The Future of Protestant culture: Peter J. Leithart on being "too catholic to be Catholic"

[Cappadocious]

It'd be wise to do your own research, as there's a stark difference between going by what's said alone and actually investigating for oneself. Keeping up with the material over the years, the readership is quite high and has a diverse audience. Generally, of course, people already set against anything done by Dr. Leithart or First THings tend to give claims saying not many read it when the truth is that it is just them in specific.

And generally, from what I have observed, it tends to be the case that because Dr. Leithart is not automatically celebrating all things Orthodox that you can find others in Orthodoxy saying a number of things claiming the articles aren't good - or making it seem as if no one in Orthodoxy keeps up with him.

I don't dislike First Things because it's heterodox with respect to high theology.

I eschew First Things because it is largely a platform for American neoconservatives, who are making a bid for the normalization of their theology and praxis as the default and obvious Christian theology and praxis.

I think a lot of people read First Things. That's not a good thing. Even if it's a "diverse" readership in some other respects...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't dislike First Things because it's heterodox with respect to high theology.

I eschew First Things because it is largely a platform for American neoconservatives, who are making a bid for the normalization of their theology and praxis as the default and obvious Christian theology and praxis.

I think a lot of people read First Things. That's not a good thing. Even if it's a "diverse" readership in some other respects...

There are American neoconservatives in multiple parts of the online world (including Orthodox Forums or Orthodox blogs as well), where things are normalized as default. Doesn't mean people go with it, of course, simply because it's associated with things.

As it is, claiming it's largely a "American neoconservatives platform" doesn't do anything in regards to real evidence - nor does it show where their goal at any point was making their theology the "as the default and obvious Christian theology and praxis." That would be accusation without clarification and assuming people who are strong in their views are wanting to make what they believe default begs the question of where they ever said they want their own view to be the default (even when they have actively stated they do not care for all to agree with them and obviously feel their way is valid in the same way others feel on theirs). Other Orthodox have already spoken there a number of times irregardless of others who disagree with Orthodoxy.

• My Journey Into the Orthodox Church - First Things
• Eastern Orthodox Unity | Ivan Plis | First Things
• The Orthodox Renaissance - First Things
• The Newest Doctor of the Church - First Things
• An Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Laudato Si - First Things
• The Dangers of Internet Orthodoxy | Ivan Plis | First Things

Multiple others besides that - and on the issue, it was never a site heterodox in regards to High Church theology as others within Orthodoxy have long spoken on the issue of realizing what it actually means to be heterodox in High Church theology and the variations within that....although other Orthodox have spoken on where there have been heterodox expressions before and how to address that, just as others in High Church traditions who've worked with Orthodox have also spoken on the subject when it comes to other traditions being in communion (more elsewhere on the work between Orthodox and Catholic and other groups in their development in the Church)..but of course, there are always limitations:

• High Church Calvinism: Out on a Theological Limb - Orthodox/Reformed Bridge...

That said, as said before, it does not really do anything to not give real addressment of the material as opposed to poisoning a well for anyone reading. As much as I enjoy Key and Peele in their skits, a parody from Key and Peele on Black Republicans hardly gives any real demonstration of showing your assertions accurate. That's akin to one saying that Black Republicans are all like the ones in the video - as in a minority and tokenism when there are large groups and not stereotypical

That said, as said before, the OP has a focus. Respectfully, if one isn't going to deal with the OP, the thread is not for them since this is not a thread for either trying to actively discourage reading material without actually dealing with it - nor is it a thread suited for simply complaining on whether they feel something is a good thing when they have not dealt with the material. Please be respectful to the OP request/subject.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Yes, I agree that the time of the uber-Protestant (see modern Calvinist) has outlived its usefulness. There does need to be a move toward more ritual. IMHO, all this does is to recognize the Reformation is over. Luther and Calvin won. The excesses of the Latin Church at the time of the Reformation are principally gone, and many Protestant ideas have been added (especially regarding the place of the laity). Of course, the added Latin doctrines would still be rejected.
IMHO, there is little reason for antagonism between such a church and Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox. We should be able to share at the Table Of Plenty. Even more importantly, a Christianity more accepting of its own would be much more likely to bring the unchurched into the Church.
======

Indeed - many thanks for sharing as you did. People actually honor Luther and Calvin by realizing the extensive ways in which others went way beyond what they stood for in the Reformation when ignoring the Sacramental nature of the Church, Real Presence, the Church Fathers, etc. The modern developments of the Church since then in Evangelical culture have not really been a true reflection of what Protestants would have believed in Luther's time.

