Life after the Return to Rome

A couple more comments from the Called to Communion thread:

Francis Beckwith (#5) said: John, to whom are you going to file your grievance in order to remedy this great historical wrong, a wrong that extended over the entirety of Christendom from (if you’re right) the 3rd century until the 16th?

This was right out of the box, and to some degree it is a fair question. We Protestants do have grievances not with the entire process of church history (although after Constantine that notion picked up some steam) -- but with small, and in some cases not-so-small things. For example, as I've written about in the past (and intend to write more about in the future), T.F. Torrance has done an analysis of the word and concept of "grace," as it's articulated in the New Testament, and as it is picked up in the Apostolic Fathers, and Clement, for one, holds to a doctrine of grace that misses the point of "grace" in the New Testament.

Clement definitely thinks of charis as referring to a gift of God without which the Christian would not be able to attain to love or salvation. But there is little doubt that this is held along with the idea of merit before God; for grace is given to those who perform the commandments of God, and who are worthy. He may use the language of election and justification, but the essentially Greek idea of the unqualified freedom of choice is a natural axiom in his thoughts, and entails a doctrine of "works" as Paul would have said. In all His dealings with men, God is regarded as merciful; but the ground for the Salvation He gives is double: faith and ... [ellipses in original].

Clement "thinks of God's mercy as directed only toward the pious" (55)

It's almost as if he's adopted Pelagianism before Pelagius.

Also, Clement pretty much flatly contradicts the writer of Hebrews:

When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
"This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,"

then he adds,

"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."

Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. (Hebrews 10)

And now here is Clement, using some of the same language, though in an opposite sense:

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable to Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed. (1 Clement 40, 41)

Without going into a thorough analysis of these passages, it's clear to see that there's just a different understanding of what Christ's sacrifice has accomplished, and what it really meant for Him to have "sat down at the right hand of God," where "there is no longer any offering for sin."

Is this a part of the "great historical wrong" that Beckwith posits? It certainly looks serious.

Beckwith #5: The hoodwinking was so clever, so sublime, so sophisticated, and so diabolical that it developed in such a way as to fit seamlessly with the Church, its doctrinal development, its liturgy, its councils, and its declarations on the canonicity of Scripture. The deception was so well done–by the Enemy, of course–that it displays an elegance that makes it seem to be, in retrospect, just how one would expect the Church to have developed.

I noted in my comments that my view of how the early church began to go wrong required more nuance than he was allowing for here, ("sarcasm is the protest of people who are weak"), and I posted this link and offered to clarify if he didn't feel as if he wanted to go to a link. There was not very much at all, by the way, that could be described as "seamless" in early church history.

Francis Beckwith #9: I think Michael makes a good point. Take the quote he reproduces above:

(Citing Michael Liccone): “Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.”

I would add to Mike’s excellent point the observation that the quote is not only an almost textbook case of crass question- begging its assertion about the “Christendom” is more incredible than the exegesis it claims cannot be sustained. Here’s what I mean: who precisely did the foisting and why was it so relatively easy to accomplish? The ecumenical councils of the first five centuries–including all its bishops–were all duped. But by whom and for what insidious purpose? Even the Eastern Churches, though rejecting the Catholic claims of the papacy, maintain some view of petrine primacy (i.e., first among equals). So, even those who were uneasy about Rome’s claims about the papacy shared with Rome the belief in petrine primacy as well as apostolic succession and the visible Church as the means by which grace is given through the sacraments.

I responded to his apparent factual misunderstanding and also the notion about orthodox views not being the "divine institution" that Rome requires.

But note, again, the bolded selection: It was the Roman bishops themselves, in their quest to aggrandize themselves, that did the "duping". This wasn't an intentional thing -- it was more a case of "arguing among themselves as to who was greatest." It was a case of Roman bishops being invited to a banquet, then taking the highest seat when such a thing was not offered to them. But the characterization of "duping" -- that is a straw man, and someone with his academic credentials should know about this sort of thing.

But he goes further.

Beckwith #9: The scope and depth of the conspiracy is global and virtually unopposed. And we are supposed to, in light of this, abandon the universal and visible church because some Reformed writer happens to draw our attention to the fact that the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 has its detractors and thus we cannot conclusively prove from the text petrine primacy. But this Cartesian skepticism cuts both ways, since one can find among even the Reformed disagreements on justification and the passages in Scripture employed by partisans on all sides (e.g, Wright v. Piper). The problem with scorched Earth apologetics is that you may “win” the argument but there’s no Earth left on which to revel in your victory.

So now he accelerates the "duping" language into a full-blown conspiracy theory.

In the first place, the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 is clearly opposed. Read the responses of Cyprian and Firmilian to Stephen, for example. It is opposed in a most strenuous way.

It's simply not the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16 has its detractors." It is the case that "the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16" had not a single advocate until the 250's, when Steven decided that he could use it to, what, somehow claim some greater authority than others thought that he had.

But again, note the bolded selection. The "conspiracy theory" has becomes "scorched earth."

An academic with Beckwith's credentials should have no problem debunking my thesis, if indeed it can be debunked. As I noted:

I assure you this is not “scorched earth.” Because I can show you examples of how the “critical historical scholarship” which is seemingly doing great damage (hence your use of “scorched earth” terminology) is actually confirming very important elements about the life of Christ. I can live with that, and I believe that the entire church will be better off with that understanding in place.

So far as I can tell, Francis Beckwith did not show up again.

* * *

I'm pointing these things out to note that his argumentation here did not align itself with his academic credentials. Although, I've always noted a certain screechiness when he interacts with, say, the folks at Triablogue. But here, the screechiness takes on a shrill and unbecoming level.

One of the benefits of being an old guy is that you've just plain seen things with your own eyes that others may not have been aware of. In one important respect, I've traveled the path that Beckwith has followed and advertised: I grew up as a cradle Catholic; left for one reason or another, and then I "Returned to Rome" and even resided there quite happily for a time.

But the Holy Spirit is not one to give up on people. And there did come a time when the unease grew, over having to say "black" when my eye saw white. This unease was strikingly apparent at Mass, when I would receive communion, and I was not getting the good touchy-feely sentiments of having just received "the Body of Christ." Watching people bow to statues of Mary made me cringe. It was Christ himself who drove me out of the Roman church -- over time, to be sure, but the drive was persistent.

Some Catholics might think that this is just a "dark night of the soul." That they can just put up with it and put up with it and then it will go away. I would not be surprised if not only Beckwith, but more than a few of the Called to Communion guys, over time, experience this sort of thing. These are individuals who claimed to once have been Reformed; they claimed to know the Scriptures.

If indeed they once did know the Scriptures, the Scriptures will not let go of them. The choice, then, is, "is this really a "dark night of the soul?" Or is it the very Holy Spirit of God calling upon you to repent and return to receive his free grace?

Nobody really knows what's going on inside Francis Beckwith to generate the very un-academic responses he gave here. But I can say from personal experience that to "Return to Rome" isn't necessarily to live happily ever after.