The Curse of Broadmindedness

I was just starting to gather my thoughts together regarding whether or not all Christian faiths are just as good as the next one when I stumbled upon this article by Archbishop Fulton Sheen.  He addresses what I was wondering so much better than I could that I'm just going to link to his article rather than write something...for now.

It starts like this...

“The Catholic Church is intolerant.” That simple thought, like a yellow-fever sign, is supposed to be the one solid reason which should frighten away any one who might be contemplating knocking at the portals of the Church for entrance, or for a crumb of the Bread of Life. When proof for this statement is asked, it is retorted that the Church is intolerant because of its self-complacency and smug satisfaction as the unique interpreter of the thoughts of Christ. Its narrow-mindedness is supposed to be revealed in its unwillingness to cooperate effectively with other Christian bodies that are working for the union of churches. Within the last ten years, two great world conferences on religion have been held, in which every great religion except the Catholic participated. The Catholic Church was invited to attend and discuss the two important subjects of doctrine and ministry, but she refused the invitation..."

Read the rest here (it's long, but worth it.) 

 For those who don't want to read a long article, here are some of the "Money Quotes":

Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God’s. 

The man, in our country, who can make up his mind and hold to certain truths with all the fervor of his soul, is called narrow-minded, whereas the man who cannot make up his mind is called broadminded. And now this false broadmindedness or tolerance of truth and error has carried many minds so far that they say one religion is just as good as another, or that because one contradicts another, therefore, there is no such thing as religion. This is just like concluding that because, in the days of Columbus, some said the world was round and others said it was flat, therefore, there is no world at all. 

Such indifference to the oneness of truth is at the root of all the assumptions so current in present-day thinking that religion is an open question, like the tariff, whereas science is a closed question, like the multiplication table. It is behind that strange kind of broadmindedness which teaches that any one may tell us about God, though it would never admit that any one but a scientist should tell us about an atom.

It has created the general impression that any individual opinion about religion is right, and it has disposed modern minds to accept its religion dished up in the form of articles entitled: “My Idea of Religion,” written by any nondescript from a Hollywood movie star to the chief cook of the Ritz-Carlton.

This kind of broadmindedness which sacrifices principles to whims, dissolves entities into environment, and reduces truth to opinion, is an unmistakable sign of the decay of the logical faculty.

A bridge builder must be intolerant about the foundations of his bridge; the gardener must be intolerant about weeds in his gardens; the property owner must be intolerant about his claims to property; the soldier must be intolerant about his country, as against that of the enemy, and he who is broadminded on the battlefield is a coward and a traitor. The doc¬tor must be intolerant about disease in his patients, and the professor must be intolerant about error in his pupils. So, too, the Church, founded on the Intolerance of Divinity, must be equally intolerant about the truths commissioned to her. There are to be no one-fisted battles, no half-drawn swords, no divided loves, no equalizing Christ and Buddha in a broad sweep of sophomoric tolerance or broad-mindedness, for as Our Blessed Lord has put it: “He that is not with Me is against Me.”

The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth

Well, thanks to Facebook, I've been involved in another bizarre "conversation" that, while weird and frustrating at times (and which, in the end resulted in my being ejected from the discussion and blocked from the page), was still quite informative.

For starters, this particular conversation grew over an argument about whether or not Jesus is God. For a while, I watched from the comfort of the sidelines as the parties of both camps threw scripture verses out there, each side refuting the interpretation of the other side's scriptures. When that didn't work each side resorted to throwing out his own version of this particular appeal: "if you would just look at the clear and unambiguous words of Scripture, you would see the truth."

Aaaah, that sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? It's an appeal to common sense. It's a "come, let us reason together" moment. It seems like the way to solve the problem: let's just go to the text, say a little prayer for guidance, read the words, shake hands and walk away united. It should work, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't. Sure it seems reasonable, but that's as far as it goes. Deep down, it's fundamentally flawed thinking.

The problem isn't with the words of scripture, per se. It's the meaning those words are imbued with. In the argument I was watching unfold, both camps took the same words and each read remarkably different ideas into them--contradictory ideas in fact. Their own ideas.

Neither side could understand how the other could not read their particular proof texts and not come away convinced. And so, inevitably, the conversation devolved into who's led by the Holy Spirit and who's a servant of Satan.

