My Weird Relationship with Catholicism

[stiggy wiggy]

Although I have no use for a pope and don't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, nor rosary beads nor confessions to priests, nor penance for sins, nor infant baptism, and even consider some of them heretical, nevertheless many of my favorite Christian authors were Catholic: G.K.Chesterton, Hans von Balthasar, Gabriel Marcel, Francois Mauriac, Simone Weil, Ronald Knox, Fulton Sheen, Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy, Thomas Howard, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Peter Kreeft to name a few. I guess I'm just a dyed in the wool Protestant, but I sure do appreciate my Catholic brethren.

Now I guess I should just sit back and see whether Catholics or Protestants rip me apart the most for this post.

 

[Stella1000]

If I remember correctly, Simone Weil didn't convert to Catholicism although she pointed others towards the faith.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

If I remember correctly, Simone Weil didn't convert to Catholicism although she pointed others towards the faith.

You are correct. She leaned heavily toward Catholicism, but I'm not sure if she was ever baptized.

 

[Atemi]

Now I guess I should just sit back and see whether Catholics or Protestants rip me apart the most for this post.

Why are you expecting anyone to "rip you apart" for having some favorite authors who are Catholic?

I do too.

We also have in common the belief that a number of Catholic beliefs are heretical.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Why are you expecting anyone to "rip you apart" for having some favorite authors who are Catholic?

Welcome to CARM.

 

[Atemi]

Welcome to CARM.

A very cynical answer that does not answer my sincere inquiry....but no one has ripped you apart yet.

Are you hoping it comes soon?

 

[pilgrim]

Although I have no use for a pope and don't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, nor rosary beads nor confessions to priests, nor penance for sins, nor infant baptism, and even consider some of them heretical, nevertheless many of my favorite Christian authors were Catholic: G.K.Chesterton, Hans von Balthasar, Gabriel Marcel, Francois Mauriac, Simone Weil, Ronald Knox, Fulton Sheen, Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy, Thomas Howard, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Peter Kreeft to name a few. I guess I'm just a dyed in the wool Protestant, but I sure do appreciate my Catholic brethren.

Now I guess I should just sit back and see whether Catholics or Protestants rip me apart the most for this post.

I appreciate your appreciation.

 

[balshan]

Although I have no use for a pope and don't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, nor rosary beads nor confessions to priests, nor penance for sins, nor infant baptism, and even consider some of them heretical, nevertheless many of my favorite Christian authors were Catholic: G.K.Chesterton, Hans von Balthasar, Gabriel Marcel, Francois Mauriac, Simone Weil, Ronald Knox, Fulton Sheen, Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy, Thomas Howard, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Peter Kreeft to name a few. I guess I'm just a dyed in the wool Protestant, but I sure do appreciate my Catholic brethren.

Now I guess I should just sit back and see whether Catholics or Protestants rip me apart the most for this post.

You can have favourite RC authors. You are making assumptions. I find GK Chesterton a boring writer but that is just my personal opinion. I much prefer Graham Greene's writings.

I really used to laugh at Dave Allen had a way with showing the flaws in RC beliefs.

Writers are not infallible and all have good things and some bad things when they write no matter what their background. Though what this post has to do with RC beliefs is beyond me and should be RC other IMO.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

A very cynical answer...............

Lighten up.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

You can have favourite RC authors.

Thanks for allowing me that.

You are making assumptions. I find GK Chesterton a boring writer but that is just my personal opinion.

I find him the most exciting of the bunch. In fact, Orthodoxy, which I've read four times now. is my favorite of all. The first time I read it, it was as if it were in technicolor and all previous books were in black and white.

I much prefer Graham Greene's writings.

I loved The End of the Affair and The Heart of the Matter. I did find The Human Factor a dreadful bore and couldn't finish it.

By the way, what assumptions are you claiming I'm making?

 

[balshan]

Thanks for allowing me that.



I find him the most exciting of the bunch. In fact, Orthodoxy, which I've read four times now. is my favorite of all. The first time I read it, it was as if it were in technicolor and all previous books were in black and white.



I loved The End of the Affair and The Heart of the Matter. I did find The Human Factor a dreadful bore and couldn't finish it.

By the way, what assumptions are you claiming I'm making?

The assumption about being ripped apart. I don't see why you would be. I liked a book by Brother Lawrence. I found the saints lives we read at school depressing. I was brought up RC and now have Jesus. Life with Jesus is much better.

 

[Bonnie]

Although I have no use for a pope and don't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, nor rosary beads nor confessions to priests, nor penance for sins, nor infant baptism, and even consider some of them heretical, nevertheless many of my favorite Christian authors were Catholic: G.K.Chesterton, Hans von Balthasar, Gabriel Marcel, Francois Mauriac, Simone Weil, Ronald Knox, Fulton Sheen, Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy, Thomas Howard, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Peter Kreeft to name a few. I guess I'm just a dyed in the wool Protestant, but I sure do appreciate my Catholic brethren.

Now I guess I should just sit back and see whether Catholics or Protestants rip me apart the most for this post.

