The End of Protestantism | Book Review

Peter Leithart’s latest work, The End of Protestantism, is a grand book. Grand both in the sense that it is imposing and important, but also in its scope. Leithart’s purposes in writing the book are no less than to pray publicly for the unity of the church, outline a biblical theology of God’s actions to unite and renew, affirm the changes of the Reformation, critique the historical outworking of American denominationalism, outline the shifting paradigms of the global church, hail the end of Protestantism, and propose a new vision for the church, all in under 200 pages.

The End of Protestantism is filled with argumentation and critique (as we will see below), deeply concerned with what Leithart believes to be true about the church. However, the book does not come across as spiritually empty or self-righteous. Indeed, Leithart includes himself in his various criticisms of the modern church. The End of Protestantism, contrary to what one might expect by its provocative title, flows out of Christian prayer for the unity of the church. The book begins with Christ’s prayer in John 17, a yearning that his followers “may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you” (John 17:21).¹ This is self-evidently not the present reality of the church, Leithart argues, as “Each disciple [does not] hospitably receive every other disciple, as the Father receives the Son. Each church [does not] dwell in every other church, as the Son dwells in the Father.”² This reality should pain us, for by Christ’s logic, a divided church appears to the world as a divided godhead.

9781587433771-1 The sweep of scripture, Leithart emphasizes, is one that “tells the story of a human race unified, divided, and then reunified.”³ Humanity was originally created in unity, though sin has introduced division. God then called Abram, promising that “the one God would one day bless humanity as one humanity.”⁴ Through Christ, God has fulfilled his promises, bringing peace to both Jew and Gentile, drawing one humanity into the unity of “God’s triunity.”⁵ By the Spirit, God calls us into “one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4-6). The unity of the church is in some sense both a fact (“We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church”), and a vocation, as God calls us to be “of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose” (Phil. 2:2).

The gospel is thus “the good news of reunion, a reunion of God with man and of humans with one another that takes public, historical form in the church.”⁶ This good news is both a present and future reality. For at the last day, this union will be intensified, as Heaven and Earth will come together as one, and God will once again fulfill his promises to “form humanity into one new man.”⁷ There is hope in the midst of pervasive disjunction, for God is faithful to his people and to his created world.

And yet, the church’s current divisions, in effect, deny this good news. We’ve chosen to live as if the union of the church was a secondary issue, when in fact it is a gospel issue. Leithart forcefully explains, “If the reunion of humanity has not taken place, Jesus’s death and resurrection had no effect. Unless the gospel comes into social reality as the church, there is no salvation and we are still in our sins.”⁸ In the face of this splintered church, we are called to reflect what eternity will look like. The eminently quotable Leithart explains, “[The church] is one now because it will be one in the consummation, at the last day. We are what we will be. And we strive to be what we will be. What the church will be is one catholic church. Catholicism is our future.”⁹

So far, so good. All Christians of any stripe and tradition can at least agree with the basic thrust of Leithart’s biblical theology, prayerful response, and eschatological hope. The book, however, quickly turns hard-hitting and controversial, as Leithart begins answering questions of how did we get here? And, where are we going?

As to the first question, Leithart looks to the Reformation (the book does not concern itself with pre-Reformation divisions). The Reformation created a multitude of unintended consequences that were antithetical to the purposes of the Reformers. The intent of the Reformation, Leithart argues, was “not to destroy Catholicism but to restore it.”¹⁰ The Reformers were concerned with reforming the visible church through offering communion to all, revolting against idolatry, restoring true worship, and emphasizing that “to be justified by faith is to trust God’s gracious word of forgiveness, graciously given in the body and blood of the Lord’s table.”¹¹ These impulses and actions resulted in the splintering of the Roman Catholic church. As confessions became solidified and national solidarity was meshed with ecclesial commitment, the divisions of Protestantism became institutionalized.

Looking now to the pluralized American church, Leithart perceives that “denominationalism is the institution of division.”¹² Granted, denominationalism has often been marked by “denominational catholicity,”¹³ such as in interdenominational mission work and parachurch organizations. Indeed, from its origins, the deonominational system had a catholic impulse, Leithart argues, leaving “Christians free in conscience while cultivating the blessings of communion.”¹⁴ Though the denominational system has born some good fruit, denominationalism breeds racial and socio-economic homogeneity, “symbolic barriers” to one another, and a lack of wrestling with doctrine.¹⁵ Leithart makes a forceful comparison, “Christians of different persuasions live peaceably together primarily because they can do so without resolving their differences. I am sure I would have fewer tensions in my marriage if I never saw my wife, but that would be a legal separation rather than a marriage.”¹⁶

In one of the most intriguing arguments of the book, Leithart argues that denominationalism is the established church of America.¹⁷ He summarizes, “The price of entering the marketplace of American religion is a commitment to subordinate one’s religion to the generic faith of American civil religion, which…reduces to a religion of civility. All religions are tolerated, so long as they speak in measured, tolerant terms about other religions.”¹⁸ Denominationalism fits right at home with American civility, as we can each tend to our own without truly being concerned with the other. A Christianity that caters to individual preference, mono-colored comfort, and mere toleration is not the true church.

So, where will we go from here? Leithart’s answer blends the descriptive and the prescriptive, seeing certain trends of the American and global church as opportunities for the future church to emerge. Leithart sees a plethora of reasons for why the denominational structure is beginning to fracture. These include the spread of non-denominationalism, an increase in consumer culture in Americans’ choice of church attendance, the rise of the “nones”, cross-denominational agreements on certain moral issues, and most importantly, the spread of global Pentecostalism. All of these indicators, Leithart believes, “reconfigure the church and provide opportunities to approximate more closely the unity that Jesus prays for.”¹⁹ This point is perhaps the most unpersuasive of his book, for it is unclear how signs of increased disunity, such as Leithart’s argument that Pentecostalism breaks apart the “Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox” triad, could bring about a single unified church. One might just as persuasively argue that non-denominationalism and consumer choice strengthen, rather than weaken, the walls of denominationalism’s divisions.

Leaving these arguments aside, where should we go from here? Leithart recognizes that his description of the signs of the times may be flat wrong, but that would not mean that his prescription for the future church would also be misguided. To remedy the tragedy of the church’s institutional divisions, Leithart argues that what the church needs is to move forward to a new Church. This proposal Leithart calls “Reformational Catholicism,” a Church that will unite all Christians and denominations, therefore marking the end of Protestantism. This future church will consist of four key elements.

First, the Reformational Catholic church will first be “One and Catholic” as the names of Baptist, Orthodox, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic would no longer be our names. “Each congregation will view itself as a congregation of a single, global communion of congregations. Each congregation will pray for the others that it knows, and will pray continuously for even deeper and broader unity among Christians.”²⁰ The church will also practice what Paul Murray calls “receptive ecumenism,” in which “every Christian tradiition is as ready to receive as to give.”²¹

Second, this future church will be biblical. The whole Bible will be taught, the entire tradition of biblical commentary and theology will be drawn from, and insight will be gleaned from all confessions and creeds. Absolute doctrinal uniformity is not the aim here, but “the difference between dogmatic decision and speculation will be clearer.”²² No doubt, this will require “more theological battles in the reunited church,” as “Christians of different views will have to learn to live together.”²³ Permit me to quote Leithart at length:

In the reformed Catholicism of the future, “faith without works is dead” will be heard as frequently as “justification by faith.” Seminary professors and theologians will follow Scripture wherever it leads. Theologians trained in what used to be the Reformed tradition will acknowledge the stress the Bible places on human choice and will not try to sidestep the many passages out of the New Testament that speak about apostasy. Theologians who have cut their teeth on Arminus wil acknowledge that the Bible teaches predestination and that Paul did write, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” (Rom. 9:15) and “He hardens whom he desires” (v. 18)… Formerly Lutheran pastors will teach obedience (as Luther did!). Formerly Anglican churches will exercise discipline. Jolly former Presbyterians will develop a reputation for levity, former Pentecostals will be attuned to the Christian tradition, and former Baptists will acknowledge hierarchy.²⁴

Third, the future church will be sacramental and liturgical. The future church will confess sin and be forgiven, the Bible will be thoroughly sung and taught, the Lord’s Supper will be celebrated weekly at the climax of the service, all “infused with a Pentecostal energy, a spiritual liveliness.”²⁵ All baptized Christians, no matter one’s age, will celebrate the Eucharist. The future church will also follow a unified calendar, will honor Mary as God-bearer, and will celebrate saints. However, “there will be no prayers to Mary, no appeals to the saints, no veneration of icons.”²⁶

Fourth, the future church will be a “Metropolitan Church,” visibly united in a “local and global communion of pastors and overseers.”²⁷ The Church will be interconnected such that each congregation recognizes each other’s discipline of its members, each church “will recognize that if one suffers, all the members suffer.”²⁸ No church will compete for membership. As a result, the future church will have a unified public prophetic voice.

