Beckwith Returns to Rome

Ah yes, another convert who was encouraged to read the Church Fathers. I have several friends/acquaintances who have returned to Rome (or a Church closely related), and the "read the Fathers" mantra was common for all. But it's ironic because that was exactly the cry of the Reformers! Secondly, these converts are often told that the Fathers look "more" Catholic than they do Protestant. So the open-minded convert-in-the-making sits down and reads the Fathers as conditioned to thinking that they are "more" Catholic than they are Protestant. This is unfair to history. The Roman Catholics are on a cru... um, they are on a mission for ecumenism, but the average lay-person seems to think that means subjugation and not renewal. One RC guy told me "you left us!", so naturally any ecumenical discussion would require that I admit my sins of being a Protestant and submit to the authority of the Pope.

But the more I think about the whole thing, the more I realize that the romance of Roman Catholicism is pretty superficial. Their doctrine of transubstantiation seems to fit in nicely with the upper and lower story approach to truth. Substance where Christ resides and accidents where He doesn't. The really dangerous thing about Christ is that He wants BOTH the substance AND the accidents. If that is the case, then I won't be going to Rome any time soon.

But anyways, I'm still of the opinion that we will be seeing more of the Roman migration. Their PR machine is well-oiled and Protestantism today is marked more by existentialism than it is a historical church. Sad.

I don't understand why he didn't make the distinction between what the RC Church is today versus what the church was in the very beginning. It's great to respect a church's history, but that doesn't mean you should ignore its present. I can get the lure of all of their history and the richness of their tradition, but that doesn't account for all of the doctrines they've cooked up in the last few centuries. It seems that someone of his stature would be able to come up better reasons. The very first thing he mentions is being able to sponsor his nephew taking the sacraments of confession. That seems pretty superficial to me. I just don't get it.

Ben,

Yes, there are many Catholics who do not concern themselves too much with Protestants, but there are many who are actively engaging and evangelizing the now charitably called separated brethern (Now reading Trent is another story).

It is indeed ironic to see how much men like Johannes Oecolampadius and John Calvin based their disputations with the late medieval Roman Catholics upon the church fathers. If you go fishing in the fathers, you can find what you want. Plus, the Fathers were not infallible so the point of arguing "from the Fathers" is a bit odd. Where the fathers taught the Bible the insights are well and good. Where they contradict scripture we would be wise to not follow.

As to transubstantiation, this was finalized with the baptizing Aristotle's Hylomorphism by Thomas Aquinas. I love Thomas on so much (my son is partially named after him) but on this he took a certain metaphysical view and forever hinged it to Christian theology - which can be dangerous if that philosophy is revised/found lacking.

You are right that much of protestantism is Christian self-help, self-centered, existentialism which hardly needs a robust ecclesiology...some of it doesn't even need the ecclesia - just a publishing ministry to sell books to people still hanging around evangelical "churches." Makes me want to continue to shape a deeper theological vision for the church based on revelation, not of systems formed under empire.

Anyway, thanks for the post.

Josh, in fact I would even say it this way: "the lure of all OUR history and tradition" up to a point. We share much in a common tradition. But you are right, severe deviations, which are enforced as official doctrine are very problematic. I think it is kind and endearing about sponsoring his nephew...it does show something gracious about his heart...but it does not seem like a theological reason to convert.

"The unfortunate reality is that none of the reasons Beckwith gives for converting to Roman doctrine seem to come directly from the teaching of the Bible"
Don't you mean to say : 'come directly from our particular interpretation of the teaching of the Bible'

Alister McGrath will release this on the 1st of October. Sorta relevant for this thread.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/protnew.html

Tiber Jumper,

Thanks. Actually I do not mean "our particular interpretation of the Bible." I understand disagreements about theological systems which claim biblical authority and rest upon exegetical decisions...What I mean here is precisely what I wrote. Beckwith's stated reasons were not an argument for the Catholic position (or against Protestantism) from the biblical text. His emphasis were on the church fathers - which can be used by anyone.

No we know that the Catholic position rests upon tradition as well as Scripture, but my point is that when moving from Protestantism to Catholicism, one would expect some biblical reasons to be given.

Thanks so much

Vastine - thanks for calling me towards book coveting. McGrath's volume looks great.

About why so many people are attracted to RC: spot on. Most of the big name, US colleges were founded by Protestants; where has the love of deepening our learning and growing in knowledge of Him gone! Protestantism has such a rich tradition; if only it weren't at such odds with our fast food, answers in sound bitten culture.

I do kinda agree with him that the fathers are more Catholic insofar as he means more "ecclesiastical". The church took on a pretty strict hierarchichal (episcopalian) form of government in many regions withint the first 100 years. Ne'ertheless, on questions of Bible, tradition, theology, christology, etc, I would have to disagree 110%. Even as late a father as Augustine, Calvin was able to say, "Augustine is nearly totally ours!"

I found RC much more attractive before coming here, to study at a RC university. The big reason was that I've dug a bit more into what the Reformed tradition has been and is saying, and I've found it still answers the questions pretty well. I'm surprised Mr. Beckwith would be willing to convert after reading RC commentaries on justification, and not balancing them something from whatever Protestant tradition he came from. Maybe he'd already done that, but I'm still a big fan of balance. If you're reading the best of one side, they're going to be hard pressed not to be somewhat convinced; ya've gotta also get the best of the other. It doesn't sound like a too sudden decision, though, and he's a pretty studious guy, so I'll assume he's really done his homework.

I wonder how is wife came to the same place?

Ben S (we have another Ben on the blog - Ben V), I would call you BV and BS but the latter does not speak of how highly I respect your views :)

Anyway, very good thoughts. As to Beckwith, I would say he is an extremely gifted scholar - so studious would be correct. He is not an exegete, Bible guy - he is a philosopher. A very good one trained at Jesuit Fordham. I'll still get his books on things where he is strong.

I would be interested in hearing what Norm Geisler makes of this as Beckwith (along with Craig/Moreland) edited "To Everyone An Answer" which is a great Apologetics text dedicated to Dr. Geisler. Geisler is also a Thomist who co-wrote Evangelicals and Catholics - Agreements and Differences.

As to his wife - she is going with her husband and will be going through catechism as a convert. Her questions will be addressed there, if not already. I am guessing as a Christian woman, she can to the same place "with her husband"

For those who don't know, BS (sorry, I just had to) has spent the last year studying at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome...sort of like the Pope's Harvard. Would that be accurate Ben?

Thanks guys

The ETS Executive Committee has published a statement on Dr. Beckwith and the theological basis for the Society. It can be found here: http://www.etsjets.org/popups/Beckwith_statement.html