I have no grievance with your post, though I have only heard of a few of those authors. In fact, with O'Connor, I once had a line from her in my signature--"People don't realize what religion costs. People think faith is a big electric blanket, but of course, it is the cross."

How very true!

Chesterton was one of the men who helped lead C. S. Lewis to faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Bonnie]

You can have favourite RC authors. You are making assumptions. I find GK Chesterton a boring writer but that is just my personal opinion. I much prefer Graham Greene's writings.

I really used to laugh at Dave Allen had a way with showing the flaws in RC beliefs.

Writers are not infallible and all have good things and some bad things when they write no matter what their background. Though what this post has to do with RC beliefs is beyond me and should be RC other IMO.

I flagged this thread and asked that it be moved to Catholic other, as I agree with you about this.

 

[Arch Stanton]

You are correct. She leaned heavily toward Catholicism, but I'm not sure if she was ever baptized.

and then there is J.R.R. Tolkien who helped C.S. Lewis in his conversion to Christianity.... if it weren't for 'Ulsterior Motives' he would have gone all the way to Catholicism!

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Although I have no use for a pope and don't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, nor rosary beads nor confessions to priests, nor penance for sins, nor infant baptism, and even consider some of them heretical, nevertheless many of my favorite Christian authors were Catholic: G.K.Chesterton, Hans von Balthasar, Gabriel Marcel, Francois Mauriac, Simone Weil, Ronald Knox, Fulton Sheen, Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy, Thomas Howard, Malcolm Muggeridge, and Peter Kreeft to name a few. I guess I'm just a dyed in the wool Protestant, but I sure do appreciate my Catholic brethren.

Now I guess I should just sit back and see whether Catholics or Protestants rip me apart the most for this post.

I do not understand how anyone can read those great authors, especially G.K Chesterton, who was no intellectual slouch and remain Protestant.

But--I will give you Protestant authors I have read and respect: James White, R.C.Sproul, and Robert Godfrey. Authors I have read but do not respect are James McCarthy and Robert Zinz.

Authors I have read--on which most of the apologists above take their information are: William Whitaker, George Salmon, and William Goode. Whitaker was a second generation Protestant apologist. He was Puritan. He attempted an answer to Bellarmine's "Disputations" as well as Thomas Stapleton's works defending Catholicism. After the publication of his work, Bellarmine for whatever reason seemed to have moved on from the debate, but Stapleton continued to debate with Whitaker penning a reply four years later. Whitaker then responded to that--and they went back and forth. In some ways Stapleton was more profound and robust than Bellarmine. This is why to me it is interesting that Stapleton has been largely forgotten to history while Bellarmine is the one remembered.

So why am I still a Catholic after reading the above authors? While they make an attempt to answer the "claims of Rome" I believe they do not do so adequately. To give a very brief summary of why I think this, let me just say this: reading these theologians and their attempts to understand Catholicism for me, is analogous to seeing beings who live in two dimensions attempt to understand and interact with the third dimension without being part of it. This is the best analogy I can think of. Protestant theology is two dimensional; it is Catholicism, but striped of its life. I think of Protestantism as whitewashed Catholicism. Protestantism is what Catholicism looks like when it is sterile, devoid of life. The authors would disagree with my assessment of course, but they do not get Catholicism and what it is about.

I think the authors do a good job of articulating the reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura. Where I think they are weak is when the assert that Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church. They never seem to get around to explaining the precise nature of the authority of the Church in a system where believers sit in judgement of Church teaching. When it comes to the Catholic understanding of Tradition, they do a good job of pointing out where Catholic theology is weak. I would agree with them there. Catholic theologians need to do a better job of articulating the precise nature of Tradition and defining exactly what it is and how it works. Vatican II did advance the discussion of Tradition, Scripture, and the Church and how they relate, but more work is needed.

 

[balshan]

I do not understand how anyone can read those great authors, especially G.K Chesterton, who was no intellectual slouch and remain Protestant.

But--I will give you Protestant authors I have read and respect: James White, R.C.Sproul, and Robert Godfrey. Authors I have read but do not respect are James McCarthy and Robert Zinz.

Authors I have read--on which most of the apologists above take their information are: William Whitaker, George Salmon, and William Goode. Whitaker was a second generation Protestant apologist. He was Puritan. He attempted an answer to Bellarmine's "Disputations" as well as Thomas Stapleton's works defending Catholicism. After the publication of his work, Bellarmine for whatever reason seemed to have moved on from the debate, but Stapleton continued to debate with Whitaker penning a reply four years later. Whitaker then responded to that--and they went back and forth. In some ways Stapleton was more profound and robust than Bellarmine. This is why to me it is interesting that Stapleton has been largely forgotten to history while Bellarmine is the one remembered.

So why am I still a Catholic after reading the above authors? While they make an attempt to answer the "claims of Rome" I believe they do not do so adequately. To give a very brief summary of why I think this, let me just say this: reading these theologians and their attempts to understand Catholicism for me, is analogous to seeing beings who live in two dimensions attempt to understand and interact with the third dimension without being part of it. This is the best analogy I can think of. Protestant theology is two dimensional; it is Catholicism, but striped of its life. I think of Protestantism as whitewashed Catholicism. Protestantism is what Catholicism looks like when it is sterile. The authors would disagree with my assessment of course, but they do not get Catholicism and what it is about.

