The following is excerpts and reaction on Catholicism by Austin Cline and Bobby Jindal, GOP candidate for governor in Louisiana. The italitized text is the excerpts from Bobby's article. This blog is a good read, an especially good one if you are Catholic and tired of having the Church and her teachings attacked and prodded. The blog is called Austin's Atheism Blog by
Austin Cline, a guide atheism since 1998..wow, just makes you scratch your head. Ha!
Republicans have been complaining loudly about Democratic criticisms of Bobby Jindal, GOP candidate for governor in Louisiana. Democrats have been pointing out some claims which Jindal has made on behalf of his Roman Catholicism, specifically the idea that it is the only truly genuine form of Christianity while all other denominations are inferior. Republicans are trying, and failing, to argue that Jindal's words don't mean what they plainly state.
What's especially curious about this is the fact that Jindal's arguments are completely consistent with traditional, orthodox Catholic theology. Bobby Jindal didn't write anything that could be construed as existing on the outer fringes of Catholicism. Indeed, his sentiments were recently expressed in a very straightforward manner
by Pope Benedict XVI himself. The problem is thus not that Jindal said anything wrong, but rather than what he said is a bit inconvenient to publicize very widely.
Just as C.S. Lewis removed any room for comfortable opposition to Jesus by identifying Him as either "Lord, liar, or lunatic," so the Catholic Church leaves little room for complacent opposition to her doctrines. Without inflating the issues that separate Catholics from Protestants, for we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins, I want to refute the notion that Catholicism is merely another denomination with no more merit than any other. The Reformers who left the Catholic Church rejected, to varying degrees, five beliefs which continue to be upheld by the Catholic Church. The Church claims that these points are found in Scripture, and they have been consistently and clearly taught throughout the Church's history. I will support the Church's claims here. Source: Free Republic
The title of this piece was "The Catholic Church isn't just another 'denomination,'" and the point of writing it is made clear in the first paragraph above: a genuine Christian cannot easily oppose the Catholic Church's doctrines. What this means is that if a person who wants to call themselves Christian will have trouble doing so if they don't also call themselves Catholic. It's not that other Christian groups aren't Christian at all, but they are inevitably inferior to Catholicism. Once again, this is standard Catholic theology as are the reasons he offers.
The Bible does not contain either the claim that it is comprehensive or a listing of its contents, but does describe how it should be used. Scripture and Tradition, not the Bible alone, transmit God's revelation. Tradition is reflected in the Church's authority to interpret Scripture. The meaning of Scripture is not self-evident. One cannot discern its intended meaning through prayerful reading alone, for Scripture is "hard to understand" and individual misinterpretation can lead "to our own destruction" ...It is nearly impossible to derive the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and other teachings which were disputed in the early Christian community, from Scripture alone without recourse to Church teachings. Sincerely motivated Christians studying the same texts have disagreed on the fundamentals of the faith, thereby dividing not only Protestants from Catholics, but also particular Protestant denominations from each other. ...The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy. All churches follow their own traditions, but the Catholic Church claims a continuous link to the oral tradition which preceded and formed the canon of Scripture, the same apostolic (Acts 2:42) Tradition St. Paul commanded us to abide by (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2).This is a direct, unambiguous denunciation of the very basis of the Protestant Reformation. Christians, according to Bobby Jindal and the Catholic Church, cannot abandon the traditions of the Church in order to found a full, genuine Christian community on nothing but the individual's private understanding and interpretation of scriptures. The Christian scriptures are a creation of the Christian community and its traditions, not the other way around. So which has primacy? The community and its traditions, of course.
Contrary to Protestant churches, Jindal here states unequivocally that "scripture is not self-sufficient." Why would anything think it should be? Jesus as depicted in the Bible didn't create scripture himself, he transmitted his teachings orally in a predominantly oral culture. The importance of oral tradition is repeated throughout the New Testament as well. The original disciples are also depicted as transmitting their teachings orally. It was quite a while before anything was written down, and by that point the Christian church and communities were already well developed.
