Was the Reformation a Mistake?

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/review/RZ7R448L6NR4L/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

The publishing industry has been churning out a number of retrospectives on the history, legacy, and future of the Reformation for the 500th anniversary of Luther's posting his 95 Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. These books have ranged hagiographic devotionals by Protestants to Catholic criticisms of the idea and legacy of the Reformation. This book is written by a Catholic scholar and does an even-handed job of presenting the Lutheran criticism of specific issues of the Reformation and the Catholic scriptural response. Levering's book is not polemical, except insofar as he marshalls scriptural texts in support of the Catholic position.

Incidentally, and in order to not bury the lede, Levering answers the question framed by the book's title in the negative. He cites Protestant friends and family who, he says, makes it impossible for him to call the Reformation a mistake, although he allows that some doctrinal mistakes were made.

Levering limits his goal of showing that Catholicism is “not unbiblical” in an interesting way. He is not attempting to show that Catholic doctrines are necessarily the only interpretation that can flow from scripture. Rather, he sets as his goal to show that Catholic doctrines are “not unbiblical.” The importance of this task, he explains, is that Protestants typically reject Catholic doctrines on the grounds that those doctrines “unbiblical” without ever hearing the Catholic scriptural basis for those doctrines.

The doctrines that Levering addresses in separate chapters are:

1. Scripture

2. Mary

3. The Eucharist

4. The Seven Sacraments

5. Monasticism

6. Justification and Merit

7. Purgatory

8. Saints

9. Papacy

One of the strengths of Levering's approach is that he demonstrates the Thomistic virtue of stating the objections as strongly as the response. After introducing the subject and providing a section of the Catholic Catechism for more information, Levering starts with a section on “Luther's Concerns.” In that section, Levering spends pages capturing Luther's arguments, including his rhetoric and tone, and articulating those arguments in their strongest form. I listened to this as an audiobook, and I found these sections to be quite revealing of the Protestant position, or, at least, Luther's position.

For example, I wonder if most Sola Scriptura Protestants would agree with this:

“In Luther's view, “Scripture makes the straightforward affirmation that the Trinity, the Incarnation and the unpardonable sin are facts. There is nothing obscure or ambiguous about that. You imagine that Scripture tells us how they are what they are; but it does not, nor need we know.” 26 Scripture tells us what we need to believe for salvation— indeed it gives “the plainest proofs of the Trinity in the Godhead and of the humanity of Christ”— but it does not satisfy our curiosity on all matters. 27 Although we can be blinded to what Scripture reveals if we reject the Spirit, nonetheless Scripture itself is perfectly clear and perspicuous, so that in fact “nothing whatsoever is left obscure or ambiguous, but all that is in the Scripture is through the Word brought forth into the clearest light and proclaimed to the whole world.””

So, Scripture is perspicacious, and where it is not, then, obviously, that information is irrelevant.

Levering's response to Luther is provided in a section entitled “Biblical Reflections.” In that section, Levering presents a skeletal argument that consists of citing scriptural texts. Based on my experience with Protestant converts to Catholicism, I suspect that it may be the case that Protestant readers will not have heard these texts. The strength of Levering's approach is that its cumulative effect is to show that the Catholic doctrines do have a biblical basis without arguing that anyone has to accept the Church's interpretation as the exclusive biblical interpretation.

Levering points out the key paradigmatic difference has to do with the locus of scriptural interpretation: Catholics interpret the Bible in the context of liturgy:

“In my view, the underlying ecumenical issue is what counts as biblical evidence for a doctrinal judgment of truth. Ecumenically, then, the crucial thing is to perceive how a Catholic doctrinal judgment arises from Scripture on the basis of biblically warranted modes of biblical reasoning. 9 Catholic doctrine arises from Scripture, but it does so through a liturgically inflected and communal process of “thinking with” Scripture in ways that cannot be reduced to an appeal to biblical texts for irrefutable evidence of the particular reality expressed by the doctrinal judgment. 10 Thus, none of my biblical reflections constitutes a proof that aims to persuade the reader on historical or logical grounds. Even if my highly condensed biblical reflections were not filled with lacunae (as in fact they are), there would still be the need to read the biblical texts within the broader context of the living church's doctrinal development, the living liturgical community that ponders biblical realities over the course of time.”

And:

“The Catholic Church's biblical reasoning has been formed over the centuries in the process of handing down the gospel, proclaiming it liturgically, preaching it, living it, and resolving doctrinal controversies. In the Christian life of faith and love, biblically warranted reasoning about biblical realities includes liturgical proclamation and interpretation, investigation of the plain sense of Scripture, biblical typologies and typological reasoning, historical-critical study, apostolic authority and the Petrine ministry, canonical exegesis, and church councils. In the present book, I have not been able to display the fuller context of Catholic biblical reasoning, since I have only had space to set forth (rather sparely) some interconnected biblical texts that bear upon the disputed doctrines. For each disputed Catholic doctrine, there are biblical texts that have taught the church in its process of formulating a doctrinal judgment. I have done my best to present these texts in the present book, since my intended audience is Bible-believing Christians who deem the disputed Catholic doctrines to be biblically mistaken.”

Levering points out “that the church's doctrine arises not merely from abstract logic applied to Scripture, but from Scripture as lived out in “the entirety of Christian faith and life,” including the liturgy, prayer, the moral life, and so forth.” The Protestant approach appears to that with a proper grammar and dictionary, Scripture can be understood, at least with respect to important isues:

“Does this mean, then, that Luther is actually denying that Scripture can be difficult? On the contrary, Luther knows full well that “many passages in the Scriptures are obscure and hard to elucidate.” 17 But the reason for their difficulty is not due “to the exalted nature of their subject, but to our own linguistic and grammatical ignorance”; and, besides, such difficulty “does not in any way prevent our knowing all the contents of Scripture.” 18 These contents fundamentally are Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son; the triune God; Christ's suffering on the cross for our sins; and Christ's resurrection, ascension, and everlasting reign.”

