news that ETS has relented on its effort to change its doctrinal statement. If they do not, I would be interested in hearing their response to the arguments presented above.

Don, I think you're overstating your criticism when you imply that Professor Beckwith is contributing to a balkanization of the Catholic Church. We must have faith that the Catholic Church is THE Church founded by Christ, and that one against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. Clearly Professor Beckwith is a Catholic who, by dint of his background in Evangelical Chistianity, can offer a great deal that is useful to cradle Catholics, many of whom couldn't even name every book in the Protestant Bible, let alone the Catholic one! (Which is not meant to imply that one must be able to do so to be a good Catholic, either, but simply that we cradle Catholics are known to have some weaknesses in our knowledge of Scripture that Evangelicals often do not, at least in the concrete, if not in the theological abstract.)

I thank God for the conversions of so many powerful and whip-smart Evangelical and Reformed Protestant brethren to our Catholic faith, including those who work as apologists, evangelizing the Church from the inside and teaching our separated brethren about the profound Truth that only the Catholic faith holds in its fullness. Think of how much people like Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin and Marcus Grodi have contributed to our understanding of the Church, the Magisterium, and all of her teachings! They are evangelists, and indeed all Catholics are called by birth to be evangelists, part of the universal call to sanctity that our Faith professes. God bless those who have converted, often at great personal cost and pain through loss of friendships, family, etc.!

Bravo, Professor Beckwith, and we're happy to welcome you across the Tiber!

Mr. Beckwith,

You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Your essay is all over the place. There are substantial reasons why evangelicals should not want Catholics to join and even more serious reasons why Catholics themselves should not want to join.

You have not mentioned anywhere in your essay the very different hermeneutics behind the Catholic and Protestant views of Scripture, the canon or its arrangement, or the Catholic transmission of Scripture to its faithful.

You write: "As post-Vatican II Catholicism has become more attentive to Scripture -- precisely because of its willingness to take Protestantism more seriously than in the past -- early 21st-century Evangelical Protestantism has become more aware of the debt it owes to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, in which and from which creedal Christianity developed in relationship with the formation of the canon of Scripture. There is much to be gained from Catholic and Protestant scholars, committed to Christian orthodoxy and a high view of Scripture, interacting in an academic setting in which they may learn from each other."

Suffice it to say that the pre-Vatican II Church took Scripture very seriously: one has only to glance through the Roman Missal of those centuries to see the constant interweaving of Scripture through the texts of the Mass, setting the Scriptures in the context of the traditions of the Church.

The notion that after Vatican II, Catholics took Protestantism more seriously is true in the sense that they made more of an effort at unity (Unitatis redintegratio, Ut unum sint). But it should be pointed out, precisely because Protestantism is taken seriously, the ecumenical "dialogue" is also taken seriously. Witness Communionis notio (1992), Dominus Iesus (2000), and the CDF Response of 9 July 2007, all of which spelled out unequivocally in what "Christian orthodoxy" consists and in what a "high view of Scripture" consists. Beckwith specifies neither of these. Christian orthodoxy does not consist in affirming the "Great Tradition," which evangelicals affirm, but which they take out of the ecclesiological and traditional context in which these dogmas were affirmed. A "high view of Scripture" does not consist in "sola Scriptura" or in everyone asserting their own, particular views of its meaning. That is the difference between the Catholic and Protestant positions on these two issues.

The Evangelical Theological Society itself issued the following statement:

"The work of the Evangelical Theological Society as a scholarly forum proceeds on the basis that "the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs." This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity, forms the basis for membership in the ETS to which all members annually subscribe in writing. Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church's declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation."

One has only to read the lineamenta of the recent XIIth Ordinary Synod of Bishops as well as their conclusions to realize the chasm between the Evangelical Theological Society and the Catholic view of Scripture. Consider only the notion of the "Word," which both Catholics and the Orthodox believe is prior to Scripture and encompasses more than Scripture. Moreover, evangelicals have consistently repudiated all uses of the historical-critical method, which Catholics, including Pope Benedict XVI, while cautious, have affirmed as useful in helping to plumb the depths of Scripture. Even Beckwith has to acknowledge that the Protestant Bible is arranged with a hermeneutic very different from Catholics and the Orthodox.

Mr. Beckwith,

You write: "First, although no one doubts that the founders of ETS had the Protestant canon in mind when they used the word "Bible," they were sophisticated enough to know that most Christians in the world, both East and West, belong to communions that accept the Catholic canon, which is the canon recognized by the local councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage III (397). Although some individuals in the Church raised questions about whether the deuterocanonical books should be included in the biblical canon, no synod, council, or body within Western or Eastern Christendom explicitly rejected these books as non-canonical prior to the Reformers doing so in the 16th century."

Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it, Mr. Beckwith. The "reformers" rejected the deutero-canonical books (which they call the "apocrypha") as part of their "reformation." They have a very different understanding of these books and their sacred value as the Word of God. That alone is a substantial difference from Catholicism.

You cannot continue to ignore the substantial differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, Mr. Beckwith. I think you need a few years of coming to terms with your return to Catholicism. You really can't mix Catholicism and evangelicalism.

Dear Michael:

I appreciate your comments. But let me recommend you read the whole book, with which I believe you will be pleased.

The selection published here is meant to address a question about an academic society, which is not the Church. Here is what I write in the book's conclusion (pp. 128-129):

I believe Mr. Beckwith's point is not that there is no gulf between Evangelicalism; rather, that the gulf is not impassable. He is right in pointing out that Evangelicalism does not have the resources to reject heresy. Evangelicals lacks a solid foundation; not only do they lack solid reasons for rejecting heresy; they lack solid reasons for resisting elements of the Catholic faith. Everyone knows that Catholics and Evangelicals differ; no one will benefit by pointing focusing on the gulf that separates us. But both Catholics and Evangelicals would benefit by a sufficiently broad definition of Evangelicalism--Catholics by being able to fellowship with and influence Evangelicals, and Evangelicals by drawing from the vast resources of the Catholic faith. Over time it seems Evangelical resistance to certain Catholic dogmas is bound to wane (as it has already among many), and mutual friendship and trust will lead to grater understanding. The Catholic Church's commitment to true ecumenism and reunification is irrevocable. Perhaps this is how it will happen.

As an aside, I wish to thank Mr. Beckwith. His very public conversion, strong stand, and ecumenical mindset is an inspiration to Evangelical Catholic converts everywhere--myself included.

Mr. Beckwith,

Please read Cardinal Ratzinger's document from the CDF "The Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian." It's just simply not true that "academic societies" are completely independent of and owe nothing to the Church. And Catholic theologians who might be members of the Evangelical Theological Society (in your world) are even more obligated to observe their ecclesial vocations.

You continue to obfuscate on "Christian orthodoxy." As a Catholic, the only "orthodoxy" is Catholic orthodoxy. It's not simply a question of abortion, same-sex marriage, or the other "values" issues that have informed the evangelical-Catholic dialogue in the United States. There are equally important, equally determinative questions of orthodoxy of which evangelicals fail, and will continue to fail, to address in anything approaching adequacy. I mentioned some of them above.

You might also note that your exegesis of Unitatis redintegratio and Lumen gentium has not been sufficiently informed by Catholic teachings on "subsistit in." Yes, the elements of holiness and sanctification outside the Church are there and to be used as a means of salvation. But you are now Catholic and no longer denied the fullness of truth. What is your justification for continuing to rely on extrinsic elements of holiness and sanctification?

Moreover, publishing reflections such as these is careless and can constitute a roadblock to the full reception of Catholicism by others, or even by Catholics themselves. It is not a service to the Church or an example of the ecclesial vocation of the theologian.

If your reception of Catholicism is so tenuous that you continue to require the works of evangelical scholars or else your faith would be "significantly diminished," I think, as I said above, that you require a period of "discernment."

I think some are missing the point in their criticisms of this article. The point is not to say that evangelicals and Catholics are the same or very similar. The point was that according to this particular organization's own stated aims, rules, and practices it is completely illogical to exclude Catholics--and further, Catholics actually fit the bill better than many others who are allowed in.

QC,

Read the stated aims again. By their very own definitions, Catholics are excluded and rightly so. The ETS has different working definitions, hermeneutics, ecclesiology, etc., than does the Catholic Church.

I do hope cradle-Catholics of the more partisan variety will follow the Church's teaching and extend some grace here.

Consider this: If C.S.Lewis, to take one example, was not a Holy Spirit filled Christian, then I am, to borrow a phrase, "a poached egg."

Yet somehow, inexplicably, he never quite reconciled to the Catholic Church, despite the fact that nearly all the man wrote is accepted by the Church as excellent material for catechesis.

Well, we all have our failings. But what has happened from Mere Christianity, et alia, as a result?

Well, amongst Protestants, the liberal modernist wing is shrinking, losing members daily. All to the good, that.

The Evangelical Protestant wing, which believes in the supernatural, is where the growth and vitality is. But what else is there?

I'll tell you: Post-Denominationalism is there. The most "on fire" Christians in America tend, as a rule, to not give a frog's fat fanny which Denomination one belongs to, as long as it teaches what Christianity, throughout the ages, has always taught.

This is a brilliant opportunity, orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. And it would not have happened had C.S.Lewis become Catholic -- in which case his books would have been confined to Catholics, and not informed all those Evangelical Protestants.

