Sean, I seriously hope you are not taking self-appointed pontiff Taylor Marshall as a main representative of American Catholicism, or even “conservative” American Catholicism in general. I also hope you are not taking YouTube Catholicism emblematic of lived orthodox Catholicism. Outright calling this fundamentalist mode of thinking, which, yes, can often be present, particularly rad-trad circles, “Roman Catholic” in the headline for your article is not a fair characterization. Although you do acknowledge this mode of thinking is not present in all Catholic circles and reference Dei Verbum, by calling it “Roman Catholic” in the headline, you’re more or less making it out to be the main way those faithful to Rome think. As a (yes, Byzantine and not Roman) Catholic, I don’t personally find that particularly charitable. Yes, the PCA and OPC might recognize each other as valid and have the same beliefs, and yes, 90%+ of Protestantisms might all faithfully be able to recite the Apostles’ Creed, but does it not strike you as odd there are Calvinist seminaries with people who disagree over infant and believer’s baptism? People were killing each other over such during the Reformation. A Lutheran will likely have more in common with a Catholic than a Pentecostal, yet the Lutheran and the Pentecostal are both Protestant. I’m not an apologist nor a theological scholar, and I’m not going to watch your thirty minute video at this moment, but is your main issue with Transubstantiation substance and accidence, etc, or with the Real Presence, that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. I personally came to believe in the Real Presence based on how the Church is the Body of Christ, and we, the Church, become the Body of Christ through taking Christ’s body within us without ever having substance and accidence explained to me, a much more Eastern way to think about it (I’m not going to write a discourse on it).
Hey Bethany--thanks for your comment. No, certainly not--and no, I don't think YouTube Catholicism is emblematic of this sort of thinking. And as I mentioned in the blog, I this certainly isn't even directed at the majority of Roman Catholics (I use "Roman Catholic" because I don't think Rome has the claim to be *the* Catholic Church, as that's the very thing in dispute between magisterial Protestantism and Roman--or Papal?--Catholicism; I use the label out of convenience, since it's what most are familiar with). But I do think it is a danger (not a necessity) within post-Tridentine thinking--a tendency, if you will, enabled by how Trent frames the nature of sacred tradition.
Now, that said, the disunity is unfortunate between Protestants. And it is odd. But as I've pressed into that issue, I've found that Baptists are generally okay with saying most of the church erred for most of history on a given issue. That is not something I'm willing to say.
Fair enough on not watching the video. The issue for me isn't really at all with the Real Presence. I also think the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. I just don't think it ceases to be bread. And yet, that seems to my mind like an otherwise incredibly small issue *except* for the fact that the view that the body, blood, soul, and divinity are concomitant with the bread was anathematized at Trent, and rejected as a heresy.
^^All of that said, I appreciate your reflections! And certainly, most faithful Roman Catholics I've had embodied friendships with are lovely people (including yourself!), and are good Christians who are seeking to love Jesus more. So yes, this isn't directed to even necessarily the majority; but also, the title acknowledges that I *do* think the traditionalists or traditionalist-adjacent who see most Protestants as lost are being the most consistent in their adherence to the magisterium. So, to my lights, the theology the magisterium has ratified generates this danger that's so characteristic of chronically online Roman brethren.
I have not read Trent nor much Thomistic Eucharistic theology, and when I do read theology, I tend to read the Eastern Fathers and the twentieth century resssourcement theologians because that's what most relevant to me at this moment, so I won't get into the Transubstantiation issue. But besides that, you do pull from Dei Verbum (that I have sat down to read), a document from binding Council in the Catholic Church, and discuss how the mode of thinking you are critiquing here is not consistent with Rome's teaching, so I am not sure why you are calling the "traditionalist" Catholics who you are critiquing here who need to get off line as the most faithful to the Magisterium.