Again, I wonder if that is what most Sola Scriptura Protestants really think. I think that most Sola Scriptura Protestants believe that the lexical approach of “scripture interpreting scripture” can go quite a bit further than what Luther considered essential. Further, as time goes on, disputes necessarily arise on areas that were peripheral in Luther's time, and Protestants turn to scripture for answers, but if Luther is right, then the “non-perspicacious” parts of Scripture, recognized to exist by Luther, will not be able to find answers to those issues.

I think that Levering's approach can be quite educational to Protestants and Catholics alike. Perhaps Protestants need to go back ad fontes to the Reformers and compare where they are now with the assumptions of the Reformers.

The response by Kevin J. Vanhoozer was unfortunate. Perhaps because he was writing for Zondervan Publishing, which is an Evangelical publishing company, I got the impression that Levering was approaching this book like he was dealing with a hostile audience. His part of the book therefore goes out of its way to avoid controversy or to present controversial issues in a controversial way. Levering explains at the outset:

“Since this broader context cannot be displayed in my chapters, I wish to make as clear as possible that in offering these biblical reflections, I am not trying to prove Catholic doctrine to Protestants. What I am trying to do is to offer some grounds for challenging the view that the Catholic positions on the topics treated in my nine chapters are “unbiblical,” in the sense of being derived from modes of reasoning not warranted by Scripture and/ or being not rooted in Scripture. Most Protestants today hold that certain Catholic positions on Scripture and its interpretation, Mary, the Eucharist, the seven sacraments, monasticism, justification and merit, purgatory, saints, and the papacy are not biblical and therefore are justifiably church-dividing. In order to deem a position “unbiblical,” of course, one must have in view a set of modes of biblical reasoning warranted by Scripture, since it is by means of biblical reasoning that one deems a position “biblical.”

This is actually an important ecumenical goal. Many Protestants do uniquely write Catholics out of Christianity for being “unbiblical” when the fact is that Catholics do base their doctrines on the Bible, albeit through a different approach to understanding the Scripture.

Vanhoozen seizes on the “not unbiblical” language to argue that “not unbiblical” does not mean biblical. Then, as if he was the home team in this discussion, he tosses out Protestant bromides as if they were self-evident. Thus, on the issue of the papacy, Vanhoozen writes:

“The focus of Levering's biblical reasoning is the apostle Peter in his capacity “as an instrument of unity in the church” (p. 172). 83 Peter's confession and Jesus's response to it—“ You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16: 18)— obviously loom large in Levering's account. 84 It is a text that has long been tugged in the interpretive war between Protestants and Catholics over the papacy. Interestingly, Levering adds “Rock” after Peter (p. 178), thereby making transparent the connection between Peter and the “rock” on which Jesus will build his church. The problem is that the two words are not identical. Peter's name in Greek (Petros) could be translated “a loose stone” or “piece of rock,” whereas petra means “a (mass of) rock.” The Gospel of Matthew has used this latter term before, when Jesus says, “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock [petran]” (Matt 7: 24). The suggestion, then, is that the rock is not Peter himself but the truth of Jesus's teaching that he is the Christ that Peter confesses. One does not build a church upon a loose stone, much less a loose cannon (remember Peter's denial), but one can build a church on Jesus's preaching and teaching and on the prophets and apostles that attest it (Eph 2: 20).”

Actually, there was far more than this, but, in any event, Vanhoozen's response is tired and cliched apologetics.

More importantly, why isn't Levering's approach “not unbiblical”? Why isn't it “biblical”? Must all interpretation conform to Protestant answers? What happened to the liberty of a Christian to interpret as his conscience leads him to interpret? We don't get an any answers to these questions, except insofar as the answer is the planted assumption that Catholic answers are “unbiblical.”

Likewise, Vanhoozen notes with respect to Purgatory, “Levering wisely refrains from appealing to 2 Maccabees to support the doctrine of purgatory, as Protestants do not acknowledge it as canonical.” OK, true, but where is it written that Protestantism defines the parameters of biblical interpretation? If the Catholic bible is true, then wouldn't Protestants have to factor those texts into their “biblical” analysis? And, also, who decided the contents of the Bible originally? The Reformers? Or the Church?

Vanhoozen then offers this observation:

““Let me not to the marriage of true minds / Admit impediments.” 99 There are few if any impediments from the Protestant side. Roman Catholics who believe the gospel are welcome at Lutheran, Presbyterian, and other Protestant Lord's Tables. 100 The only real impediments I see are those pertaining to the Roman institution.”

Really? If Catholics simply allow Protestants to consume the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ when they think they are consuming a piece of bread, everything will be fine? The fact that the Reformation eliminated books that contain Catholic doctrines is not an impediment? Protestants would permit members who hold to a canon of 73 books? And how would the 66 book canon versus the 73 book canon be determined? By looking at the Bible's inerrant table of content?

I did like Vanhoozen's distinction between “hapax” - once for all - and “mallon” - ongoing. Catholicism does have a mallon spirituality. The Mass is a window onto an event that happened at a discrete moment in human history, and, yet, all Catholics through eternity meet together there at that time, and, thus, we have the “both/and” of ancient, Catholic spirituality, where something can be both once, for all and yet ongoing.

Vanhoozen is less successful in playing off “Catholicism” versus “Rome” because he omits the fact that these “Roman” doctrines are held by the Orthodox Church because the doctrines are Catholic.

All in all, Levering has made a solid contribution to the goal of mutual understanding.