This comment follows a preliminary quick read of your article so I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding.
Now, the issue that bothers me the most in your article is the conflation of The Vatican with the wider body of Catholic believers. I'm a Catholic living in a my home country, Romania, which has an overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians. Half of my family is Orthodox we often celebrate Easter together and in our eyes we all are Christian brothers. From my perspective this holds true for most if not all Protestant denominations.
There are I think two main points I wish to make. One, the fact that we have a Pope it doesn't mean we are blindly following Vatican's orders. Just like Orthodox Christians we have Tradition that in many ways is more binding than Vatican's policies. And we also enjoy the use of our reason and we do not ignore the fact that throughout history we had several bad Popes and the Vatican did make mistakes.
The second point is this: Are the Catholic Church and the entire congregation vulnerable to socialist infiltration? Yes. At the same time Protestant denominations and the Orthodox Church while enjoying decentralization are also vulnerable to tribalism and infighting. Both these weaknesses of the Catholic and respectively of the Orthodox Church and Protestant denominations are actively being exploited by those who would like to see Christianity destroyed. At the same time, both the unity of the Catholic Church and the decentralization of the Orthodox Churc and Protestand denominations also have advantages. And I believe it's in our best interest to know how to use these characteristics as advantages and not let them being exploited as weaknesses.
I can tell you that during the Communist regime in Romania, resistance against tyranny has been the same among Orthodox, Catolics, Greek-Catholics and Protestant in Romania.
If you manage to see these comment I would highly recommend reading Nicolae Steinhardt's "The Diary of Happiness" He was a Jew who converted to Orthodox Christianity. In his book he recounts, among many other things his experiences as an inmate in the Communist prisons.
I do make a distinction between individual Roman Catholics and the higher ups who follow in lock step with the papacy. So while I don't think that will change the overall trajectory of the Roman Catholic church, I do recognize that not every individual Roman Catholic will blindly follow the Vatican's marching orders.
I don't recognize Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as brothers, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate their stance against tyranny. What is particularly problematic about Rome, however, is her ecclesiastical and political structure, which are, in truth, two sides of the same coin. It's not just that Romanism is vulnerable to socialist infiltration, in other words, but that Roman Catholic political teaching is inherently collectivistic and technocratic.
I also know that there are many Roman Catholics who recognize that there are bad popes. The problem is that there are no true Roman Catholics who can acknowledge that they have fallible popes whose teachings are not even in line with traditionally orthodox Roman Catholic teaching.
What tends to happen when a pope is found to be teaching something erroneous is this: His words are reinterpreted to mean something in line with what his opponents believe. This is how Vatican II's theological divergences were papered over. The Nouvelle Theologie movement was politically expedient to Rome, so these the obvious differences between their pro-Continental philosophy theology and that of the hardcore Neo-Thomist theologians were explained away as mere misunderstandings that the scholars, theologians, and philosophers were having with one another. Those who recognize that pre-Vatican II theology is not compatible with post-Vatican II theology are treated as schismatics. This is not because they are actually schismatics, but because they are not changing with the papacy as she changes her "irreformable" dogmas to maintain some semblance of relevancy in the current age.
While I hope that individual Roman Catholics will choose to do what is right when facing political tyranny, the fact of the matter is that the Roman church determines the boundaries of orthodox doctrine and practice. What an individual believes to be correct is irrelevant if Rome says otherwise.
The unity of the Roman churches is one that is enforced from the top to the bottom, bu magisterial and papal authority. That kind of unity is problematic when the higher ups are working with tyrannical authorities and retroactively justifying their behavior, or retroactively condemning their behavior when it is politically expedient for them to do so.
The decentralization of the Eastern Orthodox churches is equally problematic, seeing as the EO also have an inherently collectivistic understanding of society and its institutions. While individuals of the EO church may oppose tyranny, their collectivistic understanding of society and its institutions (including economics) preserves the very philosophical framework against which all of us should strive.
Collectivism/anti-individualism is inherently unnatural and clearly unScriptural. The social teaching of Rome, which is echoed by the EO church, is built on interpretations of Scripture that are demonstrably novel. I've written about this here: https://logia.substack.com/p/from-fruit-to-root-a-genealogy-of-26d
As for Protestantism, I understand the term to refer to those churches who are doctrinally in alignment with the Reformed tradition as regards standard creeds (Apostolic, Nicean, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian) and the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This means that all Protestant churches have a distinct identity and are unified in believing the teaching of Scripture. Fragmentation can occur over other matters, but that does not mean that we are not united in the faith (as regards the doctrines that make one a child of God).
Protestantism preserves the truth of individualism, over and against the evil of collectivism, and is more advantageous to men overall, and Christians in particular. The fact that power can be decentralized over and again is not a problem, it's a blessing. As the Roman Catholic writer Lord Acton himself noted: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In the church of Rome, absolute power is wielded by the pope through his magisterium, and down the hierarchical chain. In the EO churches, power is wielded by the collective, but this is easy to conceal given the absence of a pope or pope-like figure. Rather than the papal power being exercised via institutions, the collective wields power as if God is operating through them. These are both situations which conflict with God's revelation.
I will take a look at the link you sent me. And again, I appreciate your feedback.
Mr. Diaz,
This comment follows a preliminary quick read of your article so I apologize in advance for any misunderstanding.