Only by discussion can we actually have real awareness of the ways stereotypes have been made in the camp on where others are....and move past them.

As an aside, Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart actually did an excellent job discussing the extensiveness of the Church and variations within the Body of Christ - as seen best in one of the books I've recently gotten called "The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith"

​

As an aside, I point to the inter-communion agreement between US Lutherans and The Episcopal Church. It was very important, not only for pastors to be able to preach in both churches, but also for priests to be under apostolic bishops (I ignore that this apostolic succession is rejected by the RCC).

This is interesting, as it reminds me of something my spiritual father noted directly when pointing out how in 1763, Greek Orthodox bishop Erasmus of the Diocese of Arcadia, ordained John Wesley in the Methodist Church at the request of Wesley. As noted best at Wiki:

Since the Rt. Rev. John Wesley ordained and sent forth every Methodist preacher in his day, who preached and baptized and ordained, and since every Methodist preacher who has ever been ordained as a Methodist was ordained in this direct "succession" from Wesley, then the Methodist Church teaches that it has all the direct merits coming from apostolic succession, if any such there be.[70] This apostolic succession is recognized by Unity Catholic Church, an autocephalous Catholic Church.​

• United Methodism and Apostolic Succession | Mitchell Lewis

And as another pointed out:

Many teachers working in the Protestant traditions argue that Apostolic Succession refers only to the process by which the pure teaching of the Apostles is transmitted from one generation to another. Various forms of institutional structure could affect this transmission and a bishop-to-bishop lineage is not necessary for apostolic succession to exist.

Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans along some Lutherans and other Protestants, on the other hand, argue that Apostolic Succession is the transmission of authentic teaching and authentic leaders through a lineage of authentic bishops whose lines descend from the Apostles. That is, the Apostles trained and ordained bishops to replace them, who then trained and ordained other bishops, and so on, right down to the present day. The only valid ecclesial ministry is that ordained by and working with these bishops. We can see the early forms of this idea right back in St. Irenaeus' teachings against the heretics: (paraphrased) 'We can be sure we have the authentic faith because we have the authentic bishops who learned from those who learned from the Apostles' (see Against Heresies, Book III, chp. 3;ANF v.1, p.415). The succession of bishops, valid clergy orders, valid sacraments, and the succession of teaching, in this conception, are all inseperably conjoined. For this reason, many in these groups would look at those Protestant Churches that lack this 'historic episcopate' as, at best, 'incomplete' Churches, or (at worst) not churches at all. Certainly the validity of their ordinations and clergy are suspect.

Though this teaching appeals to me on one level because it secures more continuity with the Ancient Church, I have never been able to discount the manifestly holy lives of so many genuine Christians in the non-'Apostolic Succession of bishops' churches. Indeed, in my personal experience it often seems that real zeal for Christ, manifestly holy lives, love of God and of his Word are all more likely to be found among the laity in these non-episcopal Succession churches. And "you shall know a tree by its fruits" (Mt. 7:16 ff). On the flip side it is obvious that whole churches, while maintaining the historic episcopate, have nevertheless diverged on matters of important doctrine (as seen, for example, in the rift between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy over Original Sin and Papal authority). The existence of an historic succession did not of itself ensure doctrinal harmony.

Yet it remains true that the great majority witness of the Church today, and across the ages, has held that the Apostolic Succession of bishops is an extremely important mark of the Church - part of what it means to be "apostolic" as we profess in the Nicene Creed.

The question then arises for a United Methodist Church that claims to be a legitimate branch of the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church": can we make any credible claim to apostolic succession? Methodists seem to answer 'yes' to this question in 3 ways:

The first is to argue that apostolic succession is not limited to bishops alone but (contrary to the teachings of the historic episcopate churches) is passed along through all ordained ministers together (bishops, elders, and deacons together) or through a presbytery. Many early Methodist leaders were ordained Anglicans and a few ordained ministers did participate in the ordinations of Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as our first bishops, therefore the succession of ministers is maintained all the way back to the Apostles. There are apparent Biblical instances (see 1 Tim. 4:14) and perhaps a couple of statements in St. Ignatius of Antioch that might be read this way (compare for example Letter to the Trallians, 7 with Letter to the Philadelphians, 7, with Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8-9).