For, as Evangelical Protestants investigate "what Christianity, throughout the ages, has always taught," what happens?

Easy. They become Catholic. And they're set up for that transformation specifically by the post-denominational attention to "mere Christianity" arising from Mere Christianity. Our God is not only Love. He's surpassingly clever!

Let not Catholics disturb this rapprochement through an ungracious tone. Yes, Dr. Beckwith needs time to settle in to the Church. Yes, there are serious doctrinal and logical problems in even the sort of post-denominational protestantism represented by ETS.

But: Let not your separated brethren gather from your words and tone any notion that you do not love them.

Let not your no-longer-separated brethren gather from your words that you are latter-day Judaizers, insisting that now that they've been baptized with the Holy Spirit they must also undergo some kind of circumcision into looking like good little homogenized Catholics.

Grace, grace, grace, grace, grace. And: In essential things, unity; in non-essential, diversity; in all things, charity.

To prevent misunderstanding, I should clarify the phrase "good little homogenized Catholics" which could come across as ungracious in tone -- quite contrary to the intent of what I wrote in the rest of that post!!!

What I mean is this: Just as the Council of Jerusalem concluded that, to become Christians, Gentiles need not also be first placed under the old covenant of the Jews, similarly, cradle-Catholics should be prepared for some cultural and stylistic distinctiveness about Evangelical Protestants who reconcile to Rome...and should welcome that distinctiveness, whenever it is not a failing of orthodoxy.

I would extend this beyond Protestant converts. When Eastern Orthodox Christians reconcile to Rome (I use the term "reconcile" because the term "convert," in its modern usage, is simply inaccurate for lifelong Spirit-led followers of Christ) they bring with them the Eastern mystical tradition. While this tradition led to the rejection of the logic of the Scholastics, and the theological teachings that resulted, it remains a strength of their tradition when subordinated to the teaching authority of the Church.

And the Church is poorer without it. Which is why she does not trample it, when receiving those members or churches back into communion.

Similarly, when she receives former Protestants back into communion, she could, if she were paranoid about whether they were "real Catholics," go beyond insistence on obedience and the Catechism, and ask them also to repudiate their former friendships and forgo their distinctive attention to Scripture and claim (erroneously) that all their former Protestant life was bad, bad, bad.

But she does not. For without them, the Body of Christ was less complete, less integrated than it could be. The Church Militant was a wounded soldier with phantom-limb syndrome. Now that they are in the Visible Body, we should not want them to lose their distinctive character except as required for orthodoxy.

Outside that, "a hand is not an eye, and an eye is not a hand."

So, lest I seem ungracious to cradle Catholics in my attempt to be gracious to the reconciled, please understand that I am only arguing that the Whole Body, in all its parts, is required, and that Each Part must act in accord with its distinctiveness.

My words before had no other, less gracious, intent. (Indeed that would have contradicted the whole meaning of my post, and my understanding of the already-rich diversity in the Church!)

Sincerely,

R.C.

It's not a question of different cultural and stylistic sensibilities, it's a question of doctrine. And Mr. Beckwith was very careless on that point.

When it comes to the Orthodox, they are in a very different situation from Protestants, evangelical or otherwise. They have apostolic foundations, a valid sacramental system, a valid episcopacy, the same understanding of nature/grace and justification/sanctification,a similar understanding of the way the WORD functions vs. the Word as Scripture. Protestants, on the other hand, have upended all of these in their understanding. These are not just semantic differences, but deeply-felt hermeneutical differences, which bear greatly on philosophical and theological understandings.

Therefore, simply to gather Protestants differences under "cultural and stylistic" differences is to gloss over the many, varied, and quite important differences that exist between Catholicism and Protestantism and Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

Furthermore, Protestants' "distinctive" attention to Scripture is not Catholic. They read Scripture without the guidance of the Church, with an inadequate understanding of the "Word," without any relationship to real communion with Jesus (in the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration). Why bring that into the Church?

What's your problem with becoming Catholic? No one has ever said you had to repudiate your friends, etc. That's a red herring, meant to stir up trouble in lieu of an actual argument.

Furthermore, your assumption that "cradle Catholics" are the only ones who are suspicious of those who call themselves "evangelical Catholics" or choose to stir up a syncretistic mixture of Catholicism and Protestantism is unfounded. You would actually learn something from "cradle Catholics" if you chose to do so. Back in the day, people became "Catholic." They did not become sorta Catholic or evangelical Catholic or Catholic, but with many qualifiers.

You should do the same.

I believe Prof. Beckwith is naive to think that he could maintain a high profile position with the ETS after returning to full communion with the Catholic Church. The ETS was founded on Protestants principles, by Protestants, for Protestants. Beckwith points to ETS' more unorthodox members as a way to open up the group to Catholics. More convincing for me would be Beckwith citing past and present Catholic leaders of ETS to justify his position. I'm guessing there are none. So I take the article to state simply that a broadly-defined Protestant organization will pressure a Catholic to resign from a position of leadership. I don't find that surprising or scandalous at all.