Now, the issue that bothers me the most in your article is the conflation of The Vatican with the wider body of Catholic believers. I'm a Catholic living in a my home country, Romania, which has an overwhelming majority of Orthodox Christians. Half of my family is Orthodox we often celebrate Easter together and in our eyes we all are Christian brothers. From my perspective this holds true for most if not all Protestant denominations.
There are I think two main points I wish to make. One, the fact that we have a Pope it doesn't mean we are blindly following Vatican's orders. Just like Orthodox Christians we have Tradition that in many ways is more binding than Vatican's policies. And we also enjoy the use of our reason and we do not ignore the fact that throughout history we had several bad Popes and the Vatican did make mistakes.
The second point is this: Are the Catholic Church and the entire congregation vulnerable to socialist infiltration? Yes. At the same time Protestant denominations and the Orthodox Church while enjoying decentralization are also vulnerable to tribalism and infighting. Both these weaknesses of the Catholic and respectively of the Orthodox Church and Protestant denominations are actively being exploited by those who would like to see Christianity destroyed. At the same time, both the unity of the Catholic Church and the decentralization of the Orthodox Churc and Protestand denominations also have advantages. And I believe it's in our best interest to know how to use these characteristics as advantages and not let them being exploited as weaknesses.
I can tell you that during the Communist regime in Romania, resistance against tyranny has been the same among Orthodox, Catolics, Greek-Catholics and Protestant in Romania.
If you manage to see these comment I would highly recommend reading Nicolae Steinhardt's "The Diary of Happiness" He was a Jew who converted to Orthodox Christianity. In his book he recounts, among many other things his experiences as an inmate in the Communist prisons.
https://geocities.restorativland.org/Athens/Olympus/5748/traduceri/diary_of_happiness.html
Thanks for your input, Andrei.
I do make a distinction between individual Roman Catholics and the higher ups who follow in lock step with the papacy. So while I don't think that will change the overall trajectory of the Roman Catholic church, I do recognize that not every individual Roman Catholic will blindly follow the Vatican's marching orders.
I don't recognize Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox as brothers, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate their stance against tyranny. What is particularly problematic about Rome, however, is her ecclesiastical and political structure, which are, in truth, two sides of the same coin. It's not just that Romanism is vulnerable to socialist infiltration, in other words, but that Roman Catholic political teaching is inherently collectivistic and technocratic.
I also know that there are many Roman Catholics who recognize that there are bad popes. The problem is that there are no true Roman Catholics who can acknowledge that they have fallible popes whose teachings are not even in line with traditionally orthodox Roman Catholic teaching.
What tends to happen when a pope is found to be teaching something erroneous is this: His words are reinterpreted to mean something in line with what his opponents believe. This is how Vatican II's theological divergences were papered over. The Nouvelle Theologie movement was politically expedient to Rome, so these the obvious differences between their pro-Continental philosophy theology and that of the hardcore Neo-Thomist theologians were explained away as mere misunderstandings that the scholars, theologians, and philosophers were having with one another. Those who recognize that pre-Vatican II theology is not compatible with post-Vatican II theology are treated as schismatics. This is not because they are actually schismatics, but because they are not changing with the papacy as she changes her "irreformable" dogmas to maintain some semblance of relevancy in the current age.
While I hope that individual Roman Catholics will choose to do what is right when facing political tyranny, the fact of the matter is that the Roman church determines the boundaries of orthodox doctrine and practice. What an individual believes to be correct is irrelevant if Rome says otherwise.
The unity of the Roman churches is one that is enforced from the top to the bottom, bu magisterial and papal authority. That kind of unity is problematic when the higher ups are working with tyrannical authorities and retroactively justifying their behavior, or retroactively condemning their behavior when it is politically expedient for them to do so.
The decentralization of the Eastern Orthodox churches is equally problematic, seeing as the EO also have an inherently collectivistic understanding of society and its institutions. While individuals of the EO church may oppose tyranny, their collectivistic understanding of society and its institutions (including economics) preserves the very philosophical framework against which all of us should strive.
Collectivism/anti-individualism is inherently unnatural and clearly unScriptural. The social teaching of Rome, which is echoed by the EO church, is built on interpretations of Scripture that are demonstrably novel. I've written about this here: https://logia.substack.com/p/from-fruit-to-root-a-genealogy-of-26d
As for Protestantism, I understand the term to refer to those churches who are doctrinally in alignment with the Reformed tradition as regards standard creeds (Apostolic, Nicean, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian) and the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This means that all Protestant churches have a distinct identity and are unified in believing the teaching of Scripture. Fragmentation can occur over other matters, but that does not mean that we are not united in the faith (as regards the doctrines that make one a child of God).
Protestantism preserves the truth of individualism, over and against the evil of collectivism, and is more advantageous to men overall, and Christians in particular. The fact that power can be decentralized over and again is not a problem, it's a blessing. As the Roman Catholic writer Lord Acton himself noted: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In the church of Rome, absolute power is wielded by the pope through his magisterium, and down the hierarchical chain. In the EO churches, power is wielded by the collective, but this is easy to conceal given the absence of a pope or pope-like figure. Rather than the papal power being exercised via institutions, the collective wields power as if God is operating through them. These are both situations which conflict with God's revelation.
I will take a look at the link you sent me. And again, I appreciate your feedback.
--h.