So, in the midst of this undeniable division, what do you think of Leithart’s proposal for the future church? Is he correct about the weakening walls of denominationalism? Beyond this blog, how can we live into Christ’s prayer that his church be one? I would love to dialogue with you in the comment section.

[wpex more=”View Sources” less=”Hide Sources”]

1. Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.
2. Leithart, Peter J. The End of Protestantism: Pursuing Unity in a Fragmented Church, (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2016), 1.
3. Ibid., 11.
4. Ibid., 13.
5. Ibid., 13.
6. Ibid., 17.
7. Ibid., 19.
8. Ibid., 18.
9. Ibid., 21.
10. Ibid., 40.
11. Ibid., 46.
12. Ibid., 4.
13. Ibid., 63.
14. Ibid., 63.
15. Ibid., 73.
16. Ibid., 76.
17. Ibid., 59.
18. Ibid., 85.
19. Ibid., 128.
20. Ibid., 27.
21. Ibid., 167.
22. Ibid., 29.
23. Ibid., 29.
24. Ibid., 28-29.
25. Ibid., 30-31.
26. Ibid., 32.
27. Ibid., 34.
28. Ibid., 34.

Thanks to Brazos Press for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for a review.[/wpex]

12 responses to “The End of Protestantism | Book Review”

The End of Protestantism | Book Review — Conciliar Post | Talmidimblogging

October 21, 2016

[…] via The End of Protestantism | Book Review — Conciliar Post […]

Greg Herr

October 21, 2016

“Catholicism is our future.”

It is available and implemented ???????????? in the Anglican Ordinariate.

“[It] should be seen as a prophetic gesture that can contribute positively to the developing relations between Anglicans[**] and Catholics. It helps us to set our sights on the ultimate goal of all ecumenical activity: the restoration of full ecclesial communion in the context of which the mutual exchange of gifts from our respective spiritual patrimonies serves as an enrichment to us all.” (—Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) [**] Pope Francis, in early days, expanded the Ordinariate beyond Anglicans. Everybody’s Welcome.

Elizabeth

October 21, 2016

Man. What a book. It’s hard to know how to even respond. First, George, you did such a good job writing this review, it’s very well-written and clear. That helps immensely. I really enjoyed reading it…. so my off-the-cuff response here…

First thing that jumps out at me is this:

“As to the first question, Leithart looks to the Reformation (the book does not concern itself with pre-Reformation divisions). ”

Right there, I know that Leithart lost my vote. To not understand pre-Reformational divisions means he has an understanding of the Church that is not fully dealing with history of the Church. It also means, by the sounds of it, that he does not understand the Orthodox Church, of which I for one joined 12 years ago and am writing my response to from the vantage point of…

As to the rest – he seems very American Protestant, thinking that they can just create a new Universal Church instead of thinking that perhaps going back to either R.C. or E.O. should at least be considered. But that’s how, I gather, most Protestants think and I don’t think he has escaped what he is critiquing: if it’s not working, create a new Church… this is always what has been happening within Protestantism, from what I see… now and in the past….

It’s good that he at least seems to understand that the elements that the Church universal held (liturgy, Holy Communion as the climax/dénouement, church discipline, the use of Holy Scripture (though not sure if he understands how Church tradition and the interpretation of Scripture is fully linked together), etc). That’s great. But why make something new instead of trying to restore/go back to what already was and is?

Of course, the divisions of EO and RC not being addressed is understandable, as it is a very complicated issue. But It means he is not seeing the whole picture or why some of us would see his answer as a more ‘Protestant’ solution than one that the historical church/es hold to.

And the EO/RC split is long standing, not simple and I don’t think easily healed. That’s another whole topic….

I am glad he at least wants to honour the Virgin Mary and the Saints but this:

“. However, “there will be no prayers to Mary, no appeals to the saints, no veneration of icons.”26”

means he does not understand historic Christianity, what the EO and RC are doing when they ask the Saints for prayer or include them in their prayers as one they ‘pray’ to. And it pretty much is the nail in the door of why I feel he is merely a vastly visionary Protestant trying to create a new (and um, kind of scary to be honest for me personally…) church. (does he even mention EO much in the book?)

Questions of what if some protestant denominations have more truth than others, questions of Pentecostalism and if there are any problems there in (could be), and who would be in charge of this new ‘Metropolitan’ Church ? who calls the shots? and how?

That said, I am glad that this author is grappling with these issues. They are real. And nice that he is seeing so much of the good of the various Protestant groups. That’s great.

And honestly, I mean it when I say that you introduced this book so well. It was again a joy to read your writing and I can see that this essay will be fun for a dinner conversation or 2 with my Husband and I hope others as time allows! Thanks again. You are a very thoughtful writer and I enjoy what you have to say. And I am glad to know about this book, even if I don’t agree with it’s conclusions….

George Aldhizer

October 21, 2016

Thanks Elizabeth for your thoughtful response and kind words. I always appreciate your responses since you’ve joined the website.

Perhaps the line that you quoted of me was reflective of poor writing on my part rather than a blind spot of Leithart. By “not concerning itself with pre-Reformation divisions” I mean to say that his book doesn’t delve deeply into these issues, not that he doesn’t interact with them at all, or doesn’t find them important. You may very well, however, be correct in that by not going deep into pre-Reformation history, Leithart’s argument falls flat for Roman Catholic and Orthodox readers.

Though, to be fair to Leithart, he describes in his book that he is writing for his own tribe, that of conservative protestant evangelicals, and doubts that Catholics or Orthodox would read him or find his theses persuasive. This does not mean that Leithart does not engage with Catholicism or Orthodoxy in his book, I decided not to quote some of his more polemical comments about Catholicism and Orthodoxy in my review. Perhaps his most pointed statement about the subject comes toward the end of the book, “In important respects, Protestants are free to be more catholic than Catholics. Here is the question for Protestants considering a move into Catholicism or Orthodoxy: What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople? Are you willing to start eating at a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome? How is that different from Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with gentiles?…To become Catholic I would have to contract my ecclesial world.”

From my perspective, this is a key question for my own consideration of converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Leithart argues that it is a scandal that Catholics and Orthodox do not welcome other Christians to table fellowship. I’d have to say I’m undecided as to whether or not to agree with him, I think before writing for this blog I would’ve certainly immediately agreed with him. It does seem that that particular point is one that I would have to continually wrestle with, were I to convert. I’m curious if you or other Catholic/Orthodox converts also wrestle with it, even if you agree with the theology that undergirds it.

I think you are right, in that Leithart’s book is thoroughly Protestant in its orientation. As you say, as soon as you do not buy into converting to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, and yet also believe that denonominationalism is bad, you commit yourself to believing in a church that is yet to exist. Which you are right, does faintly smell of Protestant schism. Although I think that if I were to choose not to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, I’d have to be committed to some sort of future church proposal like Leithart’s, I cannot remain comfortable in denominationalism.

