‍ 

Dialogue on Protestantism and the

Burden of Proof

 

Because the Protestants broke away from the Church, the burden of proof lies with them

 

Gary Hoge

 

I don’t think [Catholic lady] meant to scorn Protestantism. My impression, for what it’s worth, is that she was savoring the delicious irony of someone advocating loyalty to a church that exists precisely because its founders refused to show that same loyalty to the church of which they themselves were members. There is an irony, I think, in any church demanding from its members a level of loyalty and submission that its own founders weren’t willing to extend to the Catholic Church. I don’t see why the response to that shouldn’t be, “If you didn’t have to listen to Rome, why do I have to listen to you?”

 

Is [Presbyterian man] ridiculous simply because he doesn’t believe that the Church in communion with Rome, and _only_ that Church, should be taken seriously?

 

No, I don’t think [Presbyterian man] is ridiculous at all. Nor do I think you are. But I don’t want to comment on [Presbyterian man] or on you specifically, because I don’t know what your attitudes are and I could easily misrepresent you. Instead, I’d like to speak more broadly about Protestantism in general. With that in mind, all I’m saying is that if a Protestant church is consistent it won’t expect its members to give it any more deference than its founders gave to the Catholic Church. To expect more than that would be hypocritical, it seems to me.

 

The fact that the Reformers broke communion with Rome does not mean that breaking communion with Protestant churches is trivial.

 

I didn’t say it was. However, I don’t think there’s a direct equivalency here. The Reformers – because they’re the ones that broke away claiming that Rome was wrong – bear the burden of proof. That means Rome gets the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, objectively speaking, there’s a much higher level of proof that ought to be required to leave Rome than to leave Protestantism for Rome.

 

The Reformers believed, rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly), that Rome had erred so severely that breach of communion was necessary.

 

Right, and that’s what they must prove. If, in the opinion of Joe Protestant, they can’t make their case, that undermines the legitimacy of the Reformation, and Joe Protestant ought to “come home to Rome.” Essentially, Joe Protestant must determine whether the Reformers were Josiah or Korah.

 

I am in communion with Christians who are not in communion with Rome (though in the case of Anglicans, we would quite gladly be in communion with Rome, as [another Protestant on the board] has frequently pointed out–the refusal to be in communion is on your side, not ours; I say that not as implying that you’re wrong but simply to point out that in a sense I am not in willful schism from Rome.

 

I don’t understand. You seem to be saying that you’re not in willful schism from Rome because you’re willing to be in communion with Rome, provided you can do so on your own terms. That doesn’t make sense to me. Could you elaborate?

 

The problem is that you are putting everything in terms of who one listens to. The point is not that one should blindly listen to whoever is in authority over one, but that one should not break communion with one’s fellow-Christians unless absolutely required by one’s conscience to do so.

 

I disagree. As I mentioned above, the Protestant churches are the result of their founders’ contention that Rome had severely corrupted the Gospel. Thus, whether Protestantism is a reformation or a rebellion hinges on whether that contention is true. If it’s a true reformation, then everyone ought to be Protestant; if it’s a rebellion, then no one ought to be Protestant.

 

Reformed ecclesiology (to which [Presbyterian man] adheres and which I find somewhat persuasive) does not hold that schism is only possible from one Christian body. Schism in this view is not primarily an abstract matter of breaking from _the_ One Church. Rather, it is a matter of breaking ties with the church to which one belongs, from which one has received the Word and the Sacraments. I can understand that you disagree with this view. I often have doubts about it myself. But I don’t see why it’s patently ridiculous.

 

I didn’t say it was. If a Reformed Christian gives to the Reformed Church the same level of deference its founders gave to the Catholic Church, I make no objection. But if a Reformed Christian insists that others give the Reformed Church more deference than its founders gave the Catholic Church (which I’m not saying [Presbyterian man] is doing), I think that’s hypocritical.

 

I agree in this sense: A Protestant church should expect its members only to leave _if_ they believe that the Word is no longer truly preached or the Sacraments rightly administered (in essentials) therein.

 

Hypothetical question: Was the Word truly preached and the Sacraments rightly administered by the Donatists? If so, do you think it was wrong for them to rejoin the Catholic Church?