Whatever its merits, this approach will be a hard sell to our ecumenical dialogue partners in the historic episcopate churches.

The second approach is to argue that the Apostolic Succession of bishops can be, and on occassion has been, transmitted through elders/presbyters in unusual or emergency situations. The succession normally proceeds from bishop to bishop, however, in certain instances where the death of a bishop made this impossible, groups of elders have consecrated new bishops, who in turn have been recognized as legitimate by the broader catholic Church. We read of one example of this in the Ancient Church in St. Jerome's Letter CXLVI when he describes the episcopal succession of the city of Alexandria.

Thus, considering the unusual historical circumstances of Christians in the American colonies cut off from valid sacraments, Fr. John Wesley's action in consecrating Thomas Coke was irregular but not invalid, and the United Methodist Church enjoys a valid succession to this day.

With both preceeding arguments it might be added that in the Scripture and the early literature, there seems to be some interchangeability or overlap between "prebyter/elder" and "episcopos/bishop" though they are clearly seperate offices by the late Second Century.

The final, and most intriguing, argument put forward by some Methodists (and indeed, in the 19th Century, by some Anglicans as well) was that John Wesley himself had been secretly consecrated as a bishop by a Greek Orthodox Bishop named Erasmus of Arcadia, and that Wesley's consecration of Dr. Coke was perfectly consistent with the ancient and ordinary pattern. The reason for the secrecy was of course the British law (at the time) forbidding ecclesiastical "interference" from foreign bishops, since the English King was the earthly governor of the Church of England. I first read of this argument a few years ago as put forward by Gregory S. Neal, a high-church Methodist pastor.

I recently ran across it again from the well-known and widely-read evangelical Methodist blogger, Shane Raynor, who points out that, if any record substantiates this account (in the eyes of our ecumenical partners) that Bishop Erasmus did in fact make Wesley a bishop in the Orthodox lineage, it would have tremendous ecumenical consequences for United Methodists, in particular with our relations to the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic Churches. There would presumably no longer be any question whatsoever of the validity of our clergy orders and at least one great obsticle to full communion with these other catholic Communions could be obliterated.​

From your article
1. He’s right that the Catholic Church has changed so much, and cultural conditions in the West have changed so much, that the adversarial stance that has characterized historical Protestantism has lost its energizing force. There will always be a remnant of Protestants who get worked up about the evils of Rome, but most Protestants today have had enough exposure to Catholicism and Catholics to know that the prejudices of the past are hard to justify.

Very true...

FINALLY
The Roman Catholic Church (and the Orthodox churches) need to welcome these brothers and sisters as fellow Christians, and openly recognize them as part of the family of God.

I agree....

 

[Korah]

Interesting indeed.
Do you know whether sects diverging from Methodism have supposedly legitimately continued Apostolic Succession? I'm thinking not just of Free Methodists and Wesleyans (both simply conservative or even Fundamentalist offshoots, perhaps thus antagonistic to the concept anyway), but of Nazarenes and possibly others. I would guess that the founders of these split-offs had some indications of succession from John Wesley's hopefully valid Orthodox ordination, but that (I would guess) an anti-Anglicanism of the cause of secession would mean that no subsequent concern was taken to establish Apostolic Succession niceties?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Interesting indeed.
Do you know whether sects diverging from Methodism have supposedly legitimately continued Apostolic Succession? I'm thinking not just of Free Methodists and Wesleyans (both simply conservative or even Fundamentalist offshoots, perhaps thus antagonistic to the concept anyway), but of Nazarenes and possibly others. I would guess that the founders of these split-offs had some indications of succession from John Wesley's hopefully valid Orthodox ordination, but that (I would guess) an anti-Anglicanism of the cause of secession would mean that no subsequent concern was taken to establish Apostolic Succession niceties?

Interesting. I would have to look into it further - as I have several things I am involved in at the moment that have kept me busy - but I would not be surprised.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Y
IMHO, there is little reason for antagonism between such a church and Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox. We should be able to share at the Table Of Plenty. Even more importantly, a Christianity more accepting of its own would be much more likely to bring the unchurched into the Church.
======

The Roman Catholic Church (and the Orthodox churches) need to welcome these brothers and sisters as fellow Christians, and openly recognize them as part of the family of God.

As it is, Church history is already intricate enough - and very complicated when seeing how much things have developed and evolved.