Loading…

Reply
1. Greg Herr
  
  October 22, 2016
  
  George, such an outstanding question you pose (below), and deserving much, much more:
  
  “???????????????? ???????? ????ℎ???? ???????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????????????? ????????????ℎ???????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????ℎ????????????????????: ????ℎ???????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ????ℎ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ???? ????????????ℎ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ????ℎ???????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ????ℎ???????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????’???? ????????????ℎ???????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????????????????ℎ???????? ????????????ℎ ?????????????????????????????????…???????? ???????????????????????? ????????????ℎ???????????????? ???? ???????????????????? ℎ???????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????.”
  
  The very first thing I recall being said to me as a Baptist becoming Catholic was from a priest who had become a good friend, and is to this day—after he beamed with joy: “You bring your biblical heritage ????????????ℎ you!”
  
  Not a thing ‘contracted’; only an expansion. Nothing was ‘left behind’ other than that which did not comport with the ancient Church. Attenuation became Amplification. The Near Completion of Faith became Completion. Fragmented Ecclesiology became the Whole Church.
  
  To this day, when we receive non-Catholics into full communion we revere and bless where they have come from and what led them to this Place.
  
  As we often say when we receive into full communion: “Reject nothing that comes from Jesus Christ.”
  
  [ps, As a Catholic, I read Leithart’s essays every day 🙂 and appreciate his perspectives. What we so dearly desire is that he—and all our Protestant brothers and sisters—would take in the ‘incarnational significance’ of Marriage, as compared to an Idea of Marriage. The visible, actual, tangible, visceral unity the world can see, as compared to invisible, ethereal unity that is observed as an abstraction. We Catholics hold that we must (MUST) visibly demonstrate the Bride and Bridegroom to the best of our ability, and not dilute that theology because we are imperfect, by rationalizing fragmentation. This is why we demand of ourselves incarnated unity.
  
  The notion that somebody is ‘left out’ because of a closed Communion table is erroneous in the same way that ‘other lovers’ are left out of a marriage. In other words, for us to witness to completion in marriage is a call to the world to come join in the full celebration of permanence and cohesion. John 17.]
  
  Loading…
2. George Aldhizer
  
  October 23, 2016
  
  To Greg: I appreciate the story you told about bringing your heritage with you and the amplification and expansion of that which was before. Like I said above, it is Catholic/Orthodox writers like yourself who articulate a persuasive vision of closed communion, that make me question Leithart’s argument.
  
  I think the question that remains is whether or not Protestants/Orthodox should be considered “other lovers” to Roman Catholics. Can you speak to how your congregation through the anglican ordinariate consists of such diverse Protestants traditions? Do these converts continue believing in certain of their distinctions even as Roman Catholics (e.g. Calvinist soteriology)?
  
  Loading…
3. Greg Herr
  
  October 23, 2016
  
  Hi George, thank you for asking. I actually called our pastor, Fr Andrew, to get a sense of how to best respond.
  
  The easy answer, “No”, doesn’t adequately respond, nor does it capture how the Catholic Church embraces those who convert and their heritages.
  
  Each convert assents to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is definitive. However, all of us come from cultural and liturgical traditions that, while may be different from the Catholic Church, are often adapted into the Church (as with the Ordinariate—-we affectionately refer to the liturgy as the ‘Cranmer Mass’ since he drafted most of it).
  
  Another way to think of this is in terms of the vast variety that already exists in the Catholic Church; recall we are comprised of nearly two dozen churches, each with their own unique liturgy, yet all conforming to Catholic doctrine
  
  I don’t want to be ambiguous about Calvinist soteriology, ie, to suggest a convert holds to it, as such. But that a convert brings every ounce of whatever Calvin, Luther, and others proclaimed in concert with the ancient, orthodox, Catholic Church.
  
  It is probably not a good idea for me to lift just one segment out of the Catechism to try to demonstrate this, but I also shouldn’t try to reproduce all Catholic doctrine, thought, documents, or Councils; so forgive me for giving you the best I’ve got as an excerpt, but this is from the Catechism: “The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. ‘Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.’ [CCC 1989]
  
  Loading…
4. George Aldhizer
  
  October 23, 2016
  
  Thanks Greg for your response. I’m now sufficiently intrigued by the anglican ordinariate. Though I myself am not anglican, my wife and I are probably in the process of converting to anglicanism. Thanks Greg for your helpful clarification, though I understand that the answer at the end of the day would be “no,” the Catechism remains definitive.
  
  I’ve especially appreciated your and Elizabeth’s emphasis that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches seek to convert, yes, but to also say that your previous Protestant experience is valuable and should not be utterly thrown out. That in some sense conversion from a Christian body to a different Christian body is a fulfillment of God’s previous work.
  
  Loading…
5. Greg Herr
  
  October 23, 2016
  
  I’m so glad you’re intrigued! Do feel free to ask questions about the Ordinariate if you’d like.
  
  If needed, I can run questions by Fr Andrew, a former Calvinist/Anglican priest; or Fr Glenn, a former Calvinist/Presbyterian pastor (12 years)/Anglican priest.
  
  Blessings to you and your wife as you continue on in Christ the Lord!
  
  Loading…
6. Elizabeth
  
  October 22, 2016
  
  Hi George,
  
  Thanks so much. I really enjoy being here at Conciliar Post… and enjoy your writing!!! .I wish I had time to keep up with all the the writers here, I hope to get better at that, now that I am back home (my Husband and I were abroad earlier this month). A lot to think about here, in your very thoughtful response.
  
  There are really a few things to address in your comment….
  
  Your question about the fact that if one became RC or EO the would be joining a Church that does not invite “outsiders” to their Eucharistic Feast/Communion Table. I am glad that you gave a bit more context to what this author is saying. You quote him saying the following:
  
  In important respects, Protestants are free to be more catholic than Catholics. Here is the question for Protestants considering a move into Catholicism or Orthodoxy: What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople? Are you willing to start eating at a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome? How is that different from Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with gentiles?…To become Catholic I would have to contract my ecclesial world.”
  
  First, what are those who leave Protestantism saying? Are they saying, in effect, like the author imply, that the Protestants are the “Gentiles” who St. Peter wrongly left for Jewish Christians in the earliest pages of Church history, as recorded in the book of Acts? I am guessing that the author is referring here either to elitism or a type of legalism that St. Paul pulled St. Peter from and that he refutes so strongly in the book of Galatians.
  
  So that is the first question I would try to answer. NO, that is not what converts to RC or EO are saying, implying or doing. What they are doing and saying could take books to answer. But to focus on the question at hand: the real question (that the author avoids it seems) is what is Holy Communion? Is it what Christ said in John chapter 6? This IS my Body and Blood? Or is Holy Communion something that is only ‘remembered’ or ‘done in memory of’? Thus, Holy Communion is not literally REAL, i.e. that the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion. Certainly early (pre-Reformational) Church history and Church Fathers do believe that Christ really meant IS when He said it. Indeed, it was such a hard saying that the Gospels report that many left Christ after these sayings. For myself and many others, we left because we became convinced that the Eucharist is real and that Christ is the Great High Priest who gave His Apostles authority, who then passed it on to others and so forth.
  
  Of course, then where to go from here – if one does believe Holy Communion is real. That’s another question – the three main options seem to be stay Protestant but go Anglican, go to Rome or go to Constantinople.
  
  Simply, what both RC and EO are doing by having closed Communion is honouring and protecting Holy Communion. They would not want those who do not believe it is the real Presence of Christ to partake. Indeed in EO prayers, they say taking Holy Communion is like swallowing fire and they pray that they will be saved by it, not burned. It is a very serious and beautiful thing to literally partake of Christ’s body. But it is very Holy. It is that burning bush experience that caused St. Moses to take his shoes off, for He was standing on Holy Ground. It is that which St. Isaiah said Woe, is me, with unclean lips…
  
  The question that I would say back to the author is why are you staying in a church (Protestant) who left the Communion Table in the first place? And since RC is larger than all of Protestantism combined, why would you want to stay in a smaller group that is not joined? Now I am EO so the “numbers” argument is not the one that ‘wins’ it for me – but for this author, it is a valid question to ask!
  