"More convincing for me would be Beckwith citing past and present Catholic leaders of ETS to justify his position."

There were as many Catholic ETS leaders as there have been non-White and female ones.

I see no problem with the term "Evangelical Catholic" in and of itself. It is, at least, a vastly more palatable term than "Liberal Catholic" or "Progressive Catholic," which carry with them the false implication that change is more important than the preservation of the faith once presented to the saints, whereas "Evanelical Catholic" simply alludes to one's faithfulness to the Gospel.

Also, I very much liked this article. Will (non-Catholic) Evangelicals ever realize that their position is inherently self-contradictory?

Michael, you are WAY overthinking this.

Beckwith said he was indebted to the Evangelical scholars for sustaining and nourishing him and paving the path back to Catholicism. He didn't say he required it to sustain his recent reception to Catholicism, as you say. That is just a plain twisting of the words on your part, due perhaps to overthinking the matter.

Also, you said reread the aims. First there are no aims; there is a Constitution. I disagree that "by their very own definitions, Catholics are excluded," as you say. It is just not there in the constitution.

"Evagelical Catholic" simply alludes to one's faithfulness to the Gospel."

This is nonsense. Catholics have always been faithful to the Gospel. Would that Protestants had not felt the need to redefine what the Gospel was (mostly Paul) and how one received it.

Paul is right, both the commentator above and the Saint.

Michael,

You don't know me, and so comment pertaining to me isn't informed. But it's not relevant to the argument, either.

In my statement I very clearly stated that, when a Protestant reconciles to the Church, he must change any variances in doctrine to be in accordance with Church teaching. Did you miss the phrase "except as required for orthodoxy?" Or the parallel phrase "in essential things, unity?"

When you say, "It's not a question of different cultural and stylistic sensibilities, it's a question of doctrine," you therefore change any argument against my posts, into an argument against a straw-man. For my posts clearly dealt with the acceptability of that which is distinctive about former Protestants after they have reconciled to Rome, and therefore, after there is no longer any "question of doctrine."

Your reply seems to be written against someone who thinks Protestants should be able to be Catholics while remaining doctrinally Protestant. I don't know who holds that view. Not Beckwith, clearly; and not me.

Surely. None of what you state in that paragraph is false...and though it would argue very persuasively against the aforementioned straw-man, it's not relevant to anything I said in my post, but rather is assumed in my post, from the start.


Ah, but again I wasn't talking about Protestants; I was talking about former Protestants who had reconciled to Rome in doctrine and obedience.


But the "distinctive" attention to Scripture of former Protestants who have reconciled to Rome, is. It is as Catholic as the mysticism of the East.

The focus on Scripture which has been part of the reforms since Vatican II acknowledges this fact: For a long time, devout Catholics simply did not know their way around the Bible, and that's a tragedy, for it's a Catholic book!

By contrast, and oddly because of their errors in matters of authority and tradition, Protestants are raised in an environment where a person who can't quote from the Bible with ease, who doesn't have an ongoing study as a part of his devotional time, is assumed to be less-than-serious as a Christian.

Speaking broadly (and of course with exceptions), an Evangelical Protestant, confronted the level of attention that an average devout lay Catholics gave Scripture fifty years ago, would conclude, not that they were devout, but that they were perhaps agnostic.

It is this neglect of the Word (which understood in the context of Church Tradition, is "useful for instruction and reproof," that the training and maturity of the man of God might be "made complete") that I am convinced Our Lord hopes to correct. I am convinced he hopes to correct it through better catechesis of lay Catholics, children and adults. And I am convinced -- more, I have seen that Our Lord is correcting it by the presence of former Protestants, who, while embracing Catholic dogma with a fierce loyalty that makes some (not all) cradle-Catholics look apathetic by comparison, also "search the Scriptures" with a degree of discipline and attentiveness which represents a new high-bar in daily Scripture study for the laity.

...continued...

...continued...


That's again an argument against a straw-man, not against what I said; I wasn't talking about the "distinctive" attention to Scripture of Protestants, but of rather the glorious result of taking those Protestant habits and turning them to better ends when a Protestant reconciles to Rome, and is no longer bereft of adequate understanding, et cetera.


Mine? Obviously nothing: Else, why'd I sit through all those months of RCIA, borrow seminary textbooks from the priest, spend hundreds of dollars on books detailing the Church Fathers, and so on?


No, and I apologize for rhetorical overstatement. All I mean is that I think you are too suspicious of those Protestants who reconcile. (Not an Irish Catholic living in Belfast, are you?)

I think that's all for now.