Fair point that requires explanation! It's because I think they're trying to hold everything the magisterium has taught together without admitting doctrinal reversal, and that seems to me to be the stance required if one accepts the Professio Fidei. For instance, I think it's undeniable that Trent anathametizes (historically=consigned to hell) those who held that the substance of bread and wine remain with the body and blood (like me). I also think the Council of Florence implies that for most of those outside of the Roman church, they face damnation (along with Unam Sanctam). So how does one hold that together with Unitatis Redintegratio? By affirming that Protestant Baptisms only give justifying grace in cases of invincible ignorance or utter non-culpability for adult converts.
So *if* one wants to uphold the notion that the magisterium is infallible in an ecumenical council, then this is the way to go. But if one doesn't, that's fair--but then I don't see how they're not already a Protestant (a Reformed Catholic) living in Rome's midst. So it's most "consistent" in that sense that the traditionalist tries to cohere all the magisterium has taught. But of course, I don't think that succeeds.
Provocative question: are you, therefore, as a Protestant, implying the uncharitable online theobros, who often see distrust in the hierarchy, are more Catholic than the faithful people of good will in the pews?
That's a great question. No, because being Catholic is more than just having consistent doctrine. It's not very Catholic, for instance, to preach magisterial infallibility but then to go commit adultery (or "plug any sin here"). Theobros often lack the requisite humility that magisterial teaching calls for.
So I think they're more doctrinally consistent. But that's really only one aspect of being Catholic (in the way, I think, both you and I would define "being Catholic").
You know, anathema doesn’t necessarily mean going to Hell. It’s a type of excommunication. Excommunication is ultimately a call to repentance. Calling heresies anathema takes place in certain Orthodox liturgies too.
I'd recommend Trent Horn, Joe Heschmeyer, or Jimmy Akin if you want to focus on Catholics-on-Youtube. You've probably heard of them, but I find them to be individuals who do think things through and present solid arguments in the process. The Catholic Church has no reason to train people "not to think things through" because the truth will always come out. My whole Substack is dedicated to thinking through Catholic beliefs and presenting them in an understandable way (well, I try...haha!).
There's a couple of things you just simply assert here which strike me as false - perhaps you've expounded on them in the past? You say transubstantiation contains logical contradiction, but it doesn't. You say the Catholic Church can't connect Her teachings to the apostolic and early Church eras, but in my estimation She can and does. You say She discourages people from thinking for themselves, but in my experience Catholics are the most thoughtful Christians (and I've been around the ecclesial block, so to speak).
I don't really see support for these points in your article. They are just asserted.
Kinda wild that your whole argument is that Catholic teaching of an infallible magisterium will lead to deconstruction when deconstruction is also prevalent in evangelical circles. Also, Martin Luther can be said to have “deconstructed his faith” in the sense that he thought through why he believed what he believed. And ended up a Protestant.
My problem with Catholics is that I sent 2 of my children to a Catholic preschool, and my daughter later told me that her teacher took the whole class to where there was a statue of Mary and told them to pray to the statue. That is idolatry plain and simple, and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
Idk the best way to defend transsubstantiation that’d make you happy, but I also know by its fruits that the eucharist is pretty great when taken properly. Something I’d imagine a protestant could know nothing directly about. I know I didnt, when I was an anglican. Then after I met the presiding bishop of the US I thought, wait why is my religion based on some syphillitic english king’s power trip? That seems like a weird antecedent. I should probably poke around and figure out what the deal is with all this because being on team God seems like a good plan relative to not being on team God. Figured I’d probably end up orthodox or pentecostal or something. Looked into other religions too. Then after years of research the pesky Catholics kept being right so I decided to roll with it and it’s been pretty great ever since, in most respects. Disappointing that most novus ordo parishes are lower church than what I left, and it was weird converting and knowing way more than most of the people in the parish about the Faith despite being a neophyte, but the spiritual fruits have been better and I found the tridentine mass and that’s been great. I typically find that finding exposition from before the council on something generally yields better results on most subjects. Not that stuff since then cant be good, just, the signal to noise ratio and quality seems generally to be a lot better. Anyway, good luck to you and may you grow ever holier every day!
