DECEMBER 1, 1991

Letter to My Brother: A Convert Defends

Catholicism
by Thomas Howard

ear Phil: I wont respond by the numbers to your paper, since various items you adduced can

be re-grouped. But I must say, I was enormously impressed, even moved, at the piece of work you
have done, and Id also say that virtually the entire list which you adduce of blots on the Catholic
escutcheon calls up in me the same reaction as it does in you. So maybe I should begin with that
point.
Romes opulence, her political machinations down through the centuries, her tyrannies and
hauteur and self-assertiveness, not to mention the Dionysian romp in the Vatican in the Renaissance,
what with Borgia popes and catamites and so forth: all of that is bad very bad. The Catholic
Church knows that. Dante, of course, had half of his popes head down in fiery pits in hell. Chaucer,
contemporary with the Lollard Wyclif, but himself a loyal Catholic, is merciless scathing even in
his portraiture of filthy and cynical clergy. St. Thomas More and Erasmus, contemporary with Luther
and Calvin, were at least as vitriolic in their condemnation of Roman evils as were the Reformers.
The obvious question immediately is, then: why didnt they all leave this donnybrook?

The answer reaches back to some infinitely ancient matters. First, Israel, since the Church
understands herself to be the in-grafted inheritor of the promises made to Abraham and to be, in
some sense, also Israel. Israel was Gods chosen people. No one was free to hive off into the Fertile
Crescent and start something else. The Hebrews had to stick with the tribe, even when Israel was
smelting golden heifers, and even when Ahab was on the throne. Or put it this way: Ahab was no less
king of Israel than was Hezekiah. And Israel was not less Israel when she was being wicked than she
was when she was going up ad altare Dei to praise God. The Church is in the same position in its
identity as People of God. We have Judas Iscariot, as it were, and Ananias and Sapphira, and other
unsavory types amongst us, but we have no warrant to set up shop outside the camp, so to speak.
Second, despite what you mention about diversity in the Early Church, the bottom line, to coin a
phrase, was that you werent allowed to hive off. The history of the first four centuries of the Church

is an unremitting narrative of how first the Apostles, then the Fathers, including Ignatius of Antioch,
Polycarp of Smyrna, and Clement of Rome wonderful, godly men, some of whom had known the
Apostles and been taught by them how these men insisted that the Faith once for all delivered was
to be located and guarded in the company of people and episkopoi who were visibly, physically (by
the laying on of hands) united with the Apostles. Anyone else (Eutyches, Apollinarius, the
Montanists, Marcion, and everyone else who arrived with some variation on the theme) was
condemned. Do read a good history of those centuries. Youll find the apostolic Faith being defended,
eventually at Nicaea and Chalcedon and Ephesus, against all sorts of clutterings and watering-down,
including not only full-dress heresies like bad Christology, but also against efforts to break off and
start anew over matters like post-baptismal sin.
This brings us to a region where evangelicals and Catholics have difficulty keeping any discussion on
track, since the evangelicals vision is radically verbalist, propositionalist, and spiritual (in the
sense of being disembodied), whereas the Catholic vision is sacramental, that is to say, perceiving
that the physical is the appointed bearer and pledge of the unseen and eternal. For example,
evangelicals would understand the Apostolic Succession as being a lineage solely of doctrinal fidelity
and not also a genuinely physical lineage brought about by the laying on of hands. They would, most
of them, unhitch salvation from baptism, all the while, of course, admitting that baptism is to be
done, since the Lord enjoined it. Or again, their vision of the Lords Supper is ordinarily a Zwinglian
one, which is to say that the act is seen to be symbolic only, with no notion of solid, tangible
(sacramental) actuality about it.

The Early Church would, I think, have lumped the evangelicals with the Manichaeans in one sense,
in that the Manichaeans didnt like the grotesquely physical nature of Christianity. They wanted to
fumigate and spiritualize it, and you cant do that. It might be put this way: every single thing that
God has done in history has been physical, starting with Creation itself, of course, with granite and
flesh and lymph and so forth. Then we have skins from slain animals to cover Adam and Eves guilty
nakedness; the Flood and the Ark; then circumcision, and stone altars and blood and burning fat.

But then, far from an escape from all of that hefty stuff, what do we find? Annunciation, which
means, somehow, in a mystery, gynecology and obstetrics being drawn into redemption history.

Then pregnancy, then Nativity, then water turned to wine, and the Savior fasting in the wilderness,
and then the Passion, which funnels our eternal salvation down to splinters, thorns, and nails.

