Philip said:
I had come to expect a more insightful post from you. Your 'paraphrases' show my expectations were wrong.
Sorry to disappoint.
I stand by my statements. The comparison between the openly taught tradition of the Catholic Church and the special knowledge of the divine self of Gnostics is weak. Gnosticism teaches that the saved are individually enlighted by the Christ to know their divine origin. This has nothing to do with Catholicism or its traditions. The 'obvious similarity' that JohnJones claimed was present suggests that either (a) he thinks Catholics claim to have some secret knowledge or (b) that Gnostic knowledge was taught to all. Neither of these is correct. The openness of Catholic teaching is the direct opposite of the claimed secret knowledge held by Gnostics.
The analogy of gnosticism and Roman Catholicism is in reference to the way the RCC defends its authority to teach things that cannot be reasonably supported. In his treatise
Against Heresies, Irenaeus said about the Gnostic heretics that they would pervert Scripture to support their strange teachings, but then,
When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but viva voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world."
In a similar sense, the RCC cites Scripture and history as the proof of their doctrines. Yet, since learned and able non-RC historians and theologians carefully and articulately refuted the validity of their dependence upon these sources, as important a Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal as Yves Congar frankly admits the following,
In every age the consensus of the faithful, still more the agreement of those who are commissioned to teach them, has been regarded as a guarantee of truth: not because of some mystique of universal suffrage, but because of the Gospel principle that unanimity and fellowship in Christian matters requires, and also indicates, the intervention of the Holy Spirit. From the time when the patristic argument first began to be used in dogmatic controversies-it first appeared in the second century and gained general currency in the fourth-theologians have tried to establish agreement among qualified witnesses of the faith, and have tried to prove from this agreement that such was in fact the Church's belief
Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare. In fact, a complete consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. This instance, selected from a number of similar ones, shows first that the Fathers cannot be isolated from the Church and its life. They are great, but the Church surpasses them in age, as also by the breadth and richness of its experience. It is the Church, not the Fathers, the consensus of the Church in submission to its Saviour which is the sufficient rule of our Christianity.
Because, in fact, RC doctrines cannot be proven by the verifiable sources they once claimed could, Scripture and "unanimous consent of the fathers," the RCC shamelessly abandoned any need for such support and began making such bold statements as the following from Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Henry Edward Manning,
But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church?
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. . . . The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour.
Gnostic teachers made broad truth claims about their unique doctrines that were founded upon similar backing--these teachings must be accepted upon my/our authority (the Gnostic leader/the RC magisterium). The cannot be verified through any other source. God speaks directly through me/us. (This analogy is made by William Webster in his article "Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition," and the Congar and Manning quotes are from his article.) Certainly the analogy will break down if carried too far, as all analogies do. Yet, it's useful for the point it's making.
I expressed interest in the book that Theophorus mentioned because it is an analysis of some Protestant beliefs writen by a Protestant. Do you think it foolish or unwise for someone who is not Protestant to consider what a Protestant has to say about some of his fellow Protestants? It is true that, unlike my comment on JohnJones's comparison, I have made no comments on Lee's comparisons. Of course, unlike JohnJones's post, I have not read yet Lee's book, so I am in no position to comment on his arguments. I hope you don't mind if withhold comments on them until I have read them.
There's nothing wrong with your interest in this book. It's your inconsistency in refusing to even consider the first analogy while showing such obvious interest in the second that I was emphasizing.
The difference between the "Gnosticism" of the RCC and the Gnostic tendencies of a particular strand of thought within Protestantism, though, is that in regard to the RCC, this tendency is inherent to the system, while in Protestantism, it's not. A Protestant can write this kind of self-critical book because of the Protestant principle of
semper reformanda. It's because of this principle that
we can take a critical look at ourselves and see when we're losing our balance and pray God to help the church correct itself. Where you may be inclined to go wrong in reading the book is if you read it and conclude that the issues criticized by the author
are inherently part of Protestantism. (Incidentally, I haven't even read the book, but I think I have a general idea about what the author may be arguing. At least, I'm aware of what some regard as the Gnostic tendencies of certain strands of Protestant thought.)
