Inconsistency in arguing against Roman Catholics

Well, another quick one from the road. On a recent post, the following interesting statement was made, “Their thoughts, excuses, rationales, theological bull******** [Ed. note – yes I censored the word, not the original author] – I can’t share the grace of a saint’s life, why should I bear the guilt of some dead sinners?” The post was by a Roman Catholic reacting to some comments made by some Protestants on that particular post. And, actually, he has a point.

The people who consistently were critiquing him were consistently citing the medieval history of the Roman Catholic Church. Included in that critique was the consistent citing of doctrines using not the latest formulations out of Vatican Council II, but rather formulations written at the height of the Reformation in a language that we would all regard as offensive today. In fact, the people citing the Middle Ages were actually more legalistic than they claimed the Roman Catholics are! I say that because they were, in fact, willfully unwilling to see any changes or any differences from 500 some years ago to today, and were holding the person hostage to events that have already been repented of by that Church.

In fact, it would be easy for me to quote some of the Protestant Reformers to show an equal zeal in the use of rather offensive, and even crude, language. I have read Martin Luther’s Table Talk, and he is nothing if not blunt to the point of rudeness and insulting to the point of needless offensiveness. [Nevertheless, the book is worth reading. Please buy it.] But, quoting people in the midst of a battle 500 years ago would show little about what is going on today. We Orthodox also have a record of some irremediably sinful language and practices of which we have had to repent.

But, in his anger, the person I quoted at the beginning made an interesting point. You see, those who critique the person would have serious arguments about there being no bank of merits of the saints from which a person can draw. Actually, the Orthodox fully agree with the Reformation on this one, for we consider the Roman Catholic Church to have grievously erred on that one. In other words, the good actions of one person cannot be credited to another person. Yet, when it comes to sin and guilt, when it comes to an animus against the RC’s that has been around for 500 years, suddenly the sins of the Roman Church during that time can certainly be imputed to the Church of this time, regardless of any repentance expressed. I am sure that the woman caught in adultery would have some interesting comments about that situation!

Yes, I have many doctrinal disagreements with the Roman Church. There is a reason why I am Orthodox. There are serious theological issues that need to be taken up and discussed. There are places where the Roman Church needs to change. But, and this is important, we should only be discussing those issues which are still issues. If there has been repentance expressed, if the behavior is no longer happening, if the doctrine has essentially disappeared (such as limbo), if there has been genuine change, then we need to stop harping on those points. Otherwise, we will be in the same position as we wish they would be. And, that position is “unforgiven.” Remember that the Our Father says, “. . . forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. . . .”

Too many of us are doing like the modern, and rightfully despised, “offended person.” We are insisting that if we feel wronged, then the person, or Roman Church, in this case, cannot be forgiven until they express their repentance in words that are acceptable to us. And, acceptable to us often means by words that we essentially dictate. Often, unfortunately, those words are words that would require an abasement by the individual, or the Roman Church, in this case, far greater than the depth of the sin they committed. We do not truly want to forgive. We want to see the person, or Church, that offended us grovel for our satisfaction. We need to stop that. We need to extend forgiveness where repentance has been expressed, and not bring the subject up again. And, yes, we need to extend grace, even if the words that are said do not fully express everything that we, in our not-humble opinion, think ought to be expressed.