Your comment: "Speaking broadly (and of course with exceptions), an Evangelical Protestant, confronted the level of attention that an average devout lay Catholics gave Scripture fifty years ago, would conclude, not that they were devout, but that they were perhaps agnostic."

You have no idea what pre-Vatican II Catholics did or did not do or know about Scripture, other than canards you've read, probably by other prideful evangelical converts to Catholicism. For your information, the Tridentine Rite is full of Scripture, set in the context of Church tradition, which Catholics of that era knew by heart. They didn't have to recite snippets of Scripture to no particular purpose. The notion that Catholics were judged agnostic by evangelical Protestants is just laughable - considering that Catholics have the Eucharist, the Real Presence of Christ, whereas Protestants can only talk about Christ. And, don't kid yourself, if you really want devotion to the real Christ, you might want to study the lives of devout Catholics of the pre-Vatican II era (hundreds of years by the way, which you blithely dismiss). They had a truly close and authentic friendship with Christ, which they maintained throughout their lives.

I think you have absorbed the current attitude of many converts who think they're a cut above anyone born a Catholic, who see themselves as better and more informed, and who believe that they already knew enough about Christ and the Bible enough before they converted and now are enabled to judge the rest of us poor losers who were merely baptized Catholic at birth.

Too bad just having a superior attitude doesn't make one superior.

Frank, this seems like a jump to me:

"Assuming that the ETS believes that its formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is a true description of God, then this formulation is an item of revelation: theological knowledge that one could not have arrived at without God's having chosen to reveal it."

You're extending the definition of revelation way too far. For Protestants, correct theological statements are not divine revelation. They may correspond to revelation--and in in that sense be true and faithful witnesses to it--but they are not revelation themselves. Indeed, the act of witness points to the function of the church tradition and the creeds for Protestants: they function as authoritative guides only in the sense that they are faithful expositions of scripture. They do not stand equal to it as some kind of revelation. They are expositions of that revelation, and they always must be tested by it.

Under your description, any correct theological formula could be considered divine revelation--essentially opening the canon to include anything true about God. That's beyond the bounds even of Vatican II.

Jeff, I can understand why my presentation seems confusing. I should have been more explicit.

I am referring to the ETS formulation of the Trinity, which contains a number of terms of art in philosophical theology. Here is what I write:



That God is a Trinity of a particular nature--three uncreated persons, one in essence, each equal in power and glory--is not a deliverance of either natural theology or biblical exegesis. It is, to be sure, consistent with the Biblical text, but so is social Trinitarianism as well as nominalist views of natures and essences that may be consistent with some belief in the Trinity but not with the Trinity being three persons and one substance (as understood by Nicea). But suppose someone argues--a la Benedict at Regsenberg--that some theological truths are the consequence of Biblical exegesis plus natural theology (i.e., with the conceptual tools provided to us by Greek philosophy). In that case, one would have to believe that the church's apprehension of this truth was guided by the Holy Spirit, since the ETS believes it is in fact a truth about God's nature on par with the doctrine of inerrancy. It seems reasonable to me then to say that the ETS formulation of the Trinity is indeed an item of revelation, since it was revealed by the Holy Spirit in the ecclesial life of the church. I don't think you have to be a Catholic to believe that, as my colleague D.H. Williams argues in Evangelicals and Tradition (2005)

Well, now, I suppose you might describe Mgr. Ronald Knox as a 'prideful evangelical convert' - he was, at least, a convert, though from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England. He remarks, in a talk he gave afterwards published in 'Trials of a Translator':

"I understand that, for several years, during and after the Second World War it was impossible, in England or Scotland, for a Catholic to buy a copy of the New Testament. Would any other Christian denomination in the world have sat down under that? In my experience, the laity’s attitude towards the Bible is one of blank indifference, varied now and again by one of puzzled hostility. The clergy, no doubt, search the Scriptures more eagerly. And yet, when I used to go round preaching a good deal, and would ask the pastor for a Bible to verify my text from, there was generally an ominous pause of twenty minutes or so before he returned, banging the leaves of the sacred volume and visibly blowing on the top. The new wine of the Gospel, you felt, was kept in strangely cobwebby bottles."

(You can find the whole piece on http://tinyurl.com/69whfs)

I know that those of us who are rightly hostile to the 'Bad Old Days Before Vatican II' mentality would like to believe that Catholics were really steeped in Scripture; but I think we must face facts on this one.

Sue Sims,

Too bad you're "rightly hostile to the Bad Old Days Before Vatican II." It shows your myopia and ahistorical attitude. And it shows you don't really understand how Scripture functioned in the liturgy before Vatican II.

Your loss.

