The Danger of Roman Catholic Thinking

How Rome trains people not to think things through

In this post, I want to address a frequent objection that’s brought up whenever I give a particular critique of some Roman Catholic doctrine. For instance, in this video, I’ve argued that transubstantiation is positively incoherent. Even rightly understood, it is hopelessly confused and requires the faithful to believe in the doctrinal equivalent of a square circle, or a married bachelor.

But the most common conservative Roman Catholic response I get to this is: well the magisterium said it, and that settles it! Ironically, this is the same sort of fundamentalism they critique from evangelicals but in an ecclesial key. And yet, on one level, it makes sense. But there’s a really sinister side to this way of thinking which, I fear, may result in the deconstruction of many of Rome’s new converts.

Are All Errors Equal? Is some doctrine wrong just because the church says so?

In response to my video, Taylor Marshall on X replied that Arians also thought the Trinity was an unnecessary barrier to unity. The implication is that the only thing that distinguishes any given error in severity is the church’s authoritative pronouncement; without an authoritative pronouncement, we cannot weigh the seriousness of some doctrinal error. What this means, then, is that the faithful are not supposed to think for themselves and are not invited to discern the underlying theological logic for why one error might be more serious than another.

But there’s a problem with this way of thinking: it’s not even consistent with Rome’s own claims about itself. Chapter 2 of Dei Verbum decidedly frames the magisterium as the teachers who pass on what was handed down through the apostles. In other words, the teaching office of the church does not add to what the apostles taught, but exposits it and grows in understanding of what they taught. But that means, then, that all future doctrines must be contained in the apostolic teaching, even if not fully worked out. That is to say that they are implied by what the apostles taught, even if it takes some time to see how.

This is a fine statement on how the teaching office of the church works. I agree. However, means that whatever is taught by the magisterium should have a connection which in principle should be discernible to the apostolic teaching. If Billy Bob teaches me that “Johnny Bob is a war hero who fought in the Vietnam War”, and I, claiming to pass on what Billy Bob taught me, say “Johnny Bob is a gangster who has a posse of crooks”, and claim that the latter is implied by or an exposition of the former, I should be able to show how. Otherwise, my credibility takes a hit.

If Rome claims she is infallibly protected in her authoritative expositions of the apostle’s teaching, okay, fine. But the fact that she claims she is only expositing means there should in principle be a connection between her expositions and what the apostles taught—or she is, in fact, just adding stuff in the name of “exposition”.

But the moment someone points this out, I often hear the reply, “well, someone can always say that the Trinity is just as incoherent as transubstantiation—and people often have!” And sure, people can say that. But the difference between a Protestant defense of the Nicene Creed and a Roman one is that the Protestant will take the objection head on. We’ll argue that it isn’t incoherent and we can refute the objections. Many (not all) Roman Catholics will hide behind the shield of “infallibility” (Rome said it, I believe it, that settles it).

So here is my worry—which, of course, does not apply to all Roman Catholics. My worry is that this way of thinking will set one up for deconstruction because, long term, it will leave the masses of Roman Catholics unable to explain how any given doctrine is actually just an exposition of what the apostles taught. And after years of doing this (or…dare I say…centuries), people will begin to feel that, actually, no one knows how what they believe is connected to what the apostles taught—and no one, not even the priests or bishops, really know how to make the necessary connection. And after centuries of this functional ignorance, people will either leave the Roman church or leave Christianity in general because they conclude that such ignorance is prevalent because there isn’t any viable answer demonstrating such a link.

Long term, this way of thinking (“well if I think transubstantiation is wrong, so I might as well distrust the Trinity”) will lead to destabilizing one’s trust in the entire body of catholic doctrine received from the church the moment one decides they shouldn’t believe in contradictions, even if those contradictions are taught from some authority. By articulating the reasons for the weight of different errors, and the reasons for why one thing rather than another is claimed to be an exposition of the apostles’ teaching, we can show that, in fact, the body of catholic doctrine has reliably transmitted what was handed down.

One last thought on this. The natural objection Roman Catholics raise is often: “well Protestants don’t agree on the body of catholic doctrine—muh 30000 denominations brooooo!”. Here, there are two responses. First, the diversity of Protestantism, while a problem, is often far far overblown. Many denominations have identical or incredibly similar beliefs (PCA, OPC), would count each other’s ministers and sacraments as valid, and view themselves as different organizational units of the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church (like one might have different Rites in Roman Catholicism or different provinces in Orthodoxy). When we account for confessional Anglicans (who still abide by the 39 Articles), Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, non-oneness Pentecostals, and Baptists, we have just accounted for 90+% of Protestantism. And these groups do have tremendous consensus on:

-The Trinity

-Justification by Faith

-The resurrection of Jesus

-The return of Jesus

-The resurrection of the body

(Basically all of the content of the Apostles’ Creed)

But also, I believe we can show historically what became predominant in the church in the first 1000 years (like infant Baptism, Baptismal regeneration, etcetera). So for those of us who do take catholic consensus seriously, certain doctrines will inevitably emerge (like the episcopacy….) as true interpretations of the apostolic teaching. Further, for these catholic doctrines, I believe we can show how these things are expositions of the apostles’ teaching (e.g., with the episcopacy, the apostles appointed ruling presbyters to be the regional heads of and performers of ordinations for other presbyters, as indicated by Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus, and the “ruling presbyter” later was designated by the term “bishop” within one generation after the apostles). But note: I think the fact that catholic consensus can actually be shown to genuinely exposit the apostolic teaching bolsters its credibility, and so I don’t shy away from defending it. My own belief in the Holy-Spirit-given reliability of the church in her (genuinely) catholic beliefs is not an excuse to refrain from examining the integrity of those beliefs; I’m just convinced that there are plausible ways of showing how what the church came to believe at large is an exposition of what the apostles’ taught.

And may the Lord grant his whole church such confidence, and equip his saints to that end.