Then the scandal: the Resurrection, where we have, despite what timorous people or high-minded
Emersonians might prefer, a resuscitated corpse. No nonsense about the spirit of Jesus. And then,
worst scandal of all, the Ascension, where our flesh was taken up into the midmost mysteries of the
Holy Trinity itself. Not to mention baptism, which the New Testament insists saves us not apart
from faith, to be sure: but you wouldnt have been able to persuade Peter to edit out from his epistle
his re-marks about baptism, nor to get Paul to stop including baptism in his teaching on salvation.

And then more scandal: the Eucharist. The people begged Jesus to grant that he was speaking
symbolically in John 6, but he only kept upping the ante. Certainly the early Fathers understood the
bread and wine to be the Lords body and bloodand so did Luther, and so, in some sacramentalist
sense, did Calvin. The Zwinglian (evangelical) view, that the Lords Supper is solely commemorative
and symbolic really is, we must admit, out of line with the universal testimony of the Church and the
New Testament texts.

But I got onto this via your points about the bad things one sees in the Catholic Church down
through the centuries. The point here would be that both Catholics and Reformers would agree that
those things are to be called sin. But there is only one Church, in the sense with which wed all agree,
in that the Lord and the Apostles seemed to speak of the Church, which is the pillar and ground of
the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). The Bible is not spoken of that way. And people did not, on the view of
the Early Church, have any warrant to refound the Church every hour on the half hour, in Moravia,
or Zurich, or Edinburgh, or California. The doctrine of the Invisible Church is unknown to the early
Christians. The faithful in those centuries were not left guessing, as are modern evangelicals, as to
whether Theologian A or Theologian B might be right, say, on the matter of lesbian priestesses, or
whether the Second Coming will take the form of the Secret Rapture or not. There was an
authoritative voice from the beginning (the Apostles and their appointed successors) which was able
to say, This is the Faith, and that which you hear Eutyches preaching aint. They werent left riffling

anxiously through the pages of their bound copies of Pauls letters, each man trying to wring from
these scriptures what he ought to believe in the matter in question.
I sometimes think of it this way: Islam is the religion of The Book, and in so far as anyone says, in
connection with Christianity, Sola Scriptura he is making this wholly Incarnational religion into a
religion of The Book. Our faith is not The Thought of Chairman God. It is Creation, Incarnation,
Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, Church, Eucharist. And it does not suddenly thin out into
something solely propositional or cerebral after the Ascension.
I also sometimes wonder if the evangelicals, in their just horror at rampant evils in Catholic history,
dont unwittingly place themselves somewhat with the Donatists of the fourth century, who wanted
to hive off because of certain evils which they felt were widespread in the Church. Augustine and
others held the view that you cant go that far. You cant set up shop independently of the lineage of
bishops. I mention this here not by way of proving that Augustine was correct (Catholics would
believe that he was, and evangelicals might hold that he was wrong on that point), but only to point
out that, as far as the ancient, orthodox Church was concerned, nobody could split off.

On the topic of Romes additions to Scripture in such doctrines as the Immaculate Conception and
the Assumption most notably, we come, of course, to the nettlesome matter of authority which
usually reduces itself quite quickly to a shouting match over Sola Scriptura. Let me, with very
modest aims in view, mention a couple of items here.
First, I seem to recall that the text which we evangelicals were all taught as somehow pulling the rug
from under Romish claims was the one in which the apostle John in Revelations 22:18
anathematizes anyone who might add or take away from these things (his visions, and the words
with which he recorded them). Our crowd lifted that text and with no Johannine warrant made it
apply to the whole Bible, when John certainly knew no such entity as the Bible as the Church now
knows it, and in any event was only guarding his own book of visions.

Second, if anyone wants to understand fairly Romes idea in the matter, as over against the
widespread notion that popes sit in the Vatican cobbling up quirky Marian doctrines, he must read
John Henry Newmans The Idea of Development in Christian Doctrine. It is very heavy sledding, but
remember that Newman and all the theologians and popes up to his time saw themselves to be most