Consistency of the early church/trusting what they had developed does not mean one dismisses all that had developed since then when it comes to the extent that God's Body. As I understand it, the Church is like like a tree - WHERE the original root is Christ and there is the Church flowing from that. There at the base of the tree is where things are closest to the original - and thus, it's logical with proximity alone/practice for me to note the necessity of listening to the practices of Eastern Christianity/Apostolic Christianity since that is the closest to what the Apostles/1st century Church did - but there are other things that flowed since that time frame which have also been of the Lord......and the Lord operating.

​

 

[Athanasias]

I can't hear it at its about 8% volume, but as it comes from (notoriously ultra-Fundamentalist) Biola college and labels itself as "Calvinism", I see no reason for me to attempt to hear it or find something else by Leithard.

hmm never thouth of biola as fundie. the got dr Craig and he is not a fundie

 

[Gxg (G²)]

hmm never thouth of biola as fundie. the got dr Craig and he is not a fundie

Dr. Craig is very astounding

 

[Korah]

Agreed. I heard and interacted with William Lane Craig in a the 2008 Mensa Annual Gathering in Denver. Yes, I was quite impressed, even though I'm a Higher Critic and not Protestant-more-or-less-Fundamentalist as I take him to be.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Agreed. I heard and interacted with William Lane Craig in a the 2008 Mensa Annual Gathering in Denver. Yes, I was quite impressed, even though I'm a Higher Critic and not Protestant-more-or-less-Fundamentalist as I take him to be.

William Lane Craig is a Protestant?

 

[Athanasias]

William Lane Craig is a Protestant?

He is a methodist( I think or s similar type of evangelical) but he argues very Catholic and uses St. Thomas and classic scholastic philosophy nicely and often in teaching and apologetics. I love him and its a honor for me to disagree with him. He can rip the shreds off of the New Atheist systematically. I think Professor Edward Fesser is a Catholic equivalent from the Thomistic view.

 

[Korah]

There are lots of free videos of William Lane Craig in debate with Bart Ehrman and various atheists such as Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
He comes off in them as rather starchy Natural Law philosophy and Fundamentalist Biblicism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If you have already seen those, here's a look at his current and future debates.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-look-at-upcoming-debates-and-events
He's a careful debater based on his premises (great if you accept them, as I do, but they're rejected by his New Atheist targets) and the specific points raised by his opponents. Good, but he never hits the ball out of the park.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=5C4111DAB8F3E6345C915C4111DAB8F3E6345C91

 

[Athanasias]

There are lots of free videos of William Lane Craig in debate with Bart Ehrman and various atheists such as Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens.
He comes off in them as rather starchy Natural Law philosophy and Fundamentalist Biblicism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
If you have already seen those, here's a look at his current and future debates.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-look-at-upcoming-debates-and-events
He's a careful debater based on his premises (great if you accept them, as I do, but they're rejected by his New Atheist targets) and the specific points raised by his opponents. Good, but he never hits the ball out of the park.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=5C4111DAB8F3E6345C915C4111DAB8F3E6345C91

really I thought he knocked one out of the park when he debated Sam Harris.

 

[Athanasias]

Here is a Catholic response to the good doctors position. The link also links to the EO and Lutheran LCMS response on Dr. Leitharts statement.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/

 

[Korah]

really I thought he knocked one out of the park when he debated Sam Harris.

OK.
So on the second link I gave in my above post, I found one debate with Sam Harris 3 hours 28 minutes long. The other is 3 hrs. and 9 minutes. Hopefully you mean some other debate or an edited version of one of these? I have ADHD and am 43 years older than when I was last in college and inured to listening to boring lectures from professors. I don't recall there any lectures much over an hour at a time. Not to mention that during my last two periods of graduate degree study (and completion) we usually inter-acted with the profs--and under the gun to listen to every word lest we be black-marked for giving the wrong answer to any sudden interrogation.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here is a Catholic response to the good doctors position. The link also links to the EO and Lutheran LCMS response on Dr. Leitharts statement.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/

That was actually referenced earlier in the OP....

 

[Athanasias]

That was actually referenced earlier in the OP....

nice

 

[Gxg (G²)]

nice

The Body of Christ is so diverse

 

[Cappadocious]

hmm never thouth of biola as fundie. the got dr Craig and he is not a fundie

If he were to post here, he would be confined to unorthodox theology for at least three classical heresies (or two, we give Monophysitism a pass here for some reason).