 

Wait a minute. We are of course talking about _individual_ Donatists. Obviously Donatist communities were obligated to rejoin the Catholic Church. But individuals are a more difficult matter.

 

On what basis do you make this distinction? I don’t understand why the same factors that obligated the Donatist communities to rejoin the Catholic Church wouldn’t also obligate the members of those communities to rejoin the Catholic Church individually. The obligation to Christian unity, it seems to me, is binding on all Christians. Part of that obligation, it also seems to me, is to distinguish between reformation and rebellion; to embrace the former, and repudiate the latter.

 

I have a good deal of respect for Tychonius, who (as Augustine pointed out gleefully) exploded the fallacies of Donatist ecclesiology but remained Donatist, even though he was excommunicated by his own church! I myself wouldn’t go that far–if I were excommunicated for being too Catholic (which might have happened at one time in history, given my views) I would certainly become Catholic. Had I been a Donatist, I’m not sure what I would do. It would be a difficult choice.

 

I really don’t see why. As I pointed out before, you seem to have the attitude that break-away sects, by their very existence, acquire a de facto legitimacy that its members are somehow obligated to preserve and defend unless and until that group – as a group – decides to end its separation. But Scripture repeatedly and forcefully warns against divisions, and even says that those who cause “factions” (Greek: αἱρέσεις, “a religious sect, faction” – William D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, p. 55) “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:20-21). Therefore, it seems to me that break-away groups, by their very existence, have a presumption of illegitimacy and bear a heavy burden of proof to show that their existence is necessary and therefore legitimate, assuming we even grant that such separations can ever be legitimate in a truly Christian ecclesiology.

 

As I’ve said several times in this debate, modern mainline Protestants are emphatically _not_ in the position of Donatists. We may be heretics by your standards, but we are not schismatics in the Donatist sense. The decision not to be in communion is _purely_ on your side. I’m not saying it’s necessarily unjustified. But it is your decision, not ours. To accuse us of schism, when we are quite willing to intercommune, seems a bit odd to us (less so to me, because I have considerable sympathy with the Catholic position). We recognize your orders and your Eucharist. You do not recognize ours. I’m not of course saying that you are Donatists, but we are certainly not either.

 

Perhaps we have different definitions of schism. As I see it, when a group rejects some aspect(s) of the Catholic faith, leaves the Church (or is forced out) and forms a new, autonomous Christian group, that is a schism. Whether the new group is theoretically willing to be in communion with the Catholic Church or not is irrelevant to the legitimacy of its existence as a separate organization. The legitimacy of that existence, it seems to me, depends upon the rightness of its quarrel with the Catholic Church that caused it to be a separate entity in the first place.

 

Consider another hypothetical situation. Suppose a group of dissident American Catholics left the Church and formed a new Church – call it the Modern Apostolic Catholic Church in America. This new church ordains women to its priesthood, denies the unique divinity of Jesus (except insofar as we are all “gods”), is officially “pro-choice,” affirms only two sacraments, adopts sola Scriptura as its guiding principle, denies that God is a trinity, and denies the existence of Hell. Now, do you really think it would be valid for that group to shrug its shoulders and say, “Hey, it’s not our fault we’re not in communion with Rome. We’re perfectly willing to be. Shoot, we’ll be in communion with anyone. Indeed, to accuse of us schism, when we are quite willing to intercommune, seems a bit odd to us”?

 

Consider the Donatists again. If they decided to rejoin the Catholic Church, were they thereby committing a schism, or ending one? Once a schism occurs, do you think it acquires a de facto legitimacy and that it shouldn’t be ended unless the schismatic group seriously fails to preach the Word or administer the Sacraments (which administration, by the way, most Protestant churches do seriously fail to do)?

 

Gary, I should have thought it was clear by now that I’m talking about _individual_ reconversion. Obviously I’m not saying that the division should not be ended. But individual conversions are unlikely to end the schism. They will just realign the boundaries a little.