“The danger of Roman Catholic thinking is that they don’t listen to my attempt to refute Roman Catholicism.”
I think it’s okay for Catholics to know when they’re out of their league on a topic and simply reiterate their faith. If you want to argue about the fine points, talk to a theologian. I don’t expect any theological understanding from the average Protestant (because they rarely have it), so I’m not sure why you would get upset about finding the same from Catholics.
Also, the ancient witnesses of the faith are quite clear that what we hold in this sacrament is nothing other than the body and blood of Christ.
Answer the following questions according to the Bible:
Who is the savior?
Who is the creator?
Who is the judge?
Who is the final authority?
I think you may know where I am going with this.
The Bible says that Jehovah is savior (Isaiah 43:11, Hosea 13:4). In Acts 4:12, it says that “under no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
The Bible says that Jehovah is Creator, and also Jesus.
The Bible says that Jehovah is Judge, and also that Jesus will judge the living and the dead.
The Bible says that Jehovah is the ultimate authority, and Jesus stood on his own authority to accomplish His ministry.
God made Jesus Lord and Christ. Jesus didn’t make himself anything. Now, exalted and given all authority under God, does all the things like judging and giving life.
Jesus wasn’t the creator. If you like verses that suggest he is, I’d be happy to discuss them.
We see various titles that were God’s and are now given to Jesus, but this doesn’t make him God. Jesus has them because he wields God’s authority as if he were God.
Just as Joseph wielded Pharaoh’s power. And Moses acted as God too.
You say, Jesus stood on his own authority to accomplish His ministry. That’s untrue, he was given authority, it was his God’s authority. Matt 9:8
You hold this theology because you think it makes the Bible more coherent, but it makes it far less. Jehovah is now what? Reduced to nothing while “Jesus” just does all the things that God does, “as if he is God”? That makes no sense and the transfer of power is no where near Pharaoh to Joseph. Did Joseph become the “So. Of Ra” to receive worship from Egypt? That would make that a very different story. How can you possibly justify believing that God handed over all His titles?
And, that doesn’t make any sense anyway. How can a past action be attributed to a future king? If God created everything, then how does Jesus “become” the creator? Consider this, If God created everything how can Jesus be said to have created everything unless they are both “God”?
It would be like saying the current President of the United States is the founding father of the United States of America. No, he is just a President. The founding father is the founding father. You can’t transfer that title no matter how much authority you have. It would just make you a liar. Jehovah is not a liar.
The matter of agency has been in place forever - the prophets acted as God’s agents. Jesus is too. 1Cor 15:28 God may be all in all, Jesus is always under God.
You seem to not grasp that Jesus is the glory of God. He glorifies God in everything he does. The glory is always God’s and everyone will eventually bask in that glory. If you feel it is incoherent it’s because we’re only scratching the surface of truth as opposed to religious dogma which has hidden it for 1600 years.
In 'Tradition & Apocalypse' David Bentley Hart identifies 3 main forms of fundamentalism in the modern Church: Biblical, papal, and patristic. It's an interesting book, worth a read if you haven't read it!
Love your stuff brother. You’re one of my biggest heroes in the faith.
Just to be clear, as it seemed you elaborated on this toward the end of the article:
The time when you said,
“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. “
Would you say this is summarised in what can be found in scripture and in historical tradition in congruence with it, or at least what’s supportive and not against it as the working ground to go with?
God bless you in the process of your book on apostolica curae. Thoroughly looking forward to it.