Dear Michael,

I don't know if you realize how strident and defensive your tone is on this thread, and it grows increasingly so with each response you post. By turns your posts seem to portray both a sense of inferiority and superiority to your interlocutors, and I don't think that's what you wish to do, or at least, I hope it's not. Proving one's Catholic bona fides and one-upmanship are not very effective ways to discuss and debate areas of difference with those who are our brothers and sisters in Christ. It's not my impression that any posters or writers on this thread are here to win a spitting contest with you or anyone else.

You should re-read Sue Sims' last post, for your response to her shows that you misread her point and thus got it exactly backwards. She hasn't got an attitude reflective of the "bad old days before Vatican II" mentality that you are criticizing her for unjustly; rather, she is on the same page as you in rightly being hostile to the mentality that the days before Vatican II were "the bad old days." Take a breather and relax before assuming that you're right and everyone else is wrong and that they are somehow attacking you and the Church because they don't acknowledge your "infallible" opinions as such. The dialogue can then be more constructive.

Dr. Beckwith, thank you for this article. I've been discussing these issues with Protestant friend of mine recently and it addresses exactly the points he needs to hear. The question of the authority of the canon is fundamental to beginning to understand the differences between Catholics and our separated brethren.

You read whatever you want to in my post. I hardly feel inferior to the apologetics-jockeys that now populate Catholic bookstores. They haven't exactly set the world on fire. And I'm not in a "spitting contest" with you, certainly and since I don't know you from Adam, your post is largely extraneous to any helpful discussion. I believe I made my points re: Beckwith's article, which I find deficient. That's not engaging in "spitting," it's called a critique from someone who knows Catholic theology and Beckwith's isn't it. As far as "R.C." is concerned, his points are always made with sarcasm and rancor toward "cradle Catholics" and I have had more than enough of that. It's the same attitude that is prevalent on blogs, such as Triablogue, where there is the constant drumbeat of superiority toward Catholics, if not virtual anti-Catholicism, a place where Catholics are always assumed to be ignorant. And I see the same attitude in many converts. And it's not acceptable.

Dear Michael,

Charity would dictate that you apologize to Sue Sims for your rude reply to her when you clearly mis-read her post and got it exactly backwards. There's no need to "read into" your posts to see that, nor do I need to know you from Adam in order to recognize your bitter attitude. It's clear as a bell in your posts, and for the life of me, I can't see how that could possibly be constructive to any discussions. Personal rancor and getting back at other people for perceived slights on other Web sites also don't fall under the purview of comments on this blog, as far as the rules say. Please re-read your last 3-4 posts on this thread with a modicum of objectivity, and I think you'll see how clear that rancor and superiority comes across, not least when you mis-read someone's post and criticize them for it.

even if you don't think so.

Frank,

Thanks for your response to my comment. I'll excerpt one comment of it that I think gets at the core of our differences:

"It seems reasonable to me then to say that the ETS formulation of the Trinity is indeed an item of revelation, since it was revealed by the Holy Spirit in the ecclesial life of the church. I don't think you have to be a Catholic to believe that, as my colleague D.H. Williams argues in Evangelicals and Tradition (2005)."

I think that represents Dan Williams' view well, but Williams is not representative of most evangelicals. Indeed, if you put what Williams says in that book (or his other recent ones) up against Vatican II, there's no substantive theological difference between them, because like Vatican II, Williams argues for an authoritative tradition (or at least an authoritative early tradition--the tradition arising from the Reformation doesn't seem to carry much weight for him). Some of his language in that book mirrors the language of Vatican II. As I read him, Williams has no substantive theological reason to remain evangelical or not become Roman Catholic (perhaps you can work on him in this regard!).

Evangelicals--and almost all Protestants, for that matter--do have a substantive reason not to become Roman Catholic, because they would disagree with your conclusion above. They would interpret acts like the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity not as an act of revelation (even if these formulations are a gift of the Spirit), but as an act of illumination. In other words, if the Holy Spirit is involved in the formation of these doctrines, he is involved in the sense that he helps Christians interpret Scripture rightly (thus coming to trinitarian formulations that are consistent with Scripture).

All that to say: the fact that ETS affirms a Trinity does not mean that they are necessarily occupying the same ground as Roman Catholicism. By your evaluation, any doctrinal conclusion "revealed by the Holy Spirit in the ecclesial life of the church" could be counted as divine revelation. Again, that extends the definition of revelation beyond what any evangelical would tolerate--and they have substantive, and real, theological reasons for not tolerating it (the same reasons the Reformers gave). You may disagree with those reasons, of course, but you can't just dismiss them as an inconsistency or oversight without dismissing the validity of all of Protestant theology's commitments out of hand.

Some, like Williams, seem to be willing to do that, of course, but he (and you) should admit that up front.