 

I should have said “helping to end a schism.” Obviously, no individual believer can reasonably expect to end a schism all by himself. But I do think that individual believers have an obligation as Christians not to be associated with a break-away group once they become convinced that that group’s reasons for being are not valid. In other words, once one realizes that Moses is the legitimate leader of Israel, he ought not to pitch his tent with Korah any longer, even though that means breaking communion with Dathan and Abiram.

 

Those were the grounds on which the Reformers broke communion with Rome.

 

One can, of course, debate whether there are any grounds that would justify schism (the Bible seems to take Christian unity very seriously, after all), but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that these grounds would justify schism. Does not a Protestant owe it to himself, and to truth itself, to determine whether the Reformers have “made their case” that Rome had in fact failed to “truly preach” the Word and “rightly administer” the Sacraments? And if he concludes that they haven’t made their case, shouldn’t he also conclude that the Reformation was therefore an improper schism? And if he concludes that, shouldn’t he repudiate the Reformation and rejoin the Catholic Church?

 

I still think that the church one is in gets the benefit of the doubt.

 

Do you mean that people naturally tend to give the church they’re in the benefit of the doubt, or do you mean that whatever church one is in logically and objectively deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt? If the latter, I disagree. I mean, suppose I decided to create my own religion out of thin air. Should everyone assume I’m right unless someone can prove me wrong? Or does the burden of proof lie with me? Obviously, it lies with me. Likewise, when Joseph Smith, Jr., declared that he had “restored the truth about the plan of God” (The Plan of Our Heavenly Father, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1986, p.4), he had to prove that. We shouldn’t just assume he must be right unless somebody can prove him wrong. I think that’s self-evident.

 

But that also applies to the Reformers. As you yourself said, “the burden of proof for the Reformers was on them to prove that they had to leave.” Just so. The Catholic Church didn’t have to prove it was right, the Reformers had to prove it was wrong. And that was just as true twenty, fifty, or a hundred years later as it was the day Luther nailed his Theses to the door. The Reformation still bears the burden of proof today, just as Mormonism or Scientology does. A breakaway church does not somehow acquire the benefit of the doubt over time.

 

But the burden of proof is _always_ on the church to which one is converting.

 

Again, if you mean objectively speaking, I disagree. Objectively speaking, Protestantism deserves the benefit of the doubt over Mormonism, and Catholicism deserves the benefit of the doubt over Protestantism.

 

The burden of proof for the Reformers was on them to prove that they had to leave. The same is true for a Protestant leaving a Presbyterian (or Anglican, or Methodist) church for “Rome,” even though the burden is less onerous.

 

Tell me: Objectively speaking, should a Scientologist give Scientology the benefit of the doubt over Rome? Obviously, a Scientologist will give Scientology the benefit of the doubt, at least at first, but should he?

 

Here is where I disagree. It isn’t that simple. To begin with, The errors of the Catholic Church may have been insufficient to justify schism–for that matter, the Catholic Church may even have been right on all the important points–and yet that does not mean that the Christian community to which I belong is illegitimate.

 

I didn’t say it does. But apply that same logic to Mormonism, for example. If you conclude that Joseph Smith was wrong on all important points, should you remain a Mormon?

 

Look at the Orthodox, for instance, You admit that they are legitimate churches, although you think they are in schism. You seem to think that if the Protestants were wrong, or at least hypersensitive, on such issues as justification and the communion of the saints and so on, then I as a private layperson should break communion with the church to which I belong and “come home.”

 

Yes. No one owes allegiance to error or to unlawful schism. Obviously, a person who is born into such a community – or converted to it from agnosticism, or whatever – is not at fault. But once he realizes that such a community was founded on error, and is in schism, contrary to the command of Christ himself, yes, I think its his duty as a Christian to disassociate himself from that community. Again, I think that’s self-evident. If a Mormon realizes that Mormonism is wrong, he should cease to be a Mormon. If a Donatist realizes that Donatism is wrong, he should cease to be a Donatist.

 

But that does not follow. It was the community that erred (whether on the specific doctrinal points, or simply in magnifying the importance of the disagreements), and it’s the community’s job to repent of its error.

