tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") (01/15/90)
Can anyone suggest a good book that gives "the other" side of the story on the Catholic church, through history? The ideal item would try to convey a general history, but uncolored by any love for the church, if not a bit of (well deserved, from what I can tell) contempt. An affirmed ex-Catholic, repeatedly under siege for his ex-ness, finally wants the goods on the church and infallibility and corrupt popes and wars and inquisitions and so forth. Obviously, I've a large axe to grind, but I don't care for an exercise in pure invective -- I'd really like a good book (about the evil bastards :-). Sorry if this has been discussed before. Thanks for any help. If there is interest, I'll post a summary. Then again, if there has been a summary, I've posted my interest :-) [You might want to think carefully about the purpose for studying church history. I'm a Presbyterian, so I have some sympathy with a person trying to free himself from the clutches of Rome ;-), but I'd rather you did it for the right reasons... It's easy enough to find horror stories about the Catholic church. But it's also easy enough to find them about Protestantism, Communism, and American patriotism. It is easy to see the history of the Catholic church up to the 16th Cent as a slow accretion of power in the papacy, and a replacement of religious concerns with political ones. But it is also frightening to see how quickly Martin Luther changed as he began to get political power. In the end the corruption of the Catholic church in the 16th Cent. is probably a better argument for separation of Church and State than against Catholicism. The point I'm trying to make is that corrupt popes, wars, and inquisitions are not necessarily the right thing to base a decision on. That's not to say that there is no difference between Protestant and Catholic, but if you're going to reject any movement that has even been corrupted, you're going to end up ... well, I'm not sure how you're going to end up. (hmm... Does anyone know of any corruption among the Friends?) I'd rather see decisions based on the true issues, which are based on theology, liturgical practice, and church organization. As for things to read, a have a couple of recommendations. One is to read a good general Church history. The Eerdmann's Handbook of Christian history seems to be a good book for someone without much background who wants a fairly complete overview of the Church. I assume that the contributors are mostly (if not exclusively) Protestant, but it's certainly not a polemical work, and gives positive accounts of much of the history of the Catholic church. But to focus on the issues between Catholic and Protestant, I recommend something that concentrates on the Reformation. A good source for that is Bainton's book "Here I Stand", a biography of Martin Luther. However I'd like to caution you that the theological contrasts you'll see in that book may not properly represent the 20th Cent. situation. Both Catholic and Protestant doctrine has changed since then. Luther identified free will as the central theological issue of the Reformation. Catholics and Protestants are far closer together on this than they were in the 16th Cent. Catholics have either removed or deemphasized practices (such as indulgences) that were (as least as practiced in the early 16th Cent.) at odds with even Catholic theory at the time. Protestants have generally abandoned the concept of Predestination, which lay behind the theology of Luther and Calvin. Thus I believe there is little difference between Catholic and Protestant views on this subject now. (I should note that I do not necessarily agree with the convergence. I am much closer to the Reformers than the average Protestant is.) In my view, the remaining issues are not the sort that are subject to clear and dramatic proof or disproof. There are a number of classic areas in theology and practice where competing concerns must be balanced. In many of these areas, Catholic and Protestant tend to emphasize the opposite ends. However the fact is that when properly understood, both traditions must take account of both issues. So in many cases the difference is more the path than the destination. Let's look at a few: 1) salvation by faith or by works. "Salvation by faith alone" is the rallying cry of the Reformation, surely one of the most divisive mottos in the history of Christianity. Yet the fact is that both Protestants and Catholics know that (a) salvation comes from God alone, and nothing we do can earn it but (b) God calls us to total obedience. Protestantism tends to start from (a) and Catholicism from (b). The strength of Catholicism is that it is based on a life-long discipline that encourages day to day reflection on how one is carrying out Christian living. Its weakness is that it can become legalistic. It also leads the Church into trying to deal with areas where it might be wiser to allow "Christian freedom" to prevail. Protestantism tends to encourage a spontaneous relationship with God. However Protestantism has its own dangers: It is easy enough for "free grace" to degenerate into what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace", where salvation does not involve the radical rebirth that Christ demands. Protestants and Catholics alike must find a way to take account of both aspects. However I suspect that no matter how well they do this, there are still going to be differences in practice, with Catholics tending more towards "Church discipline" and Protestants more towards individualism. 2) the role of symbols. There have been a variety of conflicts that come down to a question of how to deal with symbols. In fact no one really worships statues, and even Protestants use a variety of symbols -- including of course the central ones involved in baptism and Communion. However Catholics have always been more comfortable with visible signs than Protestants. This is an area in which there are still considerable differences. I believe that since the 16th Cent. Catholics have become more careful about making sure that people avoid superstitious attitudes towards images. It is probably only in the 20th Cent. that Protestants have begun to overcome the almost pathological fear of anything that might seem "Romish", and have begun to use things like Advent wreaths. (In my parents' church, such things were never heard of. Indeed in many churches simply having a candle in church indicated a secret sympathy with Rome.) But again, although we may both now be trying to regain balance, we are still coming at things from opposite sides. While Communion theology is certainly beginning to converge, Catholics continue to show a veneration for the elements that make Protestants very uncomfortable, while Protestants liturgy still must seem shockingly insufficient to most Catholics. 3) authority in the Church. This is probably the biggest underlying issue left. Roughly speaking, Catholics believe that Christ left the Church as an authoritative organization, whereas Protestants tend to believe that there is no such thing as guaranteed authority -- any authority the Church may have it gets only by following Scripture. Again, we must guard against extremes of both kinds. We need to be careful about overplaying the issue of papal infallibility. In fact the Pope is simply the embodiment of what Catholic tradition has seen as the authority of the Church as a whole. He does not go around making infallible statements on a whim. He does so as a representative of the Church, which Christ said would never be overcome. Protestantism can all too easily degenerate into complete disregard for the considered judgement of others, a sublime confidence that ones own half-baked interpretation of the Bible is The Answer. In fact the Catholic Church has had a renaissance of Biblical scholarship, and many Catholics are "Bible-believing Christians" in a near-Protestant sense. Similarly, many Protestants understand the importance of being guided by the traditions of the Church and submitting ones own understandings to the test of confronting others. However there remains the stumbling-block of the authoritative organization. However my Catholic friends may value the role of Protestants, they are not ready to accept the Catholic church as one denomination among many. To Protestants this appears to be at best unrealistic and at worst a serious violation of Christian charity. Conclusion: I have gone into these details in order to be in a position to give some advice. It is important to see beyond the absurdities of the various positions and be sure that you come to a decision that really makes sense for you. You should not reject the Catholic church because you think it teaches salvation by works, or promotes worship of idols, or requires everyone to give up all personal responsibility and simply kow-tow to the Pope. You are going to find such perversions among Protestants or atheists or any other group you might move to instead. Instead you need to understand that both Catholics and Protestants are doing their best to maintain a balance between things that are hard to balance, that they both will undoubtedly fail. So it's important to concentrate, not on the Inquisition, the Borgia Popes, etc., but on the characteristics of the best representatives of each position. --clh]