  [continuing on to point 2]:
  
  YES. Many have struggled with the fact that converting means they are losing a shared communion with family and friends. One of my best friends was heartbroken by it; she was convinced in the truth of EO and joined but that she would not have Communion with her parents again was very painful. My Husband, when he joined EO, his pastor who did believe that Communion is / has the Real Presence of Christ (and is now RC) was hurt by my Husband becoming EO and being separate in this way. Conversion to either RC or EC is not always easy or straightforward.
  
  {continuing on to point 3]
  
  I must say my Husband and I have had some good discussions about your article and comment. He knows of the author as he reads Touchstone Magazine regularly and believes he wrote there (he seems to be connected to First Things now).
  
  Yes, I think that Leithart is being quite Protestant and coming up with a very Protestant solution (just make a new church it will solve the problem). To be honest, I was troubled about the things he said via your article in the middle of the night! Basically he seems to be wanting to jettison ALL Protestant Churches by forming one new MEGA-Church that has each group accepting and believing things that are not cornerstones/keys of their personal theology or ethos. This really troubles me. It feels like a huge creation that worries me in terms of power and control…. Reminds me of the fake Bishop in L’ Engle’s novel _The Young Unicorns_. I say this not to be contentious or unkind to the author, who is clearly well known in circles and read by a good number of people.
  
  On another note, to quote what you said earlier, in your well-written essay:
  
  “Second, this future church will be biblical. The whole Bible will be taught, the entire tradition of biblical commentary and theology will be drawn from, and insight will be gleaned from all confessions and creeds. Absolute doctrinal uniformity is not the aim here, but “the difference between dogmatic decision and speculation will be clearer.”22 No doubt, this will require “more theological battles in the reunited church,” as “Christians of different views will have to learn to live together.”23 “
  
  My Husband and I both agree that this is not only largely problematic but impossible; as you said he is a Conservative Protestant speaking to Conservative Protestants – to do what he is saying (above) without either leaving behind big parts of various Protestant Doctrine that is in contradiction to each other – would either end in disunity, due to contradiction, or the differences will be said not to matter, which can lead not only to sloppy thinking, as it were, but to theological liberalism. How can this be done within Protestantism without making it have less meaning, less theological reflection and less distinctive and carefully thought out, deliberate doctrine? My Husband comments that his ideas would not work, as they are self-contradictory, do not explain how one would really create unity out of division (i.e. he is making a new church which = a new division) and that this new division will cause unity. For one cannot think that every Protestant would agree to do what he says, creating a new Protestant church to be called “Reformed Catholicism” that is “Metropolitan.”
  
  When I look at the author’s bio on Wikipedia (since I do not know of his works) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Leithart) it seems that he is very much of the Reformed persuasion and belongs to a very small Calvinist church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_of_Reformed_Evangelical_Churches) and that he left the PCA so that he could be president of the newly accredited Theopolis Institute and that the church he left has had some big controversies lately invovling some ideas that some viewed as heritical while others did not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision). I am not familiar with these controversies or the Theopolis Institute. However, it is clear that this author has joined a church that has very specific views of Church Doctrine. How can someone who has very specific doctrinal stances really create one big ‘Reformed Catholic Church’ that 1. Everyone would want to join and 2. Could really function as a healthy body of Christ. 3. Would really work out doctrinal differences without either tossing out, ignoring or ‘agree to disagree’ which really is not ‘working out a difference’ really but saying that there is an impasse that is accepted because neither side feels they can change their perspective. My Husband’s comments that in the past, when denominations have merged, they became more theologically and morally liberal as a result. He also mentioned a word I did not know: “latitudinarian” – (I googled it and found it means: “allowing latitude, especially in religion; showing no preference among varying creeds and forms of worship.”
  
  Again, I and my Husband ask: who would be in control? What would the perimeters be? Who is allowed in? What would be seen as heresy? Today there are already Protestant denominations that do not believe the Nicene Creed or the Trinity (for example many Bishops in the Episcopal/Anglican church, one-ness Pentecostals; beyond this Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons). Also, if you are using “all” of “Biblical Tradition” — what does this mean to begin with? The earliest Church fathers or John Calvin, Luther? What do you do with the fact that between EO and RC there are significant differences in their view of tradition and Scripture? And that between EO/RC and most Protestant groups? Much of “Biblical Tradition” historically is in direct opposition or contradiction. How would this be worked out? Who is controlling this? What Leithart appears to be proposing is not logical – either one would not have to care about the contradictions or someone gives up something, the later being most likely – but either would create something more liberal and latitudinarian.
  
  I can understand, all this aside, why Peter L’s view would seem like a good option for those, like yourself, who are no longer comfortable with the fractured state of Protestantism or denominationalism. It’s not an easy place to be in and I wish you God’s peace and wisdom!!!
  
  Whew, what a long response I have made! I apologize for any repetition in it.
  
  I do not know the other commentor, Mr. Herrs, but I agree that EO also, in its healthy form, welcomes new converts and sees the good in what they had before. I had a really enjoyable conversation with a long time EO convert in Amsterdam whose godfather told him (he had been RC before): ‘don’t forget how warm the coat you are taking off was’.
  
  To this day, I am very thankful to God for my Christian upbringing and that I grew up knowing and loving Christ. How could I be anything but thankful for all that God has given me?!
  
  Loading…
7. George Aldhizer
  
  October 23, 2016
  
  Thanks Elizabeth for your response. I agree with your prioritizing of the Real Presence, the main reason for my seeking out converting to Anglicanism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy.
  
  Speaking to your point about Protestants leaving the table in the first place, while I would not be quick to agree with him, Leithart argues along the lines of the Protestant Reformers who argue that Catholics are the real schismatics as they do not hold to the true faith.
  
  To be fair to Leithart, he does speak at length to your “latitudinarian” critique. He says that it is the denominations that are in fact latitudinarian (your word, not his), as they do not have to interact with the doctrines of other Christians. He argues that true ecumenism would not be theologically liberal, but would have to hash out differences of doctrine to be closer to the true faith and true unity. As to your “who would be controlling this” question, I believe Leithart doesn’t really know how Reformational Catholicism would be look like organizationally, other than to say that hierarchy would exist. He doesn’t seem to be a proponent of deacon/priest/bishop, at least explicitly in the book.
  
  Thanks for your reflection Elizabeth, it’s lovely to be able to hear and respond to your long-form responses.
  
  Loading…
8. Elizabeth
  
  October 24, 2016
  
  Hi George,
  
  I have thought about your latest comment, well worded and thoughtful as always. It’s not an easy journey, in some ways, that you are on, but I am confident that God can show you what to do. It’s OK that it takes time; while I was pretty quick myself (1 year is quick), it’s good to have a journey that includes space and time. Though, it took me nearly ten years from first having a profound experience of the Eucharist (at an Episcopal church, when I knew pretty much nothing about church history before the Reformation) to becoming Orthodox…. But it sounds like (wherever you may go next) that you are on a journey that begins with Holy Communion, like many others have done. I pray that God gives you good people to help and good books and lots of mercy in this…
  
  Now, to respond to your comment…
  
  Thanks for letting me know this:
  
  “Leithart argues along the lines of the Protestant Reformers who argue that Catholics are the real schismatics as they do not hold to the true faith.”
  
  The only answer I could give to Leithart is that this is a very Protestant thing to say – that a group of people outside of the Church could define the ‘true faith’ as being that which the historical church did not have. Protestants are pretty big on ‘we have the truth that is higher than church tradition’.
  
  While I am not RC, I see this as very faulty logic and a rather bold claim to make that a group of people know better than the large group. While this can happen (in EO there is at least one time that it was one main Bishop who held to the truth when all others did not) it is often quite dangerous to say, as a break off church, basically, that they are the ‘true church’ and ‘true Catholics’ are themselves. I don’t know how this plays out in RC today, but in EO there are some schismatic “Orthodox” groups… you can always figure out if they are schismatic because invariably they have the word ‘true’ in their title. I don’t go to places in person or online that deal with this sort of thing, as I avoid polemics and theological arguments that are more ‘flame wars’ than anything else. But I know they (these groups) are there.
  