 

So, you think no Montanists should have rejoined the Catholic Church unless they all did? The Donatists should have reconciled en masse or not at all? That doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems clear to me that if a person realizes that the community to which he, through no fault of his own, belongs ought not to have existed as a separate entity in the first place, he ought to act on that realization.

 

I should only leave if I think that my community’s errors are so great that I cannot in good conscience remain part of it, or, in other words, if I think that it is not a legitimate particular church. But that’s a very different issue than whether it was justified in “separating from Rome.”

 

I think you set the bar way too high. We, as Christians, have a duty to carry out the wishes of Christ that we be one and that there be no divisions among us. The very fact that a division exists is an error so great in and of itself that a person ought not to remain a part of that division if he becomes convinced that the division wasn’t justified in the first place.

 

I know it doesn’t make sense to you–again because you’re assuming a “Roman” Catholic ecclesiology.

 

Not really. I’m just assuming that the Bible means it when it says that there should be no divisions among us. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to me to perpetuate such a division once one becomes convinced that it wasn’t justified in the first place. A person who does that isn’t preserving unity, he’s preserving disunity.

 

Your assumption is that since the true Church is defined by who’s in communion with Rome (though, as I’ve said, your recognition of the Orthodox churches makes this problematic) naturally Rome can dictate the terms of communion. But try, at least imaginatively, to envision for a moment an ecclesiology that is not primarily defined by being in communion with one See.

 

Having been in such an ecclesiology for almost thirteen years, it’s not hard to imagine. What concerns me is that we all be in communion with each other. Whether that is “primarily defined by being in communion with” Rome is another question. And when that communion is broken and a new church is formed, it seems to me that church bears a heavy burden of proof to justify doing something that Scripture expressly forbids. I don’t think that burden of proof gets any lighter over time.

 

That means that if my church regards yours as fully part of the Catholic Church, and yours does not so regard mine, then it makes little sense for you to accuse me of being in schism.

 

Why not?

 

Perhaps you are right in thinking that my church is not a legitimate part of the Catholic Church. But I have to be convinced that _that_ is the case before I am obligated to “come home to Rome.”

 

Of course. I’ve prefaced my remarks all along with qualifiers such as “once a person becomes convinced . . .” If you’re convinced that the Anglican Church’s reason for being was legitimate several hundred years ago, and that those reasons still apply today, then fine. I’m just saying that the Anglican Church – as part of the Reformation – bears the burden of proof, and if you conclude that it can’t “make its case,” it isn’t schism on your part to leave it. On the contrary, you would be repairing a schism.

 

I fail to see why it is laughable to say that breaking communion with those Christians is schism, just because our spiritual ancestors may have committed schism hundreds of years ago.

 

I’m confused. Which Christians are you talking about?

 

The Christians with whom I or [Presbyterian man] are currently in communion.

 

Again, if those organizations are themselves in schism – which is what you must decide – then you aren’t committing schism by leaving them, you’re ending schism by leaving them.

 

I think too often we think of the Reformation as if it were like the formation of a new church today, in which a group of likeminded people leave the church they used to go to and start another one. That is how the Anabaptists proceeded, and I believe that in some parts of Europe (such as the Netherlands and France) that’s how the Reformed spread. But for the most part, especially at the beginning, mainstream Protestantism wasn’t like that at all. Rather, certain preachers started preaching things that the Catholic hierarchy regarded as heretical. Eventually, with the support of the secular authorities, these preachers made liturgical and disciplinary changes in their churches to make them conform to the Gospel as they understood it. This was not about “leaving the Church.”

 

Not yet.

 

It was about reforming the Church’s doctrine and practice, without the leave of the authorities. And yes, this often involved the fervent denunciation of those hard-headed authorities as “Antichrist.” But it’s quite possible that the changes these preachers made were legitimate and even needed without their denunciation of the Pope and bishops being equally legitimate. After all, you don’t stand by all the rhetoric the Catholic Church hurled at us. Why demand that we do the same?

 

I don’t. Further, I understand that in many (most?) cases, the Reformation began as an effort to reform the Church from within. But eventually, the Church declared that many of those changes – especially in doctrine – were heretical. At that point, the Reformers had to decide whether to recant and stay or stick to their guns and leave.