emphatically under the tutelage and judgment of Scripture. No one said to himself, Now heres a
dogma thatll capture the pious imagination of numberless ardent souls and maybe thereby result in
a few more contributions to the coffers: lets promulgate so-and-so. Im being waggish, of course.
But I think youll find that the Catholic Church has always taken a most somber view of the Bible.
They stared straight at passages like John 6, for example, or Matthew 16:13-20, and neither exegeted
these difficult passages away, as some do now, nor, like robust old Luther with James, baldly
admitted that theyd like to expunge such and such a text since it didnt fit their agenda. It is also
worth noting that no pope, be he never so wicked, ever changed one jot or tittle of Church dogma or
moral teaching in order to weasel in room for his life style, shall we say, whereas other consistories
and bishops benches that we might note are now busily doing just that.
My only point here, over against the notion that Rome feels free to ginger up Scripture with
adventitious doctrines, is that Rome does not think the Bible is something to be tinkered with. One
had, of course, to go to the magisterium in order to find out what Rome actually teaches (say, on
justification by faith, or on Christs exclusive mediatorship), and not turn either to poorly-instructed
Catholic neighbors who might suppose that weve got to work up a little pile of merit of our own in
order to squeak in through the door of heaven, nor to the headlines which exult in bugling out the
latest surprises from pop Catholic theologians who indeed do the very thing of which Protestants
often accuse the popes, namely, cobbling up novel doctrines and teachings (e.g., that homosexual
promiscuity, say, is a deeply Christian style of life, or that all roads lead to heaven, or some such).
While we are still thinking about this matter of Romes additions to Scripture, one other
point might throw light on the frequent objection from evangelicals that Vatican magnificence
scarcely looks like the spareness, penury, and simplicity which marked the lives of Our Lord, the
Apostles, and the early Christians. How can anything so sumptuous as this marmoreal emporium
pretend that it is heir to that lowly set of antecedents? In other words, Rome appears to have added
not only dogmas, but luxury, to the original deposit. What about that?

One angle of approach here might entail two considerations. First, whatever we all might
suspect as to the part sheer avarice and vaingloriousness played in the ever-greater sumptuousness
of the Vatican, we will all have noticed that the present pope will not wear the Triple Tiara, nor is he
often (ever? Im not sure) seen carried about on his throne on the shoulders of men. Nor are those

gigantic ostrich-plume fans much in evidence nowadays in the court of Rome. Indeed, any tourist
who went looking for a court would be disappointed. There has manifestly been a scaling-down of
things, and we might even urge that to tear Vatican City down would cost more than such an
enterprise might warrant, and that the pope has got to live somewhere, so he might as well go on
living in his apartment there and paying the heating bills. Also, any churchs headquarters has got to
be pretty capacious, and therefore expensive, viz., the Baptists splendid building in Valley Forge, Pa.,
or even Billy Grahams headquarters. And as for heaps of gold in some Catholic treasury, it aint so.
Oh, theyve got art treasures, to be sure, but these dont generate cash, and in any case, the Church
looks on those things, I think, as a sort of trust, or depository, like a museum. This whole paragraph,
of course, argues on a very superficial level.

Catholics know that the Church would still be the Church, and the Supreme Pontiff still the bishop, if
there were nothing left but rubble and smoking ruins in the Vatican. My guess is that John Paul II
would be as happy in a mountaineers hut (hes a great hiker) as he is in the papal apartments.

And second, to the Christians who, in connection with their own simplicity of gathering and worship,
say, Oh, we just go back to the book of Acts for our cues, a Catholic might urge that Acts gives us no
blueprint, either for worship or for church ordering. The believers met, we all know from Acts 2:42,
for the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers. But we have got to look
elsewhere (in the writings of the men who had been instructed by these Apostles) to find out just
what shape that gathering took. It wasnt, by the way, on the New England Town Meeting model,
which many Christians do seem to visualize when they picture the early Christians practices and try
to do likewise. What they come up with is a worship service, and that was not the paradigm, alas.

Furthermore, on this question of simplicity in the Early Church as the norm, we have to stir into our
recipe the Lords words about the mustard seed. It is a very tiny seed (the Upper Room; the early,
hugger-mugger gatherings of Christians). But it grows into a tree big enough for all the birds of the
air to roost in. That tree (the Church 100, 500, or 2000 years after the planting of the seed) does not
at all resemble the seed. It shouldnt. That would imply a sterile seed. Seeds grow. Oaks dont look

like acorns. The titanic Brazilian Pentecostal or Korean Presbyterian congregations look as remote
from the Upper Room as do the Catholic churches all over the world.

Which brings me to your point about variety of types of worship. That is partly correct, but the
variety had to do with details. If you will read the earliest possible eyewitnesses and participants, you
will find that the liturgy in its present shape ofsynaxis (readings from the Bible, homily, prayers)
then anaphora (the Offering, or Great Thanksgiving, that is, the Communion) was in place
throughout the Christian world from the beginning. This was the act which the Christians
understood to constitute worship. You cant find alternatives.
I find myself troubled when someone says, blithely, Oh, fine: some folks like the Lords
Table every week, and some even like ritual. But thats all a matter of taste and preference. Well, it
wasnt anything quite so optional or easy to be dispensed with. The paradigm of worship as a sort of
program, with hymns, readings, prayers, and sermon, does not correspond to what we find if we are
seriously trying to make sure that our model is indeed apostolic practice and not some very late Swiss
or Dutch blueprint.

