Why I Cannot be Protestant or Anglo-Catholic
The main reason why I cannot be Protestant is similar to the reason I cannot be Eastern Orthodox: I would be a really bad one. Independent of Rome’s papal claims,1 I’m thoroughly convinced of the Catholic doctrines of justification,2 transubstantiation,3 apostolic succession,4 purgatory,5 saintly invocation,6 and sacramental penance, which are the primary doctrines the Reformers accused Rome of erring on. While I’m sure I could find a quasi-Protestant sect that would take me in while holding these beliefs, likely an ecumenistic Anglo-Catholic one, I’m not sure how I could remain there without massive cognitive dissonance.
As an irenic Anglo-Catholic, I would still believe that pretty much everything the Reformation stood for was wrong, and Rome was actually right about almost all of it. I would believe that the vast majority of my “fellow Protestants,” not just today but historically, were in such egregious error that they fundamentally misunderstood the Gospel and the Church. I would believe that the vast majority of my fellow Protestants have cut the faithful off from the ordinary means of salvation, namely, valid sacraments received through apostolic succession (while Rome didn’t). I would believe that the very basis upon which the Reformers rejected Roman communion was itself a departure from apostolic doctrine. I would basically just be a Catholic without the Catholic Church.
Additionally, I would need to be able to pinpoint when exactly sharing Rome’s communion became intolerable. Which doctrine was it that, once embraced, justifies my severance from the Apostolic See? Was it something embraced at the Council of Trent (1545-63)? That can’t be, because Trent simply repeated the teachings of Florence (1431-49), Lyons II (1272-74), Lateran IV (1215), and Nicaea II (787) on papal supremacy, purgatory, the canon of Scripture, transubstantiation, apostolic succession, ecclesiastical mission, indulgences, and the cult of the Saints. Does Rome’s error lie in her “medieval” doctrine of the papacy? That can’t be either, as Trent, Florence, and Lyons II taught nothing about the papacy that wasn’t already taught by Popes Ss. Celestine (d 432), Leo (d. 461), Gelasius (d. 496), Hormisdas (d. 523), Agatho (d. 681), Hadrian I (d. 795), and Hadrian II (d. 872). Let’s also not forget that these papal teachings were universally embraced by both East and West at the Councils of Constantinople III (681), Nicaea II (787), and Constantinople IV (869). As I’ve explained before,7 once you concede the papalist teachings of these popes and councils, Vatican I is inevitable. The position of the Old Catholics and some Anglo-Catholics, which tries to uphold the aforementioned Catholic authorities while presently rejecting communion with Rome, is incoherent to me.
Ultimately, if I wasn’t Catholic, all of this would compel me to try and re-shape “my Protestantism” in the image of Catholicism. However, if I did this, it would become ridiculous. I would basically try to concede as much as I possibly could to Catholicism, while just barely avoiding the “Roman dogma” on some technicality. “Why, of course I believe the papacy is a divine institution meant to endure until the end of time! But oh no, Vatican I went too far!” “Of course I believe that only those standing in lawful apostolic succession have the ordinary means of salvation! But oh no, Rome’s ecclesial exclusivism goes too far!” “Of course I believe that justification happens through the infusion of grace in baptism or confession! But oh no, not like Trent’s teaching!” “Of course I believe that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice! But oh no, not like how Rome defines it!” It’s just tired. My Protestant coreligionists would see right through this nonsense and tell me I need to stop trying to force “Romanism” into “biblical Christianity,” and either give up my convictions, or stop pretending to be Protestant and just become Catholic. At that point, I’d do the latter.
I know this would happen because this was essentially my experience in the Eastern Orthodox Church. For the majority of my time as an Orthodox Christian, I was trying to make Catholicism fit with post-schism Byzantine theology. Whether it was purgatory, papal supremacy, divine simplicity, the Filioque, or magisterial theology, I always looked to Rome as the standard of apostolic Christianity (whether I knew it or not). Sure, I would tweak a few things here and there to try and make these doctrines “work” within an Orthodox paradigm, while also rejecting the few “difficult” Catholic doctrines I didn’t like, but everyone called me out on it. Enough people told me that I was a “crypto-papist” who needed to stop introducing “Latin novelties” into Orthodoxy, that I started to wonder if they had a point. Spoiler: they did.
Why would I want to go through that same experience in some Protestant or Anglo-Catholic sect? My heart has been in the Catholic faith since I was first introduced to it through St. Thomas Aquinas years ago, and no matter where I go, I’m always pulled back here. Even if there were some particulars of Catholic doctrine I couldn’t fully see prior to my conversion, I saw enough of it to realize that I couldn’t go anywhere else. “Faith is,” after all, “the conviction of things not seen” (Heb 11:1). As crazy as it sounds given the present state of the Church, I’ve never felt more at peace in mind, body, and soul than I have since officially becoming Catholic. This is where I belong. That’s not to say there aren’t days when it’s rough, but my experience of turmoil in the Church has been qualitatively different from my experience with it elsewhere. Here, I’m able to rest in my convictions in total peace, free to pursue our Lord with a clear conscience. Anywhere else, the turmoil and difficulties would only remind me that I’m acting against my conscience by not being Catholic. That’s why I am not and cannot be Protestant or Anglo-Catholic.
I do firmly believe that the papal claims are rooted in divine revelation as well, see my article, “St. Peter: The Rock of the Church.”
See my article, “St. James and Justification by the Law.”
See Erick Ybarra’s book, Melchizedek and the Last Supper.
See my article, “Apostolic Succession in the Early Church.”
See my article, “Why Believe in Purgatory?.”
See my article, “The Virgin Mary Against Protestantism.”
See my article, “Papal Infallibility in the First Millennium.”
This rationale is essentially why, after a two-year foray in Anglicanism, my wife and I ultimately pressed forward and are being received into the Church at Easter.
welcome!!