 

In other words, the fact that the Reformers used polemical rhetoric that was unjustified does not necessarily mean that the churches over which they presided ceased to be true churches.

 

No, they ceased to be true particular churches when they abolished the ministerial priesthood.

 

Another way of putting it is that the Reformation was not based on the contention that the Catholic Church was hopelessly corrupt.

 

Neither was Donatism. I don’t think that fact justifies one in remaining a Donatist once he’s convinced that the Donatist schism wasn’t justified in the first place.

 

The belief that the Catholic Church was hopelessly corrupt was based on the fact that the hierarchy resisted the Reformation. The Reformation was a set of doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary reforms. The question is whether those reforms were such radical departures from historic Christianity that the churches that adopted them ceased to be true churches.

 

Has there every been a heresy that didn’t blast the Church for resisting it?

 

If [Presbyterian man] is saying that [the other Presbyterian] should override his doubts about Reformed sacramental theology – that he should continue to participate in a Eucharist that he regards as invalid – then I’m with you in saying that this is inconsistent.

 

Well, that wasn’t quite what I was saying. I was saying that pleading with [the other Presbyterian] to remain a Protestant despite Protestantism’s errors and problems is ironic coming from a group that left Catholicism because if its alleged errors and problems.

 

Yet again, we need to define schism. You insist on assuming a Catholic definition of schism. But that’s precisely what’s under discussion.

 

I am referring to the existence of autonomous Christian communities that broke away from the Catholic Church, or from other communities that broke away from the Catholic Church. I maintain that the communities that broke away bear the burden of proof and must show – and continue to show – that their theological reasons for doing so were valid. And if a member of such a community concludes that it hasn’t made its case, it seems to me he must also conclude that his community constitutes an improper schism. And if he concludes that, it seems to me he should repudiate that schism and rejoin the Catholic Church.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

I see. So, once one finds oneself encamped with Korah, one has an obligation (to whom?) to remain there even if he becomes convinced that Moses is Israel’s rightful leader? I don’t get it. You seem to be saying that if any group rebels against the Church, for whatever reason, that group somehow acquires a God-given legitimacy that binds the consciences of its members and makes it actually wrong for them to repudiate that rebellion. Would it have been wrong, then, for an individual Arian to repudiate Arianism after Nicea and rejoin the Catholic Church all by himself?

 

I can’t say this too often, in the hope that you will actually get the point: Protestants do not accept the Catholic assumption that the sin of “schism” is _only_ on the side of those who separate from Rome.

 

Got it. I accept the teaching of the Catechism that “men of both sides were to blame” for the separation (CCC 817, emphasis added). Nevertheless, regardless of whose fault it was, the fact remains that the separation exists, and that it is incumbent on the members of those separated communities to assess whether the separation was justified in the first place. If they conclude that it wasn’t, or that it no longer is, I think they have an obligation to end at least their own participation in that separation. If they can bring others back with them, so much the better.

 

If in fact the divisions between Luther and Rome were not over essential questions of the Christian faith, then Rome was as wrong for excommunicating Luther as Luther was for refusing to submit.

 

If the divisions were not over essential questions of the Christian faith, then we have even less of an excuse for perpetuating them, don’t you think? God have mercy on us if we are willing to ignore His command that we be one and that there be no divisions among us, and all because of issues that even we don’t think are all that important.

 

That being the case, why should I change from one side of the schism to the other?

 

For the same reason Korah’s followers should have changed from one side of that schism to the other. I guess I really don’t understand your position here. I assume that the Protestant Reformers left the Church over issues that they, and their Catholic counterparts, at least thought were important. Now, when you come along a few centuries later and say that these issues really weren’t essential questions of the Christian faith after all, aren’t you in effect saying that the Protestant Reformation was not theologically justified? That being the case, how can you ask me why you ought no longer to be part of it?

 

Admittedly communion with Rome is important, but that’s outweighed by the fact that I would be required to submit to all sorts of doctrines that I’m not sure are essential and that I would have to break communion with my fellow-Christians.

 

Yes, you would, but by so doing you’d also be reestablishing communion with a billion other of your fellow Christians.