And again on this question of diversity versus visible unity: non-Catholics can point to what
seems to be almost universal ignorance on the part of the Catholic laity as to just what the Gospel
really is, and then say, But compare your average Catholic with your average evangelical. The latter
is the one who is wholly at home in the Scripture, and who knows whom he has believed, like St.
Paul, and is ready at any time to give a reason for the hope that is in him.

Touche. How can I do otherwise than agree with you?

The following may be germane here. The problems of the Roman Catholic Church (sin,
worldliness, ignorance) are, precisely, the problems of the Church. St. Paul never got out of Corinth
before he had all of the above problems. Multiply that small company of Christians by 2000 years
and hundreds of millions, and you have what the Catholic Church has to cope with. Furthermore,
remember that the poor Catholics arent the only ones who have to cope. Anyone who has ever tried
to start himself a church has run slap into it all, with a vengeance. Luther, Calvin, Knox, Menno
Simon, Elder Brewster, Roger Williams, Ann Bradstreet, Wesley, General William Booth: theyd all

testify to the difficulties that arise when you try to move out from the morning of Pentecost into the
long haul of history. Worldliness, second-generation apathy, ossification, infidelity, loss of vision,
loss of zeal, loss of discipline, jiggery-pokery, heresyits all there.

The Donatists (and, a fortiori, the evangelicals?) can keep things manageable by starting
over, and over, and over. Look at the bewildering roster of denominations, most of which are splits
from splits from splits, and you can see the fruit of efforts to keep the Church pure by hiving off. If we
urge that this is the only hope for the Church to keep splitting then we have an ecclesiology,
surely, that really is arriviste.
Also, the notion, widespread among evangelicals, that the whole Church went off the rails by
A.D. 95 so that it is futile to appeal to Ignatius, Clement, and company, seems impertinent. To the
man who says this (I have a former colleague, a theologian, in mind) I can only say, Ah.
You know that Ignatius was wrong, do you? Um, ah . . .
Finally, your point on Romes baptizing the worlds trappings. I think the watershed here
would appear thus: either the True Faith (Israel; Christianity) must make so total a break with
paganism and culture that nothing is left inside the camp that even resembles what the Canaanites or
Philistines do; or we must baptize the worlds trappings. That is, the heathen pray: so does Israel.
The heathen kneel down: so does Israel. The heathen mark special days: so does Israel or, lets face
it, the Church. Certainly, groves and high places must be cut down if they cloak the obscenities of the
cult of Dagon or Cybele or Phtha, say.

But this does not mean that we must then have no high places. We honor Hermon, Tabor, Sinai, and
Olivet, so to speak. The heathen offer incense: so do we, the difference being that we offer it to the
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and not to Moloch or Gaea. Our difficulty with the man knocking
his forehead on the ground and wringing a chickens neck in front of a totem is not primarily with his
posture or with his attempt to propitiate some deity. We say to him, What ho: youre correct in so
far as you think that there is Something in front of which we had all better bow down, and that blood
must be shed. But Im here to tell you that that God has disclosed Himself in great love to us, and has
furnished the Sacrifice Himself.

Or again, if there are images of Astarte or Diana, we hold up the Cross, and the Christos Pantacrator,
and the Mother and Child. This vexed question of icons was settled satisfactorily in the eighth
century by St. John Damascene in his defense of the use of icons over against the objections of the
Monophysites, the Manicheans, and the Muslims. Because of this, our little fundamentalist church in
Moorestown 50 years ago could distribute Sunday School leaflets with pictures of the Good
Shepherd, and we could paint on the wall up behind the pulpit a great gilded Bible, and could set up
Manger scenes. We couldnt do that if John Damascene hadnt put the case for the legitimacy of
iconography.

Which brings us to the question of various culture-steeped modes of Catholicism, where the
peasants, as it were, dont seem to be within a thousand miles of the ringing message that God so
loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish but have everlasting life. What about that? This bothers the evangelicals (and me with them).

It is ignorance, and for this the Church is responsible. If some Catholics think that some ghastly
painted doll really will save them, or that a St. Christopher medal is more or less on a par with a
rabbits foot, or that a hurried sign of the Cross will assist the free throw, then it seems to me that
something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark. The Catholic Church has a huge job on its hands
of re-preaching the Gospel, most especially to its own people. Do Catholics know, and are they
hearing from their bishops, not to mention their theologians, that There is none other name under
heaven given among men whereby we must be saved?

If to believe that is to be an evangelical, then I am one. And so, by the way, was St. Peter, since it was
he who preached that text. And so, as it happens, is John Paul II.
The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.