But what I canāt forgive them for, not yet at least, is their insipid restorationismāthe idea that God somehow made a mistake 2000 years ago when he gave control of the his, One, True Church to the Catholic Church and the papacy, whose progenitor was St. Peter as testified by Christ not once but twice in the New Testament (Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-17).
There was no mistake 2000 years ago. There is no evidence that Peter ever started the church at Rome. Even if he did, since he was the apostle to the circumcised, and all the Jews were kicked out of Rome, the church that remained wouldn't be, in any meaningful sense, his. At Jesus' death, He left 11 apostles, and Peter himself testified that they needed a twelfth. The idea that any one human is sufficient to represent Christ on Earth is unbiblical. Let's not forget that Peter betrayed the Lord at His hour of need, just like Judas. Even after he took on a leadership role in the early church, he was still chastised by Paul for Judaizing, who incidently also did not found the church at Rome.
Restorationism is the belief that Christianity should be restored to how it was during the Apostolic Era using nothing but Scripturesāa project doomed to failure. Their goal to re-establish Christianity in its original form has been a part of Christianity for 2000 years and, indeed, St. Francis of Assisi hoped to āget back to the basicsā also but he didnāt make the mistake of believing that God had made a mistake in putting St. Peter and his successors in charge.
That's an overly simplistic description of restorationism although there are some who hold that view exactly, it certainly isn't the view of all Protestants. Many "Catholics" did decry the prominence of the papacy through the generations. Have you already forgot the vitriolic discussion on papal infallibility less than 200 years ago? If there was no restoration 500 years ago why did Trent introduce such sweeping reforms? The problem with the Roman Catholic church isn't just in the papacy though. John Paul II tried to introduce some reforms, like biblical stations of the cross, but the Catholic church is so large that any admission of prior incorrectness became simply impossible. One of the biggest problems with Roman Catholicism is Mariology. It is such an ingrained part of the church that it would be impossible to modify, even for a pope who knew better.
A more balanced approach to restorationism is that the church is always in a state of restoration. Every generation needs to redefine Jesus, not because Jesus changes, but because we do. The Nicene creed and the transubstantiation debates are perfect examples of this. Both are formed on Greek philosophies of "substances" and "natures". However, we don't understand the world in terms of either substance or nature, but rather in terms of matter and energy. Since the only definitions of Christ accepted by the Catholic church depend on substance and nature; and since substance and nature don't exist; it follows that they don't believe Jesus exists. This is why many peg the date of the "great apostasy" with Constantine. There was a highly nuanced theological argument between Arians and Niceans. Rather than letting it play out over the course of millenia, it was turned into a political debate. Just like how everybody today has an opinion on climate change or evolution even though they are neither climatologists or evolutionary biologists, so then did everybody have an opinion on the trinity, even though they were mostly illiterate and not theologians. This council that was supposed to come to a conclusion actually brought further schism and debate and took several hundred years to settle down but not because of papal authority or even because one position was right. Rather, the council decided in their infinite wisdom that Greek philosophy was the best humans would ever come up with and therefore all theological discussion for all time has to be soaked in Greek philosophy. Until you understand Plato, you can't hear the message of Christ.
Rather, he hoped to refocus the Churchānot to change dogma and authority.
Muslims also celebrate a restorationism of sorts in that they believe Islam is what Allah always had in mind but was simply not sure how to implement it successfully until the advent of Mohammad. They believe that both Jews and Christians have become corrupted along with their sacred scriptures, which are āuntrustworthyā due to Allahās machinations. And that only they have a perfect and complete understanding of Godās ātrue plan.ā
Sound familiar?
But if this is true, as in the case of Protestantism, then how did Godās message get garbled in the first place? Wouldnāt God have known his message was going to get hinky? If heās omniscient and omnicompetent he would. A lesser god would easily fall into this error.
How was he so foolish in trusting the wrong people initially? How could mere mortals come to realize something that he couldnāt (Job 38:1-41:34)?
There are no "right people". That's kind of the entire point of Christianity. If we could do it on our own, we wouldn't need Jesus. Also, He didn't "trust the wrong people initially". It wasn't until the 800s that the Pope started having significant power, although there was some earlier stuff (the computus debate with the Irish monasteries, for example).
But, more importantly, how can we ever trust this imperfect deity now that new messengers, none of whom are divine, have come along? Perhaps this deity is confused once again. Itās a slippery slope and one that is easily proven wrong.
How can we ever trust an imperfect pope is the real question. Have you ever wondered why we need 4 gospels? It's because one person's viewpoint isn't enough to capture the complexity of Jesus. A multitude of views are to be expected and desired.
I donāt see a difference in what these Christian restorationists believe and that which Islamic restorationists proffer. Itās not odd that Protestants had received Muslim financial, political and ideological support 500 years agoābirds of a feather, as it were.
I don't see a difference between the Koran, which mentions Mary more than the Bible (70 times and the only named female!) and the rosary prayers, which mention Mary more than the Bible.
But the main reason I condemn restorationism is that itās a non-starter. If someone believes in evil grand conspiracy theories, they make themselves out to be the hero/champion that God has been looking for. Itās up to them and no one else! They are the thin holy line that separates Order and Chaosābetween Heaven and Hell. And as they are assured of their sanctified state, anything and everything they think, say and do is acceptable. After all, this is what āGod wantedā all alongā¦
So you have to arbitrarily put authority somewhere. You can put it in the hands of a successor to Sergius III or in the authority of the Holy Spirit and the Bible. Take your pick.
One of the blessings of the reformation is the denominational system. Many decry that system since we all need to be "one in Christ" yet we still are one in Christ. There's an old joke that if you have 3 Christians in a room you will have 4 different opinions. The Bible contains many seeming contradictions. For example, the kingdom has come but it is still coming. The message is universal, but still has an ingroup/outgroup mentality (and rhetoric). There is free will and a sovereign God. One needs faith, but also faithfulness. All these different axis have a correct answer somewhere in the middle which is the answer intended by God. However you line up along these axis will in turn influence your definition of Jesus' salvation and your experience with Christianity. To expect that everyone holds the exact same position on all these complex issues is rather twisted. I doubt there are more than 2 or 3 popes who have had the same opinion on any one of those axis. Since you can't know until the end, pick a denomination that works for you, and experience life to the fullest.
turned out i loved the four years of theology....objective study of most of the main religions.