I think the authors do a good job of articulating the reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura. When it comes to the Catholic understanding of Tradition, they do a good job of pointing out where Catholic theology is weak. I would agree with them there. Catholic theologians need to do a better job of articulating the precise nature of Tradition and defining exactly what it is and how it works. Vatican II did advance the discussion of Tradition, Scripture, and the Church and how they relate, but more work is needed.

Oh it is easy.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I do not understand how anyone can read those great authors, especially G.K Chesterton, who was no intellectual slouch and remain Protestant.

Actually, even though GKC is in my top five authors (along with C.S.Lewis, Kierkegaard, George MacDonald and Andrew Jukes), I think the content of his writing suffered a great deal after he became a Catholic. He changed from being a apologist for Christianity to being one for Catholicism. His best books, Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man and The Man Who Was Thursday were written before his conversion to Catholicism.

But--I will give you Protestant authors I have read and respect: James White, R.C.Sproul, and Robert Godfrey. Authors I have read but do not respect are James McCarthy and Robert Zinz.

Authors I have read--on which most of the apologists above take their information are: William Whitaker, George Salmon, and William Goode. Whitaker was a second generation Protestant apologist. He was Puritan. He attempted an answer to Bellarmine's "Disputations" as well as Thomas Stapleton's works defending Catholicism. After the publication of his work, Bellarmine for whatever reason seemed to have moved on from the debate, but Stapleton continued to debate with Whitaker penning a reply four years later. Whitaker then responded to that--and they went back and forth. In some ways Stapleton was more profound and robust than Bellarmine. This is why to me it is interesting that Stapleton has been largely forgotten to history while Bellarmine is the one remembered.

I'm kind of a fan of Sproul. The rest I do not know.

So why am I still a Catholic after reading the above authors? While they make an attempt to answer the "claims of Rome" I believe they do not do so adequately. To give a very brief summary of why I think this, let me just say this: reading these theologians and their attempts to understand Catholicism for me, is analogous to seeing beings who live in two dimensions attempt to understand and interact with the third dimension without being part of it. This is the best analogy I can think of. Protestant theology is two dimensional; it is Catholicism, but striped of its life. I think of Protestantism as whitewashed Catholicism. Protestantism is what Catholicism looks like when it is sterile, devoid of life. The authors would disagree with my assessment of course, but they do not get Catholicism and what it is about.

I think the authors do a good job of articulating the reformed understanding of Sola Scriptura. Where I think they are weak is when the assert that Sola Scriptura does not deny the authority of the Church. They never seem to get around to explaining the precise nature of the authority of the Church in a system where believers sit in judgement of Church teaching. When it comes to the Catholic understanding of Tradition, they do a good job of pointing out where Catholic theology is weak. I would agree with them there. Catholic theologians need to do a better job of articulating the precise nature of Tradition and defining exactly what it is and how it works. Vatican II did advance the discussion of Tradition, Scripture, and the Church and how they relate, but more work is needed.

Actually I have no use for any -ism. But I find your comments interesting. Perhaps if I find time today, I'll comment.

 

[Atemi]

A very cynical answer...............

Lighten up.

I was thinking the same of you....as you were the one charging in here with the expectation, or hope, that someone would rip you up for having some favorite Catholic authors.

A very dark view.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Actually, even though GKC is in my top five authors (along with C.S.Lewis, Kierkegaard, George MacDonald and Andrew Jukes), I think the content of his writing suffered a great deal after he became a Catholic. He changed from being a apologist for Christianity to being one for Catholicism. His best books, Orthodoxy, The Everlasting Man and The Man Who Was Thursday were written before his conversion to Catholicism.

How did his writing change and "suffer a great deal" after his conversion?

I'm kind of a fan of Sproul. The rest I do not know.

Most of the lot are some form of reformed theologians. White is Baptist but reformed. I am not sure that McCarthy is reformed or not. The works I have read of his are concerned more to defend Sola Scriptura, and related issues rather than specific reformed topics like TULIP.

When I was in graduate school I participated in an inter-collegiate seminar. In this seminar we had people of other sects and we learned about the other sects. The people in the class I most respected were the reformed students. They were articulate and well thought out. In other words---between everyone in the class it was the reformed and the Catholic that were the most academic and serious in terms of the topics discussed. The rest of the students and discussion--was fluff in my opinion--not serious discussion.

Actually I have no use for any -ism. But I find your comments interesting. Perhaps if I find time today, I'll comment.

The thing is--when it comes to Christianity---there is only Catholicism, Orthodox, and Protestantism. Of course, Protestantism can be any number of hundreds of sects. The point is those are the choices when it comes to Christianity.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

How did his writing change and "suffer a great deal" after his conversion?

[/QUOTE]

He began to concentrate more on Catholicism and less on Christianity.

The thing is--when it comes to Christianity---there is only Catholicism, Orthodox, and Protestantism. Of course, Protestantism can be any number of hundreds of sects. The point is those are the choices when it comes to Christianity.

We should all just discard labels and follow Jesus Christ.