Christ founded the Church and vested her with unique authority. The apostles, the very men who wrote much of the New Testament, were the Church's first bishops, and they appointed successors. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church traces its lineage directly to the apostles, and, thus, the Church claims to be the one Jesus founded. ...The Church's foundation was not built on a plurality of prophets; rather the earliest Christians were unified on doctrinal issues in one body. The Catholic Church was the only church for some 1,000 years. Given Christ's promise to be with His Church always, so that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18), it is hard to believe that the true Faith disappeared from the world with the "fall of the Church" (dated by Protestants at various points in the first seven centuries), failing to reappear until the Reformation around the 16th century. ... John and other apostles, as well as Timothy, were still alive and would have objected to any illegitimate exercise of authority. However, no protest was made, since Clement was acting within his rights as Peter's successor. In A.D. 110, Ignatius of Antioch praised the church in Rome for being "first in love, being true to Christ's law and stamped with the Father's name." During the second century, Ignatius of Leon defined the Roman position as the orthodox position. Bishop Irenaeus claimed "every church must be in harmony with [Rome] because of its outstanding pre-eminence"; he even listed and cited the succession of the bishops of Rome as a "most complete proof of the unity and identity of the life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth." In A.D. 250, Bishop Cyprian wrote, "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" Pope Stephen cited Matthew 16:18 as early as the third century to justify Petrine authority. St. Augustine taught that whatever was condemned by the Bishop of Rome was condemned by all. The historical references from apostolic times are plentiful; what is missing is any objection to the Pope's claim as successor to St. Peter with authority over the bishops.
Here Bobby Jindal is simply repeating standard Catholic arguments about why the Catholic Church is the only full manifestation of Christianity today. First, the current Catholic Church can trace its authority right back to the earliest disciples and therefore to Jesus himself. Second, the earliest Christian leaders all recognized the primacy of the bishop in Rome. Without one or the other, the Catholic Church based in Rome would not be able to claim any unique status or authority over Christians.
Of course traditional, orthodox Catholics believe this. They couldn't be Catholic if they didn't believe it. Jindal isn't expressing anything new, radical or even remotely unusual here. This has been a standard Catholic position taught to all the Catholic faithful for centuries. It would be remarkable if he didn't believe it, so why shouldn't he express it publicly? Do you really think that most Catholic politicians, and especially conservative Catholic politicians, don't believe this as well?
It is not intellectually honest to ignore an institution with such a long and distinguished history and with such an impressively global reach. I am not asking non-Catholics to investigate the claims of my neighborhood minister, but rather am presenting a 2,000-year-old tradition, encompassing giants like Aquinas and Newman, with almost a billion living members, including modern prophets like Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.
Kos comments by saying, in part, that "It looks impressive if you are easily impressed by cites and the such, but ultimately, it paints a picture of disdain for competing religious denominations. As an amateur theologist, this might fly. But as a candidate for governor in Louisiana?" I can't agree — this isn't amateur theology, but simply an expression of standard, traditional, orthodox theology. Bobby Jindal isn't breaking any new ground here and isn't presenting anything original. I doubt that any Catholic priest, bishop, or theologian would find much to complain about in the entire essay.
If Bobby Jindal released this as part of his campaign for governor, it would be incredibly bizarre. Because he released it several years ago, there's no connection. What we have, though, is more insight into the personal religious beliefs of Bobby Jindal than we do of most politicians, Catholic or Protestant. Usually politicians simply try to express empty platitudes about the importance of faith, religion, and occasionally Jesus. Jindal, though, is explaining some of his basic theological principles and ideas. He isn't just saying that his Catholic faith is important, he's explaining how and why. That's far more candor than we usually see and I, for one, respect that.
Of course, such candor comes with a price: by clearing stating what he really believes, Jindal has opened himself up to criticism. Clearly he believes, as a good Catholic should, that other Christian churches are deficient and do not share fully in the Christianity that the Catholic Church possesses. This will naturally not be greeted with much enthusiasm by non-Catholics, just as they were unhappy when Pope Benedict XVI reminded people of all this not long ago. If people are going to take religion into account when they vote, they will in this case be able to consider genuine, substantive, and serious religious ideas — not just empty platitudes.
As I mentioned above, Republicans are upset about Jindal being criticized, but that's the price you pay for bringing religion in to the political arena. If Republicans want to keep using religion as a basis for public policy and to attack Democrats for being insufficiently religious, then they cannot complain when their own specific religious beliefs come under critical scrutiny. If they think it's inappropriate to criticize a candidate's religious views during a political campaign, it's only because religion never should have been brought into the campaign to begin with. They have to choose between leaving religion at home and in the church were it belongs, or
taking their lumps when their religious beliefs are brought out into the harsh light of day.
Obviously we need to continue to pray for Mr. Cline and our other brothers and sisters in Christ that have fallen away from the church in this modern age of realitism. The proof is in the pudding so to speak..so please share this article with others, start the debate. We need to work harder in spreading the truth and bringing others back or to full communion with the Church.
Through
Our Risen Lord Jesus Christ
Dennis Zender