Sean, I seriously hope you are not taking self-appointed pontiff Taylor Marshall as a main representative of American Catholicism, or even “conservative” American Catholicism in general. I also hope you are not taking YouTube Catholicism emblematic of lived orthodox Catholicism. Outright calling this fundamentalist mode of thinking, which, yes, can often be present, particularly rad-trad circles, “Roman Catholic” in the headline for your article is not a fair characterization. Although you do acknowledge this mode of thinking is not present in all Catholic circles and reference Dei Verbum, by calling it “Roman Catholic” in the headline, you’re more or less making it out to be the main way those faithful to Rome think. As a (yes, Byzantine and not Roman) Catholic, I don’t personally find that particularly charitable. Yes, the PCA and OPC might recognize each other as valid and have the same beliefs, and yes, 90%+ of Protestantisms might all faithfully be able to recite the Apostles’ Creed, but does it not strike you as odd there are Calvinist seminaries with people who disagree over infant and believer’s baptism? People were killing each other over such during the Reformation. A Lutheran will likely have more in common with a Catholic than a Pentecostal, yet the Lutheran and the Pentecostal are both Protestant. I’m not an apologist nor a theological scholar, and I’m not going to watch your thirty minute video at this moment, but is your main issue with Transubstantiation substance and accidence, etc, or with the Real Presence, that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. I personally came to believe in the Real Presence based on how the Church is the Body of Christ, and we, the Church, become the Body of Christ through taking Christ’s body within us without ever having substance and accidence explained to me, a much more Eastern way to think about it (I’m not going to write a discourse on it).
Hey Bethany--thanks for your comment. No, certainly not--and no, I don't think YouTube Catholicism is emblematic of this sort of thinking. And as I mentioned in the blog, I this certainly isn't even directed at the majority of Roman Catholics (I use "Roman Catholic" because I don't think Rome has the claim to be *the* Catholic Church, as that's the very thing in dispute between magisterial Protestantism and Roman--or Papal?--Catholicism; I use the label out of convenience, since it's what most are familiar with). But I do think it is a danger (not a necessity) within post-Tridentine thinking--a tendency, if you will, enabled by how Trent frames the nature of sacred tradition.
Now, that said, the disunity is unfortunate between Protestants. And it is odd. But as I've pressed into that issue, I've found that Baptists are generally okay with saying most of the church erred for most of history on a given issue. That is not something I'm willing to say.
Fair enough on not watching the video. The issue for me isn't really at all with the Real Presence. I also think the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ. I just don't think it ceases to be bread. And yet, that seems to my mind like an otherwise incredibly small issue *except* for the fact that the view that the body, blood, soul, and divinity are concomitant with the bread was anathematized at Trent, and rejected as a heresy.
^^All of that said, I appreciate your reflections! And certainly, most faithful Roman Catholics I've had embodied friendships with are lovely people (including yourself!), and are good Christians who are seeking to love Jesus more. So yes, this isn't directed to even necessarily the majority; but also, the title acknowledges that I *do* think the traditionalists or traditionalist-adjacent who see most Protestants as lost are being the most consistent in their adherence to the magisterium. So, to my lights, the theology the magisterium has ratified generates this danger that's so characteristic of chronically online Roman brethren.
I have not read Trent nor much Thomistic Eucharistic theology, and when I do read theology, I tend to read the Eastern Fathers and the twentieth century resssourcement theologians because that's what most relevant to me at this moment, so I won't get into the Transubstantiation issue. But besides that, you do pull from Dei Verbum (that I have sat down to read), a document from binding Council in the Catholic Church, and discuss how the mode of thinking you are critiquing here is not consistent with Rome's teaching, so I am not sure why you are calling the "traditionalist" Catholics who you are critiquing here who need to get off line as the most faithful to the Magisterium.
Fair point that requires explanation! It's because I think they're trying to hold everything the magisterium has taught together without admitting doctrinal reversal, and that seems to me to be the stance required if one accepts the Professio Fidei. For instance, I think it's undeniable that Trent anathametizes (historically=consigned to hell) those who held that the substance of bread and wine remain with the body and blood (like me). I also think the Council of Florence implies that for most of those outside of the Roman church, they face damnation (along with Unam Sanctam). So how does one hold that together with Unitatis Redintegratio? By affirming that Protestant Baptisms only give justifying grace in cases of invincible ignorance or utter non-culpability for adult converts.