  So to me, Leithart’s argument, esp. if he uses the actual words ‘true faith’, merely tells me that he (and perhaps the group he is in or wants to create) are a bit schismatic themselves. By their very existence, I would say that both RC and EO would see themselves as only themselves, i.e. they don’t need to say they are the ‘true Catholic Church’ or ‘true Orthodox’ Church because they are merely THE RC or THE EO church.
  
  Now the fact that RC and EO are in schism for 1,000 years, that’s another problem that the author is not dealing with but that I understand that you will have to deal with in your search.
  
  I, as I stated in an earlier essay, am not one for ‘pushing’ someone in their life journey; I have seen over time that this won’t help anyone anyway. But I will say this, which is about the journey itself, and was told to me when I was interested in EO….:
  
  Never let anyone tell you that a question you have is not OK to have/no allowed/etc … God can handle us, our broken world and our questions. And it is OK to have questions. But if anyone starts acting, even just on the intellectual level, as if they are well above you/controlling in anyway – go find better ones to ask…. I think it is fair to say that both RC and EO have stable sane people who are not like that.
  
  Wanted to reply on this too:
  
  “To be fair to Leithart, he does speak at length to your “latitudinarian” critique. He says that it is the denominations that are in fact latitudinarian (your word, not his), as they do not have to interact with the doctrines of other Christians. He argues that true ecumenism would not be theologically liberal, but would have to hash out differences of doctrine to be closer to the true faith and true unity.”
  
  I can see what Leithart means by saying that the denominations are latitudinarian already by not trying to force other denominations to believe as they do. But perhaps there is a difference between realizing that other groups just don’t believe as you do and that it is not your job to change this… it seems like social-common sense here, a bit of live and let live that exists because people have more to do than try to make everyone else like themselves.
  However, if many groups were made into 1 big group, the latitudinarian would take on new levels. One, one of the important parts for Protestants today, from what I can see, is that they are free to make a church that suits their ideas and that they in good conscience can go to. While I don’t agree with their ideas as an EO Christian, of course, I think that the fact that people can go to a denomination that is not allowing for things that they find morally wrong or utterly heretical, is a good thing for them. Problematic in many ways, yes, but to make all Protestants into ONE group is to me more problematic. I think that his conclusion, as you write here:
  
  ““but would have to hash out differences of doctrine to be closer to the true faith and true unity.””
  
  Is showing the hidden card, as it were: someone is still saying that within the ONE big new group, there is a TRUTH and a ‘true unity’ that does not coalesce with everyone’s beliefs within the group. Who is defining the truth here? What ruler is the measure for this? To have a unity within all the disparate Protestant church groups, one would either have to accept ALL beliefs (thus more latitudinarian than before) — and Leithart seems to think perhaps one can just take ‘the best part’ of each group – but again – who is defining what the ‘best part’ is? Or one would have to jettison a lot of distinctives within the different beliefs and be left with something that is less than the formerly separate entities.
  
  One of my problems with his idea is that he seems to think that all groups could really form ONE new “reformed Catholic” group.
  
  Now, on another note, there are groups of leaders who began to see the goodness that Liethart is describing from the older church traditions (with the caveats I mentioned him having before) and basically created their own version of the older Church. I think that is still happening today. One group even called themselves the ‘Evangelical Orthodox Church’ many of whom later, as whole parishes, became Orthodox. +Fr. Peter Gillquist was one and wrote a book about it, published a number of years back, called _Becoming Orthodox_. Of course, I view that it was good that most of the people in the self-created ‘Evangelical Orthodox Church’ joined the EO church itself. I am not sure what the RC correlation is, but there seems to be one, based on Mr. Herr’s comments and my knowledge of the RC church letting Anglo-Catholics into the RC with, I believe, some dispensations of some sort.
  
  So I would say that Liethart is not doing something entirely new, other than one significant difference of thinking that all Protestant churches should join together as the ‘Reformational Catholic Church’. And it is this part of your comment- with the understanding that Leithart wants one MEGA-Reformed Catholic Church:
  
  “As to your “who would be controlling this” question, I believe Leithart doesn’t really know how Reformational Catholicism would be look like organizationally, other than to say that hierarchy would exist. He doesn’t seem to be a proponent of deacon/priest/bishop, at least explicitly in the book.
  
  That I will end with what my Husband said to me about the author’s proposal of one Reformational Catholic Church:
  
  “To get people to join up together, they either need to have a large number of them convert to a single view, a priori, or you get the Anglican solution of a big tent, where all sorts of heresies are permitted. There are no historical examples of people doing what P.L. is describing. Therefore, while he is not logically incoherent, he is organizationally and psychologically incoherent.”
  
  Again, thanks so much for your comment and caring to read my thoughts! I have enjoyed thinking about these ideas and of this book that I had not, until you wrote on it, known of.
  
  Loading…

The End of Protestantism | Book Review — Conciliar Post | Talmidimblogging

October 21, 2016

[…] via The End of Protestantism | Book Review — Conciliar Post […]

Loading…

Greg Herr

October 21, 2016

“Catholicism is our future.”

It is available and implemented ???????????? in the Anglican Ordinariate.

“[It] should be seen as a prophetic gesture that can contribute positively to the developing relations between Anglicans[**] and Catholics. It helps us to set our sights on the ultimate goal of all ecumenical activity: the restoration of full ecclesial communion in the context of which the mutual exchange of gifts from our respective spiritual patrimonies serves as an enrichment to us all.” (—Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) [**] Pope Francis, in early days, expanded the Ordinariate beyond Anglicans. Everybody’s Welcome.

Loading…

Elizabeth

October 21, 2016

Man. What a book. It’s hard to know how to even respond. First, George, you did such a good job writing this review, it’s very well-written and clear. That helps immensely. I really enjoyed reading it…. so my off-the-cuff response here…

First thing that jumps out at me is this:

“As to the first question, Leithart looks to the Reformation (the book does not concern itself with pre-Reformation divisions). ”

Right there, I know that Leithart lost my vote. To not understand pre-Reformational divisions means he has an understanding of the Church that is not fully dealing with history of the Church. It also means, by the sounds of it, that he does not understand the Orthodox Church, of which I for one joined 12 years ago and am writing my response to from the vantage point of…

As to the rest – he seems very American Protestant, thinking that they can just create a new Universal Church instead of thinking that perhaps going back to either R.C. or E.O. should at least be considered. But that’s how, I gather, most Protestants think and I don’t think he has escaped what he is critiquing: if it’s not working, create a new Church… this is always what has been happening within Protestantism, from what I see… now and in the past….

It’s good that he at least seems to understand that the elements that the Church universal held (liturgy, Holy Communion as the climax/dénouement, church discipline, the use of Holy Scripture (though not sure if he understands how Church tradition and the interpretation of Scripture is fully linked together), etc). That’s great. But why make something new instead of trying to restore/go back to what already was and is?

Of course, the divisions of EO and RC not being addressed is understandable, as it is a very complicated issue. But It means he is not seeing the whole picture or why some of us would see his answer as a more ‘Protestant’ solution than one that the historical church/es hold to.

And the EO/RC split is long standing, not simple and I don’t think easily healed. That’s another whole topic….

I am glad he at least wants to honour the Virgin Mary and the Saints but this:

“. However, “there will be no prayers to Mary, no appeals to the saints, no veneration of icons.”26”

means he does not understand historic Christianity, what the EO and RC are doing when they ask the Saints for prayer or include them in their prayers as one they ‘pray’ to. And it pretty much is the nail in the door of why I feel he is merely a vastly visionary Protestant trying to create a new (and um, kind of scary to be honest for me personally…) church. (does he even mention EO much in the book?)

Questions of what if some protestant denominations have more truth than others, questions of Pentecostalism and if there are any problems there in (could be), and who would be in charge of this new ‘Metropolitan’ Church ? who calls the shots? and how?

That said, I am glad that this author is grappling with these issues. They are real. And nice that he is seeing so much of the good of the various Protestant groups. That’s great.