 

Not to speak of the fact that, as I’ve said several times now, we are quite willing to have communion with you.

 

Sure, provided you can do so on your own terms. Forgive me if I find that less than impressive.

 

So the question is not, “Were the Reformers right in thinking Rome was Antichrist?” The question is, “Was Rome right in declaring the Reformers heretics?” We have made it entirely clear that we don’t think you are Antichrist (Anglicanism never did declare this officially, though many Anglicans believed it), that to the contrary we think that you are our brothers in Christ, holding all the essentials of Christian faith.

 

Why, then, does Anglicanism continue to exist? Is it just historical inertia? I mean, surely you would agree with me, wouldn’t you, that the biblical warnings against divisions are strong enough to compel us to remain together, except possibly when essentials of the Christian faith are at stake? If, as you say, those essentials are not at stake, what justification does Anglicanism have for its continued existence as a separate entity?

 

Returning to the question of the benefit of the doubt, I still don’t think that whatever church one happens to find oneself in objectively deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

Why not?

 

Because I’m not an indifferentist. I don’t think each and every religious group has an equal claim to validity. Therefore I don’t think that each and every believer’s religious community deserves – logically and objectively – to be given the benefit of the doubt simply because one happens to have been born into it, or initially converted to it.

 

As I asked before, if I decided to create my own religion out of thin air, should everyone assume I’m right unless someone can prove me wrong?

 

No, and obviously that’s not what I’m saying. Why on earth do you bring up such an irrelevant example? We are not talking about adopting a new belief. We are talking about giving up an old one. Or more importantly, breaking ties of Christian fellowship that already exist.

 

Okay, so once my new religion gains a following and has been around a few generations, then we should give it the benefit of the doubt and presume it’s right unless someone can prove it wrong? Then it would be wrong to break communion with its followers and return to the Catholic Church, on the grounds that “two wrongs don’t make a right”?

 

Mormonism has been around awhile now, but I still don’t think we should just assume that Joseph Smith, Jr., was right unless somebody can prove him wrong. I think that’s self-evident.

 

Certainly. But it’s hardly relevant.

 

Isn’t it? As far as who gets the benefit of the doubt goes, what’s the difference between Mormonism and Lutheranism, except that Lutheranism is older? Both groups claimed to restore the true Gospel and both groups justified their ecclesiastical existence on that premise. Both groups bore, and continue to bear, the burden of proof to show that their assertions – and therefore their ecclesiastical existence – are justified, it seems to me. And that also applies to the other Protestant Reformers.

 

It did for people who lived in the sixteenth century. Obviously we are not now in that position.

 

What has changed besides the passage of time? If Calvinism was wrong in the sixteenth century, it’s still wrong in the twenty-first. And if Calvin had to prove his case against Catholicism then, his descendants still have to prove it now.

 

You’re completely ignoring the contention you claim to be disproving, which is that the burden of proof is on the person trying to change my opinion or affiliation.

 

I can’t help but feel we’re talking past each other. You seem to be talking about subjective experience; I’m talking about objective reality. I’m saying that logically, objectively, the break-away group inherently bears the burden of proof. The group that rises up and says, “The established religion is wrong, follow us instead,” must logically be presumed to be wrong unless it can prove that it’s not. Therefore, a person weighing the claims of the break-away group ought logically to give the benefit of the doubt to the original group and see whether the break-away group has made its case. That objective reality does not change merely because one happens to be a member of the break-away group, and a breakaway group does not somehow acquire the benefit of the doubt over time.

 

Not for those who don’t belong to it.

 

Not for anyone. Objectively, the burden of proof is on the break-away group. That is no less true for a member of that group than it is for anyone else.

 

Look at it this way. If the Reformers were _clearly_ violating the fundamentals of the faith (as I believe Mormons do) then obviously we should all leave Protestant churches. If the Catholic Church was clearly violating the fundamentals of the faith then we should all be Protestants (or Orthodox).

 

I agree.

 

But if, as I believe, the debates on both sides were over nonessentials (except perhaps for Zwingli’s doctrine of the Eucharist), then the correct response would be for both sides to recognize the other as valid. We have done that. You haven’t (for reasons of conscience which I respect).