So *if* one wants to uphold the notion that the magisterium is infallible in an ecumenical council, then this is the way to go. But if one doesn't, that's fair--but then I don't see how they're not already a Protestant (a Reformed Catholic) living in Rome's midst. So it's most "consistent" in that sense that the traditionalist tries to cohere all the magisterium has taught. But of course, I don't think that succeeds.
Provocative question: are you, therefore, as a Protestant, implying the uncharitable online theobros, who often see distrust in the hierarchy, are more Catholic than the faithful people of good will in the pews?
That's a great question. No, because being Catholic is more than just having consistent doctrine. It's not very Catholic, for instance, to preach magisterial infallibility but then to go commit adultery (or "plug any sin here"). Theobros often lack the requisite humility that magisterial teaching calls for.
So I think they're more doctrinally consistent. But that's really only one aspect of being Catholic (in the way, I think, both you and I would define "being Catholic").
You know, anathema doesn’t necessarily mean going to Hell. It’s a type of excommunication. Excommunication is ultimately a call to repentance. Calling heresies anathema takes place in certain Orthodox liturgies too.
I'd recommend Trent Horn, Joe Heschmeyer, or Jimmy Akin if you want to focus on Catholics-on-Youtube. You've probably heard of them, but I find them to be individuals who do think things through and present solid arguments in the process. The Catholic Church has no reason to train people "not to think things through" because the truth will always come out. My whole Substack is dedicated to thinking through Catholic beliefs and presenting them in an understandable way (well, I try...haha!).
There's a couple of things you just simply assert here which strike me as false - perhaps you've expounded on them in the past? You say transubstantiation contains logical contradiction, but it doesn't. You say the Catholic Church can't connect Her teachings to the apostolic and early Church eras, but in my estimation She can and does. You say She discourages people from thinking for themselves, but in my experience Catholics are the most thoughtful Christians (and I've been around the ecclesial block, so to speak).
I don't really see support for these points in your article. They are just asserted.
Kinda wild that your whole argument is that Catholic teaching of an infallible magisterium will lead to deconstruction when deconstruction is also prevalent in evangelical circles. Also, Martin Luther can be said to have “deconstructed his faith” in the sense that he thought through why he believed what he believed. And ended up a Protestant.
Oh brother, the cringe, the irony, it is unreal
My problem with Catholics is that I sent 2 of my children to a Catholic preschool, and my daughter later told me that her teacher took the whole class to where there was a statue of Mary and told them to pray to the statue. That is idolatry plain and simple, and no one will ever convince me otherwise.
And the Gospel of John chapter 6 is quite coherent.
Thus may not be enough for your exalted thinking but here goes:
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/
Idk the best way to defend transsubstantiation that’d make you happy, but I also know by its fruits that the eucharist is pretty great when taken properly. Something I’d imagine a protestant could know nothing directly about. I know I didnt, when I was an anglican. Then after I met the presiding bishop of the US I thought, wait why is my religion based on some syphillitic english king’s power trip? That seems like a weird antecedent. I should probably poke around and figure out what the deal is with all this because being on team God seems like a good plan relative to not being on team God. Figured I’d probably end up orthodox or pentecostal or something. Looked into other religions too. Then after years of research the pesky Catholics kept being right so I decided to roll with it and it’s been pretty great ever since, in most respects. Disappointing that most novus ordo parishes are lower church than what I left, and it was weird converting and knowing way more than most of the people in the parish about the Faith despite being a neophyte, but the spiritual fruits have been better and I found the tridentine mass and that’s been great. I typically find that finding exposition from before the council on something generally yields better results on most subjects. Not that stuff since then cant be good, just, the signal to noise ratio and quality seems generally to be a lot better. Anyway, good luck to you and may you grow ever holier every day!
“The danger of Roman Catholic thinking is that they don’t listen to my attempt to refute Roman Catholicism.”
I think it’s okay for Catholics to know when they’re out of their league on a topic and simply reiterate their faith. If you want to argue about the fine points, talk to a theologian. I don’t expect any theological understanding from the average Protestant (because they rarely have it), so I’m not sure why you would get upset about finding the same from Catholics.