And honestly, I mean it when I say that you introduced this book so well. It was again a joy to read your writing and I can see that this essay will be fun for a dinner conversation or 2 with my Husband and I hope others as time allows! Thanks again. You are a very thoughtful writer and I enjoy what you have to say. And I am glad to know about this book, even if I don’t agree with it’s conclusions….

Loading…

1. George Aldhizer
  
  October 21, 2016
  
  Thanks Elizabeth for your thoughtful response and kind words. I always appreciate your responses since you’ve joined the website.
  
  Perhaps the line that you quoted of me was reflective of poor writing on my part rather than a blind spot of Leithart. By “not concerning itself with pre-Reformation divisions” I mean to say that his book doesn’t delve deeply into these issues, not that he doesn’t interact with them at all, or doesn’t find them important. You may very well, however, be correct in that by not going deep into pre-Reformation history, Leithart’s argument falls flat for Roman Catholic and Orthodox readers.
  
  Though, to be fair to Leithart, he describes in his book that he is writing for his own tribe, that of conservative protestant evangelicals, and doubts that Catholics or Orthodox would read him or find his theses persuasive. This does not mean that Leithart does not engage with Catholicism or Orthodoxy in his book, I decided not to quote some of his more polemical comments about Catholicism and Orthodoxy in my review. Perhaps his most pointed statement about the subject comes toward the end of the book, “In important respects, Protestants are free to be more catholic than Catholics. Here is the question for Protestants considering a move into Catholicism or Orthodoxy: What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople? Are you willing to start eating at a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome? How is that different from Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with gentiles?…To become Catholic I would have to contract my ecclesial world.”
  
  From my perspective, this is a key question for my own consideration of converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Leithart argues that it is a scandal that Catholics and Orthodox do not welcome other Christians to table fellowship. I’d have to say I’m undecided as to whether or not to agree with him, I think before writing for this blog I would’ve certainly immediately agreed with him. It does seem that that particular point is one that I would have to continually wrestle with, were I to convert. I’m curious if you or other Catholic/Orthodox converts also wrestle with it, even if you agree with the theology that undergirds it.
  
  I think you are right, in that Leithart’s book is thoroughly Protestant in its orientation. As you say, as soon as you do not buy into converting to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, and yet also believe that denonominationalism is bad, you commit yourself to believing in a church that is yet to exist. Which you are right, does faintly smell of Protestant schism. Although I think that if I were to choose not to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, I’d have to be committed to some sort of future church proposal like Leithart’s, I cannot remain comfortable in denominationalism.
  
  Loading…
  
  1. Greg Herr
    
    October 22, 2016
    
    George, such an outstanding question you pose (below), and deserving much, much more:
    
    “???????????????? ???????? ????ℎ???? ???????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????????????? ????????????ℎ???????????????????????????? ???????? ????????????ℎ????????????????????: ????ℎ???????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????? ???????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ????ℎ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????? ???????????????????????? ???????? ???? ????????????ℎ???????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ????ℎ???????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ????????????????????????????? ???????????? ???????? ????ℎ???????? ???????????????????????????????????? ???????????????? ????????????????????’???? ????????????ℎ???????????????????????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ????????????????????????????ℎ???????? ????????????ℎ ?????????????????????????????????…???????? ???????????????????????? ????????????ℎ???????????????? ???? ???????????????????? ℎ???????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????.”
    
    The very first thing I recall being said to me as a Baptist becoming Catholic was from a priest who had become a good friend, and is to this day—after he beamed with joy: “You bring your biblical heritage ????????????ℎ you!”
    
    Not a thing ‘contracted’; only an expansion. Nothing was ‘left behind’ other than that which did not comport with the ancient Church. Attenuation became Amplification. The Near Completion of Faith became Completion. Fragmented Ecclesiology became the Whole Church.
    
    To this day, when we receive non-Catholics into full communion we revere and bless where they have come from and what led them to this Place.
    
    As we often say when we receive into full communion: “Reject nothing that comes from Jesus Christ.”
    
    [ps, As a Catholic, I read Leithart’s essays every day 🙂 and appreciate his perspectives. What we so dearly desire is that he—and all our Protestant brothers and sisters—would take in the ‘incarnational significance’ of Marriage, as compared to an Idea of Marriage. The visible, actual, tangible, visceral unity the world can see, as compared to invisible, ethereal unity that is observed as an abstraction. We Catholics hold that we must (MUST) visibly demonstrate the Bride and Bridegroom to the best of our ability, and not dilute that theology because we are imperfect, by rationalizing fragmentation. This is why we demand of ourselves incarnated unity.
    
    The notion that somebody is ‘left out’ because of a closed Communion table is erroneous in the same way that ‘other lovers’ are left out of a marriage. In other words, for us to witness to completion in marriage is a call to the world to come join in the full celebration of permanence and cohesion. John 17.]
    
    Loading…
  2. George Aldhizer
    
    October 23, 2016
    
    To Greg: I appreciate the story you told about bringing your heritage with you and the amplification and expansion of that which was before. Like I said above, it is Catholic/Orthodox writers like yourself who articulate a persuasive vision of closed communion, that make me question Leithart’s argument.
    
    I think the question that remains is whether or not Protestants/Orthodox should be considered “other lovers” to Roman Catholics. Can you speak to how your congregation through the anglican ordinariate consists of such diverse Protestants traditions? Do these converts continue believing in certain of their distinctions even as Roman Catholics (e.g. Calvinist soteriology)?
    
    Loading…
  3. Greg Herr
    
    October 23, 2016
    
    Hi George, thank you for asking. I actually called our pastor, Fr Andrew, to get a sense of how to best respond.
    
    The easy answer, “No”, doesn’t adequately respond, nor does it capture how the Catholic Church embraces those who convert and their heritages.
    
    Each convert assents to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is definitive. However, all of us come from cultural and liturgical traditions that, while may be different from the Catholic Church, are often adapted into the Church (as with the Ordinariate—-we affectionately refer to the liturgy as the ‘Cranmer Mass’ since he drafted most of it).
    
    Another way to think of this is in terms of the vast variety that already exists in the Catholic Church; recall we are comprised of nearly two dozen churches, each with their own unique liturgy, yet all conforming to Catholic doctrine
    
    I don’t want to be ambiguous about Calvinist soteriology, ie, to suggest a convert holds to it, as such. But that a convert brings every ounce of whatever Calvin, Luther, and others proclaimed in concert with the ancient, orthodox, Catholic Church.
    
    It is probably not a good idea for me to lift just one segment out of the Catechism to try to demonstrate this, but I also shouldn’t try to reproduce all Catholic doctrine, thought, documents, or Councils; so forgive me for giving you the best I’ve got as an excerpt, but this is from the Catechism: “The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. ‘Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.’ [CCC 1989]
    
    Loading…
  4. George Aldhizer
    
    October 23, 2016
    
    Thanks Greg for your response. I’m now sufficiently intrigued by the anglican ordinariate. Though I myself am not anglican, my wife and I are probably in the process of converting to anglicanism. Thanks Greg for your helpful clarification, though I understand that the answer at the end of the day would be “no,” the Catechism remains definitive.
    
    I’ve especially appreciated your and Elizabeth’s emphasis that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches seek to convert, yes, but to also say that your previous Protestant experience is valuable and should not be utterly thrown out. That in some sense conversion from a Christian body to a different Christian body is a fulfillment of God’s previous work.
    
    Loading…
  5. Greg Herr
    
    October 23, 2016
    
    I’m so glad you’re intrigued! Do feel free to ask questions about the Ordinariate if you’d like.
    
    If needed, I can run questions by Fr Andrew, a former Calvinist/Anglican priest; or Fr Glenn, a former Calvinist/Presbyterian pastor (12 years)/Anglican priest.
    
    Blessings to you and your wife as you continue on in Christ the Lord!
    