 

I think it’s debatable whether the Bible sanctions ecclesiastical divisions among Christians over essentials of the Christian faith, but I think there can be no doubt that it does not sanction such divisions over nonessentials. Therefore, if “the debates on both sides were over nonessentials,” the correct response would be for the break-away group, in whole or in part, to cease its estrangement from the Catholic Church and reunite with it.

 

You act as if Protestants simply “broke away” capriciously.

 

They did break away, but I never said they did so capriciously.

 

Protestant teaching was condemned as heretical. Yet your posts show no awareness of this–it’s as if you think we should simply table the question of whether we are heretics or not.

 

On the contrary, I think that’s the crux of the matter. My point all along is simply that the Protestants bear the burden of proof to show that their teachings are not heretical, and that ours are, and people weighing the competing claims of Catholicism and Protestantism ought to bear that in mind.

 

If I were converting to Christianity, I would give the benefit of the doubt to Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy. Assuming that I was approaching the question from a fairly neutral point of view.

 

Well, then, you’ve conceded my entire argument. I’m simply pointing out that Catholicism and/or Orthodoxy objectively deserves the benefit of the doubt over Protestantism, regardless of whether one is a Protestant or not. Therefore, a Protestant considering the claims of Catholicism/Orthodoxy ought to (but probably won’t for subjective, emotional reasons) give Catholicism/Orthodoxy the benefit of the doubt on debatable matters. That’s all I’m saying.

 

The point is that we are rarely, if ever, in a position to make an “objective” decision. This is the fundamental flaw of Catholic apologetics, perhaps of Western Catholicism generally. You act as if one lays out on a table all the various claims, adds up which is more valid, and then makes a decision from some Olympian vantage point. That is, I believe, a fundamentally flawed, even un-Christian approach.

 

If I may respectfully suggest, I think a true Christian approach is to strive for truth above all else. To the extent that each of us must evaluate for ourselves the competing claims of various groups in the fractured Christian world, we do have to try to take an objective, Olympian point of view. It is illogical – though understandable – to automatically give whatever community we happen to find ourselves in the benefit of the doubt. The Branch Davidians are simply not entitled to the same presumption of validity as the Eastern Orthodox are. Thus, we need to make the effort to be objective and to bear such things in mind. Obviously, that’s not easy to do, but I don’t see that we have any choice, not if we take Christ’s desire for unity seriously.

 

Christianity is not a matter of individual, cerebral choice (do I really need to tell a Catholic that?). Christianity is about being called to be part of a community. Your talk about “objectivity” completely ignores, even violates this communal aspect of the Christian Faith. You assume from the start that only one community can have any validity at all, and that I’m supposed to figure out, on my own, which that is.

 

Essentially, yes. You’re right when you say that Christianity is about being called to be part of a community, but not just any community. When Christ spoke of unity, I don’t think he meant that he wanted each of our thousands of little groups to be unified within itself, which is what you seem to suggest when you talk about not “breaking communion” with your particular fragment of Christianity. Rather, I think he wanted all of Christianity to be unified within itself, to show the world that God had sent him. Therefore, I do think we have a duty to reexamine our divisions, to reevaluate the reasons they came to be, and to ask ourselves whether they were, or still are, necessary. If we conclude that they weren’t or aren’t, then I think we have a duty to repudiate them.

 

As I asked before, if you conclude that Joseph Smith was wrong on all important points, should you remain a Mormon?

 

Not if you think his prophecy was false and contradictory to the Christian faith, no. But if you think that Mormonism is simply wrong in its claim that historic Christianity is apostate, while still thinking that Mormonism is a fully valid part of the Christian Church, then you should remain Mormon and try to change your church’s attitude toward other Christians.

 

You seem to be suggesting that perpetuating our divisions is okay, as long as those divisions are over trivial matters. But it seems clear to me from Scripture that division in and of itself is a serious problem and a flagrant defiance of our Lord’s wishes. As I see it, the only conceivable justification for such a thing might be if it were theologically necessary in order to preserve the truth of the Gospel. But I don’t see how you can suggest that a member of a break-away community who concludes that his community has no necessary theological reasons for its existence nevertheless has no obligation to repudiate that division as being an unjustifiable transgression of our Lord’s commands that we avoid divisions.