Michael:

I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion, as cautious as I was to be neutral-sounding, to the point of sounding studious. I have no rancor towards cradle Catholics at all. Not to sound like a cliché, but I count some as friends, and assume they are not too upset at me for repeating their opinions, here in this thread.

For the observations I made -- which, please note, were not about cradle Catholics en masse, but only about widespread failures of Scripture-catechesis of the previous generation -- were observations that I was never in a position to make personally, not having grown up in the Church.

Instead, I am relying on testimony; more, I am very nearly quoting (a.) the friends I just mentioned, who did grow up in the Church, (b.) a fair amount of complaints by Catholic authors in print and on the Web, not a few of them on this site. The "Why Are They Leaving?" seminar a while back was, uh, not shy on the matter of inadequate catechesis.

Fortunately I hear from many places that great strides have been made in recent years to correct this problem -- and happily observe that my local parish is rife with Bible studies and topical studies, and, this year, a lot of discussion of St. Paul, of course. What's past is past; what's current is encouraging.

Honestly, I didn't see the observation as being at all controversial, given prior discussions here at this site. But I apologize all the same: Somehow, Michael, without intending it, I came off as angry or hateful, or something. And I just plain didn't mean to, nor imagined that tone could be read into what I said.

(One exception: Though I meant no rancor toward you, or cradle Catholics, by it, I understood that the word "homogenized" -- as a condition possibly forced on reconciled former Protestants -- could be misunderstood. So that's why I went on to spend a whole other post clarifying what I did and didn't mean by it.)

Michael, I'm sorry for whoever or whatever has "burned" you on this topic in the past, if that's what happened. It wasn't me! ...but my words have caused injury, despite my having no such intention, and I apologize for that.

Sincerely,

R.C.

P.S. How are my points "always" rancorous? I mean, I didn't intend them that way even here, as I have said...but I don't think I've ever posted on such a topic before! If I have, it must have been months and months ago. When you say "always," are you referring only to what I said in this thread? Or do you have some prior conversation in mind? (I apologize if I've forgotten, but...I don't recall ever being in any disagreement with you previously, ever! Frankly, Joe H takes most of my time....)

Dr. Beckwith,

I was highly encouraged by your conversion in my own entry to the Catholic Church. Thank you so much. I completely understand your post and how you feel about the illogical position the ETS seems to be now taking. I felt the same way as my wife and I were indirectly excommunicated from our church (even though she had not become Catholic). Thus, like another commentator said, "I am not surprised". We do however need to continue to pray for our separated brethren. Michael, you could never imagine the debt of gratitude we owe to pre-Vatican II Catholics (I'm assuming you are one) such as you. It is people like you who stood up for the faith while others (me included) took a different path. However, I do also ask you to show us some charity. We were once your separated brethren. Yes, we fell, but if we did as former Catholics we did because of our love for Jesus and the lies of satan. This is the reason many of us have returned because our eyes have been opened to the truth you have always known. Yet in our hearts we have always loved Jesus, and we know many others, who once were our family (and your family) who also love Jesus. They like you do not understand the fullness of the truth as revealed in the Church. We must love them, pray for them and bring them home. So pray for us. And you are right, we are here to learn from the Church and not teach it.

May God bless you. And thank you so much Dr. Beckwith.

This article was great, very well written. A big thank you to Dr. Beckworth, and a welcome to inside Catholic.

To R.C.: Please don't worry, your comments are well thought out and well written. You have a real charity that shines through you writing, and I enjoy seeing your work on this site! As a life-long conservative Catholic with some older and deeply conservative pro-latin friends, I think I can help here.


At every point of history, Catholics have been in contact with the gospel message. Sometimes, it's been filtered through a vernacular homily, or just a verbal retelling in a village in Gaul. There's a ton of ways to pass scripture on, and help people relate to it.

Michael, you seem to speak to one way in particular, the liturgical. While the mass has changed drastically, the unmistakable sciptural roots are still there, weaving through the whole structure. However, in addition to this liturgical approach, Rome has reminded and encouraged us to engage scripture in other ways which were unfamiliar to many Catholics in the mid 1900's. Were there exceptions? yeah there were. You may have been one of them, you seem to draw a huge amount of life from that culture. That's awesome.

However, you are trying to make a blanket statement about a period of history that flies in the face of almost all reliable testimony I've seen or heard about the period.

One retired monseigneur I know (I work with many priests) worked hard to get catholics to simply read the Bible directly after Vatican II. This was seen by his parish as 'too Protestant' as he tells it, and just getting people to read a Bible there was uphill work. He wasn't alone; so many others were and are trying to expand our approach to scripture to match the ideal the church has, the ideal God has.


There is always more to learn about Sacred Scripture. Some knowledge requires the physical tools of an archaeologist, some the mental tools of a scholar. People with Evangelical backgrounds bring a phenomenal devotion to scripture study and prayer that inspires all of us, and they can share that with us as we teach them the scriptural roots of our liturgical tradition.