    Loading…
  6. Elizabeth
    
    October 22, 2016
    
    Hi George,
    
    Thanks so much. I really enjoy being here at Conciliar Post… and enjoy your writing!!! .I wish I had time to keep up with all the the writers here, I hope to get better at that, now that I am back home (my Husband and I were abroad earlier this month). A lot to think about here, in your very thoughtful response.
    
    There are really a few things to address in your comment….
    
    Your question about the fact that if one became RC or EO the would be joining a Church that does not invite “outsiders” to their Eucharistic Feast/Communion Table. I am glad that you gave a bit more context to what this author is saying. You quote him saying the following:
    
    In important respects, Protestants are free to be more catholic than Catholics. Here is the question for Protestants considering a move into Catholicism or Orthodoxy: What are you saying about your past Christian experience by moving to Rome or Constantinople? Are you willing to start eating at a Eucharistic table where your Protestant friends are no longer welcome? How is that different from Peter’s withdrawal from table fellowship with gentiles?…To become Catholic I would have to contract my ecclesial world.”
    
    First, what are those who leave Protestantism saying? Are they saying, in effect, like the author imply, that the Protestants are the “Gentiles” who St. Peter wrongly left for Jewish Christians in the earliest pages of Church history, as recorded in the book of Acts? I am guessing that the author is referring here either to elitism or a type of legalism that St. Paul pulled St. Peter from and that he refutes so strongly in the book of Galatians.
    
    So that is the first question I would try to answer. NO, that is not what converts to RC or EO are saying, implying or doing. What they are doing and saying could take books to answer. But to focus on the question at hand: the real question (that the author avoids it seems) is what is Holy Communion? Is it what Christ said in John chapter 6? This IS my Body and Blood? Or is Holy Communion something that is only ‘remembered’ or ‘done in memory of’? Thus, Holy Communion is not literally REAL, i.e. that the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion. Certainly early (pre-Reformational) Church history and Church Fathers do believe that Christ really meant IS when He said it. Indeed, it was such a hard saying that the Gospels report that many left Christ after these sayings. For myself and many others, we left because we became convinced that the Eucharist is real and that Christ is the Great High Priest who gave His Apostles authority, who then passed it on to others and so forth.
    
    Of course, then where to go from here – if one does believe Holy Communion is real. That’s another question – the three main options seem to be stay Protestant but go Anglican, go to Rome or go to Constantinople.
    
    Simply, what both RC and EO are doing by having closed Communion is honouring and protecting Holy Communion. They would not want those who do not believe it is the real Presence of Christ to partake. Indeed in EO prayers, they say taking Holy Communion is like swallowing fire and they pray that they will be saved by it, not burned. It is a very serious and beautiful thing to literally partake of Christ’s body. But it is very Holy. It is that burning bush experience that caused St. Moses to take his shoes off, for He was standing on Holy Ground. It is that which St. Isaiah said Woe, is me, with unclean lips…
    
    The question that I would say back to the author is why are you staying in a church (Protestant) who left the Communion Table in the first place? And since RC is larger than all of Protestantism combined, why would you want to stay in a smaller group that is not joined? Now I am EO so the “numbers” argument is not the one that ‘wins’ it for me – but for this author, it is a valid question to ask!
    
    [continuing on to point 2]:
    
    YES. Many have struggled with the fact that converting means they are losing a shared communion with family and friends. One of my best friends was heartbroken by it; she was convinced in the truth of EO and joined but that she would not have Communion with her parents again was very painful. My Husband, when he joined EO, his pastor who did believe that Communion is / has the Real Presence of Christ (and is now RC) was hurt by my Husband becoming EO and being separate in this way. Conversion to either RC or EC is not always easy or straightforward.
    
    {continuing on to point 3]
    
    I must say my Husband and I have had some good discussions about your article and comment. He knows of the author as he reads Touchstone Magazine regularly and believes he wrote there (he seems to be connected to First Things now).
    
    Yes, I think that Leithart is being quite Protestant and coming up with a very Protestant solution (just make a new church it will solve the problem). To be honest, I was troubled about the things he said via your article in the middle of the night! Basically he seems to be wanting to jettison ALL Protestant Churches by forming one new MEGA-Church that has each group accepting and believing things that are not cornerstones/keys of their personal theology or ethos. This really troubles me. It feels like a huge creation that worries me in terms of power and control…. Reminds me of the fake Bishop in L’ Engle’s novel _The Young Unicorns_. I say this not to be contentious or unkind to the author, who is clearly well known in circles and read by a good number of people.
    
    On another note, to quote what you said earlier, in your well-written essay:
    
    “Second, this future church will be biblical. The whole Bible will be taught, the entire tradition of biblical commentary and theology will be drawn from, and insight will be gleaned from all confessions and creeds. Absolute doctrinal uniformity is not the aim here, but “the difference between dogmatic decision and speculation will be clearer.”22 No doubt, this will require “more theological battles in the reunited church,” as “Christians of different views will have to learn to live together.”23 “
    
    My Husband and I both agree that this is not only largely problematic but impossible; as you said he is a Conservative Protestant speaking to Conservative Protestants – to do what he is saying (above) without either leaving behind big parts of various Protestant Doctrine that is in contradiction to each other – would either end in disunity, due to contradiction, or the differences will be said not to matter, which can lead not only to sloppy thinking, as it were, but to theological liberalism. How can this be done within Protestantism without making it have less meaning, less theological reflection and less distinctive and carefully thought out, deliberate doctrine? My Husband comments that his ideas would not work, as they are self-contradictory, do not explain how one would really create unity out of division (i.e. he is making a new church which = a new division) and that this new division will cause unity. For one cannot think that every Protestant would agree to do what he says, creating a new Protestant church to be called “Reformed Catholicism” that is “Metropolitan.”
    
    When I look at the author’s bio on Wikipedia (since I do not know of his works) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Leithart) it seems that he is very much of the Reformed persuasion and belongs to a very small Calvinist church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communion_of_Reformed_Evangelical_Churches) and that he left the PCA so that he could be president of the newly accredited Theopolis Institute and that the church he left has had some big controversies lately invovling some ideas that some viewed as heritical while others did not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision). I am not familiar with these controversies or the Theopolis Institute. However, it is clear that this author has joined a church that has very specific views of Church Doctrine. How can someone who has very specific doctrinal stances really create one big ‘Reformed Catholic Church’ that 1. Everyone would want to join and 2. Could really function as a healthy body of Christ. 3. Would really work out doctrinal differences without either tossing out, ignoring or ‘agree to disagree’ which really is not ‘working out a difference’ really but saying that there is an impasse that is accepted because neither side feels they can change their perspective. My Husband’s comments that in the past, when denominations have merged, they became more theologically and morally liberal as a result. He also mentioned a word I did not know: “latitudinarian” – (I googled it and found it means: “allowing latitude, especially in religion; showing no preference among varying creeds and forms of worship.”
    
    Again, I and my Husband ask: who would be in control? What would the perimeters be? Who is allowed in? What would be seen as heresy? Today there are already Protestant denominations that do not believe the Nicene Creed or the Trinity (for example many Bishops in the Episcopal/Anglican church, one-ness Pentecostals; beyond this Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons). Also, if you are using “all” of “Biblical Tradition” — what does this mean to begin with? The earliest Church fathers or John Calvin, Luther? What do you do with the fact that between EO and RC there are significant differences in their view of tradition and Scripture? And that between EO/RC and most Protestant groups? Much of “Biblical Tradition” historically is in direct opposition or contradiction. How would this be worked out? Who is controlling this? What Leithart appears to be proposing is not logical – either one would not have to care about the contradictions or someone gives up something, the later being most likely – but either would create something more liberal and latitudinarian.
    
    I can understand, all this aside, why Peter L’s view would seem like a good option for those, like yourself, who are no longer comfortable with the fractured state of Protestantism or denominationalism. It’s not an easy place to be in and I wish you God’s peace and wisdom!!!
    
    Whew, what a long response I have made! I apologize for any repetition in it.
    