 

I am in the position of belonging to a community that originally resulted from a division in which each side thought the other was heretical (though, as [another Protestant on the board] says, this was expressed far more clearly and uncompromisingly on the Catholic than on the Anglican side). I am now certain that the Catholic Church was not and is not heretical, and I am by no means certain that my own church was or is.

 

If, as you say, you’re certain that the Catholic Church is not heretical, what justification do you have for remaining separate from it? Apparently, you’re part of a group that no longer thinks it had a good reason to leave. That being the case, I don’t understand why you think you’re not obligated to return. Don’t you think the Biblical commands against division impose such an obligation on you?

 

Anglicanism obviously does not regard itself as heretical, but it certainly does not regard the Catholic Church as heretical either (in error on some points, perhaps, but certainly not on essentials).

 

Well, I’m sure Arianism didn’t regard itself as heretical, either. :-)

 

In short, you’re right: If a Mormon realizes that Mormonism is heretical, he should cease to be a Mormon. And if I become convinced that Protestantism is heretical, I will cease to be a Protestant.

 

Obviously. But what if you’re merely convinced that Protestantism didn’t have a particularly compelling reason to separate from the Catholic Church in the first place? Do you think it’s legitimate for a group of people to leave the Church and start a new Church over nonessential issues? If so, under what circumstances would such division not be legitimate?

 

I asked you before whether you thought that individual members of break-away groups like the Montanists should have refused to rejoin the Catholic Church unless they all did, and you replied:

 

I respectfully suggest that you may in fact be more influenced by modernist individualism than you realize.

 

I am an individual. To the extent that I must decide whether to be Christian or non-Christian, Catholic or Protestant, that must necessarily be an individual decision. And it seems clear to me that if a person realizes that the community to which he, through no fault of his own, belongs ought not to have existed as a separate entity in the first place, he ought to act on that realization.

 

Because you think that human beings are autonomous, self-determining entities? That’s the only warrant for your statement that I can imagine.

 

No, because our Lord condemned “factions” and commanded us to remain united. If, therefore, we realize that we’re part of a division that never should have happened in the first place, we ought to cease being part of the problem and start being part of the solution.

 

But by becoming Catholic I would still be part of the division. I would just be on the other side of it from those who taught me the Christian Faith and those with whom I currently worship.

 

That’s like Dathan saying, “If I left Korah, I would still be part of the rebellion. I would just be on the other side of it.” Well, yes, you’d be on the right side of it. If the division you find yourself in was unjustified (which you seem to think is the case), then it seems to me you ought to make sure you don’t deliberately ratify that division by your refusal to leave it, and thus incur the guilt of schism.

 

How is going from one side of a chasm to the other equivalent to closing the chasm?

 

The God who condemns such chasms in the first place is going to judge us. Therefore, I think it’s important that we be on the right side of the chasm. We can’t help it if other people are divisive; we can help it if we are divisive. We can’t help it if our ancestors separated themselves from the Church without good cause. We can help it if we remain separated from the Church without good cause.

 

My becoming Catholic is not going to help us all be in communion with each other. If it did I would become Catholic tomorrow–no, I wouldn’t wait till tomorrow, I’d run to the nearest priest and bang on his door.

 

But your becoming Catholic would help. It would be one less person out of communion with the Church. You can’t be responsible for what other people do, but you are responsible for what you do.

 

I’ve tried several times to explain that the Reformation did not happen quite like that. The Protestants were, after all, excommunicated for their opinions. If in fact those opinions were not heretical, then the Catholic Church is as responsible for the schism as we are (which does not mean that the Protestant response to that condemnation was the right or Christian one–it wasn’t).

 

None of which is relevant to this discussion. You’re talking about how the divisions happened; I’m talking about whether they are justified. I accept that both sides were responsible for the divisions, now what do we do about it? If a person is convinced that the Catholic Church is heretical, then I don’t see how he can in good conscience join it. But if a person is convinced that the Catholic Church is not heretical, then I don’t see how he can in good conscience refuse to join it.