The very fact that the ETS has a religious creed of sorts shows clearly that the group is more of a religious society than an academic one. For example, ETS claims such as: "[The Bible is] therefore inerrant in the autographs" are statements of faith and not claims that could ever be proven or even assessed via legitimate inquiry or research. As an added point, the fact the ETS would make such a bald statement about the state the biblical canon at the time of Christ (again, far from a certainty to any degree) shows a lack of academic rigor and good faith on the part of the ETS toward openness to inquiry, the mark of a scholarly society.

Given that the society is a religious one (and I certainly think Evangelicals are free to form whatever group they would like regardless of their views) I don't find it surprising at all they they exclude Catholic members. Even on the topic of religious common ground, I'm sure if you'd poll ETS membership and compare their views on inerrancy with the bulk of what has been promulgated by the Catholic Church on the topic of Scripture over the last 60 years, I'm sure you'd find wide disagreement. A facile excerpt from DV does not a theology make, Dr. Beckwith. In terms of both Catholic theology of Scripture as well as biblical scholarship per se, it seems you're in over your head.

Frank,
Welcome back. Sorry to have missed our BGHS reunion. You will recall our mini debate back in the early eighties at the home of Jim and Keenan's parents in LV? You were adamant that I was wrong to state that the Catholic Church was the one true church? Sorry you had to stray for so long, but, again, welcome back. If you have any questions, on political matters, or theological, or, for that matter, on any subject, give me a call. I can save you alot of time, reflection, and studying by, as I did thirty years ago, giving you the correct answer now.

I think you've misunderstood the author. I believe the intent of Mr. Beckwith's article was not so much to claim a kind of dual citizenship as a Catholic AND an Evangelical as it was to point out the inconsistency, incoherence, and hypocrisy of the ETS's theological statements.

God Bless Dr. Becwith for returning to the Catholic Church. I've been a Baptist preaher/debater planning to return to the Catholic Church too.

i believe beckwith's argument is sound. but c'mon! the catholics are the biggest exclusivists in the world. anglican catholics who believe almost everything the roman catholics believe are still trying to get in good with the romans. should i, a non roman catholic, want or try to participate in the holy eucharist i am not allowed. i believe it is much harder to become a roman catholic than it is for me to claim to be a protestant or an ets member. so who gets to sit with the romans? "well the greek and eastern orthodox churches seem like they are cool, we will let them in, but no the protestants." i think it is just fair that the romans should open their doors before they expect protestants' to open theirs.

i went to a jesuit high school as a protestant and there really wasn't a lot of respect coming my way because of my protestantism. i respect the romans, anglicans, greek, and oriental orthodox tremendously. it is no small thing to be able to trace your lineage all the way back to peter. but, roman catholics do come across as a closed society only for the initiated. in this way complaining that the ets has no good ground for not allowing roman catholics into their fold, is like the miser complaining to the poor man for not giving him some food.

I loved Frank's book. To his critics, know that he cautioned Catholics AGAINST viewing his book as a triumph of Catholicism over other denominations. What led him away from the Catholic Church was, in part, his struggle to find passionate, vibrant followers of Christ sitting in the pews - people who wanted to talk about their relationship with Christ and how it had transformed their lives. That is one of the reasons why so many leave the Catholic Church once they have a personal experience with Jesus Christ. It's NOT that such people do not belong in the Catholic Church --we need them now more than ever!- it's that the Church hasn't quite figured how to give them an outlet for the openness and evangelism they feel called to. Many "evangelical catholics" are of precisely this type: They are not saying they are both Protestant and Catholic. The source of the debate seems to be that evangelicals claim to own the definition of what it means to be "evangelical." To evangelicals, it means something decidedly "Protestant" and all that comes with it. To Catholics, it is actually a tautological term, because all Catholics are also called to a life of evangelism. This is the point Pope John Paul II makes so insightfuly in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio. (Whatever you think of the papacy, you cannot deny that the {Pope is a follower of Christ and might have something of value to say about Him. Some read books by mega-church pastors but reject the Pope as having anything of value to say on Christ?) Protestants do not own the rights to the word "evangelical." Catholics and Protestants routinely read Scripture together, and I am certain the Good Lord rejoices in that. I am equally confident the Good Lord mourns the fact that the many who have believed in Him spent so much time fighting over who lives him best or who loves him the right way. When we are ultimately judged, we will not be asked whether we were Lutheran, Southern Baptist, evangelical, Catholic, or even "Evangelical Catholic." We will be asked if we believed in the Risen Christ, did we hold fast to him in our hearts, in our belieefs and in our actions, and led lives in closeness and imitation of Him. First Corinthians says it best: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"