    I do not know the other commentor, Mr. Herrs, but I agree that EO also, in its healthy form, welcomes new converts and sees the good in what they had before. I had a really enjoyable conversation with a long time EO convert in Amsterdam whose godfather told him (he had been RC before): ‘don’t forget how warm the coat you are taking off was’.
    
    To this day, I am very thankful to God for my Christian upbringing and that I grew up knowing and loving Christ. How could I be anything but thankful for all that God has given me?!
    
    Loading…
  7. George Aldhizer
    
    October 23, 2016
    
    Thanks Elizabeth for your response. I agree with your prioritizing of the Real Presence, the main reason for my seeking out converting to Anglicanism, Catholicism, or Orthodoxy.
    
    Speaking to your point about Protestants leaving the table in the first place, while I would not be quick to agree with him, Leithart argues along the lines of the Protestant Reformers who argue that Catholics are the real schismatics as they do not hold to the true faith.
    
    To be fair to Leithart, he does speak at length to your “latitudinarian” critique. He says that it is the denominations that are in fact latitudinarian (your word, not his), as they do not have to interact with the doctrines of other Christians. He argues that true ecumenism would not be theologically liberal, but would have to hash out differences of doctrine to be closer to the true faith and true unity. As to your “who would be controlling this” question, I believe Leithart doesn’t really know how Reformational Catholicism would be look like organizationally, other than to say that hierarchy would exist. He doesn’t seem to be a proponent of deacon/priest/bishop, at least explicitly in the book.
    
    Thanks for your reflection Elizabeth, it’s lovely to be able to hear and respond to your long-form responses.
    
    Loading…
  8. Elizabeth
    
    October 24, 2016
    
    Hi George,
    
    I have thought about your latest comment, well worded and thoughtful as always. It’s not an easy journey, in some ways, that you are on, but I am confident that God can show you what to do. It’s OK that it takes time; while I was pretty quick myself (1 year is quick), it’s good to have a journey that includes space and time. Though, it took me nearly ten years from first having a profound experience of the Eucharist (at an Episcopal church, when I knew pretty much nothing about church history before the Reformation) to becoming Orthodox…. But it sounds like (wherever you may go next) that you are on a journey that begins with Holy Communion, like many others have done. I pray that God gives you good people to help and good books and lots of mercy in this…
    
    Now, to respond to your comment…
    
    Thanks for letting me know this:
    
    “Leithart argues along the lines of the Protestant Reformers who argue that Catholics are the real schismatics as they do not hold to the true faith.”
    
    The only answer I could give to Leithart is that this is a very Protestant thing to say – that a group of people outside of the Church could define the ‘true faith’ as being that which the historical church did not have. Protestants are pretty big on ‘we have the truth that is higher than church tradition’.
    
    While I am not RC, I see this as very faulty logic and a rather bold claim to make that a group of people know better than the large group. While this can happen (in EO there is at least one time that it was one main Bishop who held to the truth when all others did not) it is often quite dangerous to say, as a break off church, basically, that they are the ‘true church’ and ‘true Catholics’ are themselves. I don’t know how this plays out in RC today, but in EO there are some schismatic “Orthodox” groups… you can always figure out if they are schismatic because invariably they have the word ‘true’ in their title. I don’t go to places in person or online that deal with this sort of thing, as I avoid polemics and theological arguments that are more ‘flame wars’ than anything else. But I know they (these groups) are there.
    
    So to me, Leithart’s argument, esp. if he uses the actual words ‘true faith’, merely tells me that he (and perhaps the group he is in or wants to create) are a bit schismatic themselves. By their very existence, I would say that both RC and EO would see themselves as only themselves, i.e. they don’t need to say they are the ‘true Catholic Church’ or ‘true Orthodox’ Church because they are merely THE RC or THE EO church.
    
    Now the fact that RC and EO are in schism for 1,000 years, that’s another problem that the author is not dealing with but that I understand that you will have to deal with in your search.
    
    I, as I stated in an earlier essay, am not one for ‘pushing’ someone in their life journey; I have seen over time that this won’t help anyone anyway. But I will say this, which is about the journey itself, and was told to me when I was interested in EO….:
    
    Never let anyone tell you that a question you have is not OK to have/no allowed/etc … God can handle us, our broken world and our questions. And it is OK to have questions. But if anyone starts acting, even just on the intellectual level, as if they are well above you/controlling in anyway – go find better ones to ask…. I think it is fair to say that both RC and EO have stable sane people who are not like that.
    
    Wanted to reply on this too:
    
    “To be fair to Leithart, he does speak at length to your “latitudinarian” critique. He says that it is the denominations that are in fact latitudinarian (your word, not his), as they do not have to interact with the doctrines of other Christians. He argues that true ecumenism would not be theologically liberal, but would have to hash out differences of doctrine to be closer to the true faith and true unity.”
    
    I can see what Leithart means by saying that the denominations are latitudinarian already by not trying to force other denominations to believe as they do. But perhaps there is a difference between realizing that other groups just don’t believe as you do and that it is not your job to change this… it seems like social-common sense here, a bit of live and let live that exists because people have more to do than try to make everyone else like themselves.
    However, if many groups were made into 1 big group, the latitudinarian would take on new levels. One, one of the important parts for Protestants today, from what I can see, is that they are free to make a church that suits their ideas and that they in good conscience can go to. While I don’t agree with their ideas as an EO Christian, of course, I think that the fact that people can go to a denomination that is not allowing for things that they find morally wrong or utterly heretical, is a good thing for them. Problematic in many ways, yes, but to make all Protestants into ONE group is to me more problematic. I think that his conclusion, as you write here:
    
    ““but would have to hash out differences of doctrine to be closer to the true faith and true unity.””
    
    Is showing the hidden card, as it were: someone is still saying that within the ONE big new group, there is a TRUTH and a ‘true unity’ that does not coalesce with everyone’s beliefs within the group. Who is defining the truth here? What ruler is the measure for this? To have a unity within all the disparate Protestant church groups, one would either have to accept ALL beliefs (thus more latitudinarian than before) — and Leithart seems to think perhaps one can just take ‘the best part’ of each group – but again – who is defining what the ‘best part’ is? Or one would have to jettison a lot of distinctives within the different beliefs and be left with something that is less than the formerly separate entities.
    
    One of my problems with his idea is that he seems to think that all groups could really form ONE new “reformed Catholic” group.
    
    Now, on another note, there are groups of leaders who began to see the goodness that Liethart is describing from the older church traditions (with the caveats I mentioned him having before) and basically created their own version of the older Church. I think that is still happening today. One group even called themselves the ‘Evangelical Orthodox Church’ many of whom later, as whole parishes, became Orthodox. +Fr. Peter Gillquist was one and wrote a book about it, published a number of years back, called _Becoming Orthodox_. Of course, I view that it was good that most of the people in the self-created ‘Evangelical Orthodox Church’ joined the EO church itself. I am not sure what the RC correlation is, but there seems to be one, based on Mr. Herr’s comments and my knowledge of the RC church letting Anglo-Catholics into the RC with, I believe, some dispensations of some sort.
    
    So I would say that Liethart is not doing something entirely new, other than one significant difference of thinking that all Protestant churches should join together as the ‘Reformational Catholic Church’. And it is this part of your comment- with the understanding that Leithart wants one MEGA-Reformed Catholic Church:
    
    “As to your “who would be controlling this” question, I believe Leithart doesn’t really know how Reformational Catholicism would be look like organizationally, other than to say that hierarchy would exist. He doesn’t seem to be a proponent of deacon/priest/bishop, at least explicitly in the book.
    
    That I will end with what my Husband said to me about the author’s proposal of one Reformational Catholic Church:
    
    “To get people to join up together, they either need to have a large number of them convert to a single view, a priori, or you get the Anglican solution of a big tent, where all sorts of heresies are permitted. There are no historical examples of people doing what P.L. is describing. Therefore, while he is not logically incoherent, he is organizationally and psychologically incoherent.”
    
    Again, thanks so much for your comment and caring to read my thoughts! I have enjoyed thinking about these ideas and of this book that I had not, until you wrote on it, known of.
    
    Loading…

Conciliar Post