As the opinions piled up and the number of posts increased, we "learned" that everyone's level of spirituality was directly related to the strength of his agreement with either of the two sides. For example, if you happened to agree with Side A, then Side A thought you were a Saint--a Biblical scholar of staggering proportions. However, side B typically thought you were a rube. On the other hand, if you, by chance, should agree with Side B, well then, it was clear (to Side B) that you were a powerful theologian--a visionary, able to cut through the clutter, lucidly beholding (and expounding upon) great spiritual mysteries. Unfortunately, Side A comfortably and knowingly assumed you were going to hell.

And all of this occurs because the Bible is exceedingly clear and unambiguous in all matters, right? And we'll know we're right because we know we're led by the Holy Spirit--and that's His job, right? To lead us into all truth? And even though the other people we encounter may SAY they're led by the Holy Spirit, we'll know whether or not that's true by this simple litmus test: do they agree with what we say Scripture says? If they agree, they pass and are clearly spirit led and are brothers and sisters who should be embraced. If they disagree with our positions--and since we KNOW we are spirit-led--we therefore know that they are . . . yes, you guessed it: Devil Spawn. Satan's Emissaries. Servants of Beelzebub.

Now, I'm not here to knock the Bible in any regard. The Bible is the written word of God, handed down to us through the Apostles and various followers of our Lord. The Bible is a tremendous gift from God to the world. And yet, nowhere in the Bible do we read that the Bible is the SOLE rule of faith. In fact, we read in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" is the Church of Jesus Christ--not a written word. In fact, Paul's passage reads as such:

¹⁴ Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, ¹⁵ if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Paul WRITES Timothy instructions (the written WORD of God), but he doesn't tell Timothy that these writings are the pillar and foundation of the truth. That position is reserved for the Church of the Living God. The writings are instructional and helpful and definitely important--but they are not the Pillar and Bulwark or foundation of the truth. No writing can be that since the writing itself requires interpretation. The only entity that can provide interpretation is a teaching authority: the Church.

I would love to believe that the Holy Spirit leads each of us to understand Scripture for ourselves in ALL MATTERS. I would love to believe that we're all equally valid interpreters of the Word. It's a nice idea. It puts a lot of power in our hands. If it's true, we're all theologians, we're all experts on doctrine, we're all Doctors of the Church.

But if it is true, why is there so little consistency? If the Holy Spirit is leading us all, why is there so much variance in our beliefs? And we must be careful not to opt for the "easy-out" answer--the answer given almost everytime this question is asked: "we disagree in non-essentials, but in essentials, there's unity."

Really? Is the Spirit so weak? He's only able to persuade unity in certain doctrines, but other things are outside of his control? He is said to lead into ALL truth and yet, we so often are willing to accept just some.

So why aren't we united? It's what Jesus wanted. Why can't the Holy Spirit pull it off? If the original plan of God was to give us the Bible and then provide the Holy Spirit who would lead us (each one, separately) into all truth, then why in the world hasn't it happened? Human error? Human sin? These are things God didn't foresee?

God knew the system of personal interpretation would be flawed, would lead to much disunity, many arguments and widespread division, but He proceeded with it anyway just because He couldn't come up with a better idea? Does that makes sense?

But what if we're wrong about this notion? What if we're incorrect about God's plan regarding the Bible and the teaching of truth? What if He never meant each one of us to pick it up and find out the truth for ourselves all by ourselves? What if He established an authority--a teaching authority--a pillar and foundation of the truth? What if this was the authority who would be led by the Holy Spirit and pass on the teachings of the Lord accurately? What if this authority was created in order to teach infallibly and guide the faithful?

If we can believe that the Holy Spirit can guide each of us personally into all truth, preserving us from error, is it such an impossibility to think that He could do the same with the Church?

The Pope Shows Up A Couple Hundred Years Early

One of the most frustrating things I've found in my exploration into Catholicism is the apparent lack of scholarly (at best) or honest (at worst) work when it comes to those refuting the claims of the Catholic Church. Now, that's not to say that the Catholic Church is right and that Protestants are wrong. I'm simply saying that when I look for information, I'm finding half-truths that can only be explained by poor research or a convenient hiding of the evidence.

To provide an example, let's look at a quote from Earle Cairns' book Christianity Through the Centuries. This text was handed to me by a co-worker who used the book in college-level religion classes. My co-worker was using the information in the book to dissuade me from my perilous journey into the world of Rosaries and Incense and Holy Water and he specifically directed me to several quotes--quotes he felt would bring me back into the fold, back to my Protestant roots.

One quote in particular he brought to my attention was concerning the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (who we call today, the Pope). Here's the quote from Cairns' book:

Between 313 and 590, the Old Catholic Church, in which each bishop had been an equal, became the Roman Catholic Church, in which the bishop of Rome won primacy over the other bishops.... The bishop in the early church was considered one of many bishops who were equal in rank, power and function.... But beginning with Leo I's accession to the episcopal throne in 440, the Roman bishop began to claim his supremacy over other bishops.

