Humbly welcome to the Catholic Church. Your courageous journey is inspiring and followed the path of the wise Bereans visited by Saint Paul. Being a cradle-Catholic I have come to appreciate that the “best” Catholics today are converts like both of you. God Bless. Aleks Klidzejs

Thank you for your many kind and thoughtful replies. No disrespect, but my current calling doesn’t leave me the liberty to engage all of the lines of argument here. My goal was to comment upon and reply to aspects of Jason’s narrative, and I regret I can’t do much more than a few brief replies.

Primarily to Jason, who has taken the trouble to recount his story and reply:

I’m glad Scripture played a role (30), but I must say I don’t recognize your characterization of a Protestant way of reading scripture (glancing over shoulder, private guardians of biblical text, cobbling together bits and pieces). A lot of Protestants (including many I would term “broadly evangelical”) have this kind of confused reading of the bible, but I have found the view and use of Scripture in the Reformed tradition to be far more nuanced, rich, and humble.

I’ll take your poke. No hiccup, no intentional anachronism, and I don’t think it’s naive. As you know, the Reformation was of course a reformation of worship as well as doctrine, so clearly it represented a break with its immediate past. But it was Reformed on principles found in Scripture, primarily, but also reflecting the elements found in the worshiping church through the ages. It was also Reformed with the recognition that false worship and idolatry has been with the people of God since the giving of the covenant on Sinai, and so all practices in the church must be measured by the clear commands of Scripture. Again, I’m sure you’re familiar with the regulative principle of worship.

Regarding the “mixed-bag” of the Fathers (58), they are men (many men, in fact). Of course they err, disagree, teach a mixture of things. At many points what they teach is in strong agreement with the Reformation (on salvation, faith, yes, authority). At many points it isn’t. It’s not about wiggle room, because I don’t have to “own” everything every one of them said. So your use of the concept of “Catholic identity” is admittedly a bit odd to me. I confess a holy, catholic, church in the creed, but not a Roman one. (Speaking of pokes, Roman catholic strikes me as an oxymoron, as a truly catholic church is not bound to a certain place or certain persons). I don’t deny the Fathers are members of the catholic church in that sense, any more or less than I am.

Regarding the Sacraments (Dave, 38), I’m not a baptist, or a Zwinglian. I do think they both have serious problems with the text of Scripture. I don’t get squeamish as a Reformed Christian when I read of baptism saving us, or Christ being present in the bread and wine of the supper (though I do struggle to see the aristotelian construction of transubstantiation taught in the text, or the fathers).

I’ll grant, David (36), that Calvin left the church… if fleeing for your life under threat of execution for the Protestant faith is “leaving.” He was not, as Luther was, ordained in the Roman church. So he didn’t leave the ordained Roman ministry. His calling (and departure, and re-calling) to Geneva was unusual, no doubt, not because of his own actions, but because the church in Geneva was still in a state of flux following its departure from Rome (which he did not lead, though he did defend). I think you’re flat wrong that “he utterly rejected the idea that he needed any validation.” Yes, he rejected that he needed a validation from Rome. No, his interior experience was not the justification for his ministry. But he did see his calling by the magistrates and church structure of Geneva (such as it was) to be a valid calling… as every Protestant in every Reformed land did in the sixteenth century.

OF COURSE I want to presume a Protestant definition of the church, and you want to presume a Roman one. But the bottom line is that Calvin fled under threat of death (for the crime of teaching what, exactly?), and served the church of Christ where he found it, and where it found him, when it called him to service.

Thank you for the interaction. I’ll be signing off, not meaning any disrespect. If anyone wants to contact me, you can click through to my website and do so by email.

I think it would be helpful if you read the linked article I provided. Many of your questions are answered there.

Aquinas on Faith & Reason
Dei Filius
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Outlines of Moral Theology
Faith and Certitude
The Assurance of Things Hope For: A Theology of Christian Faith
Outlines of Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1
Fundamental Theology
Faith: Sermon’s Preached at a Men’s Retreat
Theological Virtues Vol. 1 Faith
The Theology of Faith
Fides et Ratio
A Manual of Catholic Theology based on Scheeben’s Dogmatik Vol. 1
Faith and Revealed Truth
A Manual of Dogmatic Theology
Faith and Doubt
The Grammar of Assent
The Grounds of Faith

^I have begun reading this last one. The title of the first chapter is “Revelation: Definite and Certain.” Sounds promising, eh?

Again, thank you for your interaction on this article.

Reviewing your comments again tonight, I’m interested to ask whether or not the “mixed bag” category you’ve proposed is merely an ideological mechanism for preserving some semblance of continuity between the Fathers and the Reformers when it is advantageous for you as a Protestant, while at the same time providing you the wiggle-room to maneuver when faced with doctrines contained in these authors that are less agreeable to your theological program?

“They are not Catholic nor Reformed; they are a mixed bag.”

And off you run with the goodies while I’m left holding the bag containing the Catholic sounding bric-a brac of the Fathers you didn’t want. By denying them a Catholic identity, you seek to sever them from the Catholic Church in our day. By declaring them not reformed, you disavow an organic connection with these early Christian leaders so as to insulate yourself against the wholesale endorsement of their theology and practices.

Let me suggest, however, that the identity of the Fathers is seen in the contours of their belief and practice. Surely we can identify a subject by observing that particular subject’s habitual characteristics. You know the old saw – If it looks like a Catholic, believes like a Catholic, and prays like a Catholic, then it probably is a Catholic.

Blessings,

– Jason

John S., #28, Yes (1), this Protestant, being of the Anglican sort, is an avowed iconodule. It is not a regular personal practice, but I have no qualms with it. And (2), I know this may sound arbitrary, but in all 7 councils, the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were either present or later ratified a previous council. But isn’t this question increasingly moot as the Orientals near full communion with the Orthodox? Or at least signify general christological agreement with both Rome and the East?

Rather than listen to the myriad of voices within the Church it would be far more worth your while to find out what the Church actually teaches through the Catechism of the Church. It contains all of the official teachings.

Blessings
NHU

Do you believe that, based on sound exegesis, the doctrine of sola scriptura is closed?

-Burton

Do you think Sola Scriptura is a revealed doctrine? Has God told us that the Church is to have no rule of faith apart from Scripture?

Thanks,

David