Also, the ancient witnesses of the faith are quite clear that what we hold in this sacrament is nothing other than the body and blood of Christ.
https://open.substack.com/pub/bridgetograce/p/the-garden-gate?r=5h8n5b&utm_medium=ios
Don’t stop too soon. Go farther along the path.
‘Trinity is just as incoherent‘,
It’s true, but more importantly, it’s completely false - based on an honest Biblical exegesis.
No biblical verse describes an incarnation, Jesus having ‘dual natures’, being ‘co-equal’, ‘eternally begotten’, ‘one substance’ or a ‘God the Son’.
Once you remove the eisegetical mis-read proof texts, there is nothing left but heresy.
Apparently it’s not important that the original church believed and taught none of this stuff! Why?
I've responded to that here:
https://youtu.be/npcY-OZYN64?si=HKmNr9yjjP2-xYx_
Here: https://youtu.be/wA85r4Br2QA?si=aw4EnrHmJBd8uIqH
See Gavin Ortlund's most recent video too
Answer the following questions according to the Bible:
Who is the savior?
Who is the creator?
Who is the judge?
Who is the final authority?
I think you may know where I am going with this.
The Bible says that Jehovah is savior (Isaiah 43:11, Hosea 13:4). In Acts 4:12, it says that “under no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
The Bible says that Jehovah is Creator, and also Jesus.
The Bible says that Jehovah is Judge, and also that Jesus will judge the living and the dead.
The Bible says that Jehovah is the ultimate authority, and Jesus stood on his own authority to accomplish His ministry.
God made Jesus Lord and Christ. Jesus didn’t make himself anything. Now, exalted and given all authority under God, does all the things like judging and giving life.
Jesus wasn’t the creator. If you like verses that suggest he is, I’d be happy to discuss them.
We see various titles that were God’s and are now given to Jesus, but this doesn’t make him God. Jesus has them because he wields God’s authority as if he were God.
Just as Joseph wielded Pharaoh’s power. And Moses acted as God too.
You say, Jesus stood on his own authority to accomplish His ministry. That’s untrue, he was given authority, it was his God’s authority. Matt 9:8
You hold this theology because you think it makes the Bible more coherent, but it makes it far less. Jehovah is now what? Reduced to nothing while “Jesus” just does all the things that God does, “as if he is God”? That makes no sense and the transfer of power is no where near Pharaoh to Joseph. Did Joseph become the “So. Of Ra” to receive worship from Egypt? That would make that a very different story. How can you possibly justify believing that God handed over all His titles?
And, that doesn’t make any sense anyway. How can a past action be attributed to a future king? If God created everything, then how does Jesus “become” the creator? Consider this, If God created everything how can Jesus be said to have created everything unless they are both “God”?
It would be like saying the current President of the United States is the founding father of the United States of America. No, he is just a President. The founding father is the founding father. You can’t transfer that title no matter how much authority you have. It would just make you a liar. Jehovah is not a liar.
The matter of agency has been in place forever - the prophets acted as God’s agents. Jesus is too. 1Cor 15:28 God may be all in all, Jesus is always under God.
You seem to not grasp that Jesus is the glory of God. He glorifies God in everything he does. The glory is always God’s and everyone will eventually bask in that glory. If you feel it is incoherent it’s because we’re only scratching the surface of truth as opposed to religious dogma which has hidden it for 1600 years.
In 'Tradition & Apocalypse' David Bentley Hart identifies 3 main forms of fundamentalism in the modern Church: Biblical, papal, and patristic. It's an interesting book, worth a read if you haven't read it!
Love your stuff brother. You’re one of my biggest heroes in the faith.
Just to be clear, as it seemed you elaborated on this toward the end of the article:
The time when you said,
“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. “
Would you say this is summarised in what can be found in scripture and in historical tradition in congruence with it, or at least what’s supportive and not against it as the working ground to go with?
God bless you in the process of your book on apostolica curae. Thoroughly looking forward to it.