So, according to Cairns, the Old (that is, the good) Catholic Church saw every bishop as an equal. There was no single bishop over all--no "Pope". All bishops exercised the same authority and power and function. In fact, it wasn't until Pope Leo I, in 440 AD, that the Roman bishop started to exert a role of power or supremacy over the other bishops.

Well, the quote sounds good. It sounds impressive. Cairns' wrote the stuff in a real book. He gives dates and names and he sounds very honest and scholarly. But, his claims simply aren't true. Or, at the very least, they're EXTREMELY debatable.

I've written a much longer rebuttal to the claim that can be found here, but really, to establish that the good Mr. Cairns' is either a half-hearted scholar, or worst, a bit of a sneak, we only need to look at a couple of quotes.

The first (not the first chronologically--see the longer work for ealier references) is from St. Ireneaus (140 - 202 AD). In his Adversus Haeresies, in Chapter 3 he writes about the Primacy of the Church in Rome saying that while it would take too long to enumerate the succession of bishops in ALL the churches, he will make his case by pointing out here:

the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

He doesn't have time to list all the bishops throuhgout Christendom so he'll list the bishops of the most ancient Church known to all. This is a very clear, very straight-forward example from the years 180 - 199 AD that the Church in Rome was considered superior to all others, that this church was regarded as being the most ancient and the greatest. It's proof of the existence of an idea that Cairns' claims surfaces much later in history: that all Churches in the world must agree with this church.

Now, I'll admit that Cairns' claim is regarding the BISHOP of Rome and that he didn't rise to power until later. This quote merely shows that the CHURCH in Rome held a position of primacy. But what I'm trying to show is that very clearly, sometime before the year 202 AD, the CHURCH of Rome was viewed as THE superior Church in the Christian world. At that point, we're only a hop, skip and a jump away from seeing that the Bishop of Rome would likewise hold a place of primacy.

But, a "hop, skip and a jump" isn't proof. So, let's move into the world of facts and prove that not only was the Church of Rome viewed as superior by the Christian world well before 440 AD, but that so also was her Bishop. And to see this, we need to look at one more quote--this one from Tertullian.

Now, Tertullian is an interesting case. He died a heretic (as far as we know), but his beginning years were Catholic. In his treatise on Modesty (AD 220), during Tertullian's Montanist period, he makes an interesting attack on the current Bishop of Rome, Callistus I. This attack is a powerful proof for the authority of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome largely because Tertullian was, at that point, no friend of Rome. Therefore, he had nothing to gain by falsifying Callistus' position.

To provide some quick background: Tertullian clashed with Pope Callistus over Callistus' relaxation of the Church's disciplinary procedures. See, Callistus, citing his Petrine authority to "bind and loosen"(which provides evidence of the Primacy of Peter in the early church), allowed repentant adulterers and fornicators back into the Church.

Tertullian, not wanting to let these folks back in (I'm oversimplifying here), was angered and responded with this:

"I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The 'Pontifex Maximus,' that is the 'bishop of bishops,' issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, 'Good deed!' ...Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!"

He sarcastically attacks Callistus as the "Bishop of Bishops" and the "Pontifex Maximus", but it doesn't take much sense to realize that the barb has no bite if Callistus wasn't widely held to hold a higher level of authority than all other Bishops. At the very least, we must acknowledge that Callistus himself must have felt he had more authority, because without that acknowledgment, the sarcasm fails miserably.

Secondly, moving past Tertullian's sarcasm, we should also note the Bishop of Rome issues an edict to let these repentant sinners back into THE Church. Not just back into HIS Church in Rome, but back into THE worldwide Church. Who is he to do that if, as Cairns' claims, he is in the same position of power as any other bishop throughout the Christian world?

Now, these are only two quotes, but as I mentioned earlier, there are plenty more. This is a blog and not a book, so I've attached the longer document with a much more thorough examination here for those interested enough to look. But even though these two quotes are short and simple and by no means conclusive, they are enough to call Cairns' claims into question.

To say definitively that there was no Primacy of Rome, no superior position held by the Bishop of Rome until Pope Leo "made it up in the mid 400's" just doesn't seem to wash with the real, historical evidence. And that leads me to conclude, as I mentioned earlier, that Cairns is either a poor scholar or a selective reporter. And sadly, this is the state of much of what I'm finding out there.