As a result of promoting Catholicism in his books and journalism, Michael Coren became a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre in 1992. In 2013 he joined the Anglican Church of Canada which, short of Molochism, is about as far as you can get from the Roman Catholic Church.
Now the Catholic Church wants its papal knighthood medal back.
From here:
Michael Coren, former Catholic apologist and journalist, has been stripped of his papal knighthood following his reception into the Anglican Church of Canada in 2013. Coren is known for his popular work of Catholic apologetics, Why Catholics Are Right, and for his schism from the Church over her doctrine on homosexuality. He is married with four children.
Cardinal Aloysius Ambrozic made Mr Coren a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre in October 1992, for ‘services to Catholic media’. According to an interview with the ultra-liberal Catholic journal, The Tablet, “Coren was stripped of his papal knighthood and asked to return the medal — he has so far refused.”
In light of his past trans-denominational activities involving repeated crossing of the Tiber River, it’s likely more efficient if he hangs on to the medal for another year or so.
Michael is searching for the truth. He doesn’t know what he wants to believe. First Protestant, then Catholic, then Anglican. He misses the point that the “truth” is found in the unbroken chain coming down to us historically from Peter through the popes. Sometimes it’s a bitter pill to swallow, but so necessary in this fragmented Christianity we have today. None of us is authorized to cater Christianity in a cafeteria type assembly line to what we think is correct. Protestant churches, from their beginnings, keep splintering into groups which don’t agree with each other. When will it end? Each one of us can found a new sect based on our whims and beliefs.
Ah, the great historical myth of the “unbroken chain”, when we know that there were all kinds of breaks in the chain, from the Babylonian captivity to numerous antipopes. At one time there were three popes, each claiming legitimate election from the cardinals, and all had excommunicated each other.
Not a single Roman Catholic in the 6th century believed what a 21st Roman Catholic does today in regards to Transubstantiation, indulgences, the papacy, Mary, the priesthood, etc. Not a one. Not a single one. The development hypothesis of Cardinal Newman was necessary because Newman, being a former Protestant (and therefore a man whose historical knowledge proceeded his religious ideology), knew that it was impossible to find modern Roman Catholic doctrine in the ancient church, much less in scripture.
So what is the point of the “unbroken chain” when the people at one end of it believe something completely different from the people at the other end of it?
Secondly, you make the assumption – common to Roman Catholics – that Roman Catholicism is somehow the yardstick to measure all other churches. “Roman Catholicism,” they say grandly, “is not divided, but a unified church founded on the Pope”, when of course numerous Roman Catholic sects and groups have broken away. Ever heard of the SSPX? Or the various anti-popes. There’s even one in Canada, I believe. Even within Roman Catholicism there is major fragmentation. Various orders with competing doctrines; a liberal and a conservative wing among the bishops and cardinals; the TDM traditionlists vs. the Norvus Ordo modernists. And so on.
The freedom to start a religious community is not the fault of Protestantism. Rather it is the function of religious freedom. It is what happens in the absence of burning heretics at the stake and running inquisitions – these being the most characteristic activities of Roman Catholics in the past. Religious freedom even gives people the freedom to start Roman Catholic breakaway sects. By your own logic, Roman Catholicism is therefore flawed because it cannot stop “fragmentation”.
Roman Catholics, with their obsession with human mediators and authority figures, look to their evolving church for truth. Protestants, however, know that the only meaningful apostolic succession is an apostolic succession of truth – fidelity to the unchanging scriptures, the deposit of faith “once and for all delivered unto the saints”. And that deposit of faith did not include the papacy, Mariolatry, saintly intercession, indulgences, and all the other centuries’ worth of encrusted dogmas and beliefs.
Protestants know and understand that the Church is bigger than the walls of the Roman Catholic communion. We know that the Church is the invisible union of all true believers, whether they be found in Anglican churches, Baptist churches, home fellowships, and so on. A Protestant can feel at home with them all, because there is a common faith and a common union that binds us together: the invisible new birth created through the Holy Spirit and the unassailable word of God.
Thank you for a well-reasoned and thought-provoking post. Very relevant to many (myself included) who are eyeing Rome…
Thank you for your compliments.
I understand the attraction of Roman Catholicism to many people who are longing for something ancient and something that does not change – something rooted in time and space, usage and practice.
But Roman Catholicism is a shell game. What it offers and what it delivers are two very different things. And for all of its gentler rhetoric since the 1960’s, it has not changed. Although Francis sometimes gives that impression (you only need to read the blogs of the TLM traditionalist priests to find that they cannot stand Francis).
I would strongly recommend going back to the first principles of the Protestant Reformation and re-considering, perhaps, the issues that led to this division in the first place. Justification by faith alone, and doctrine that is determined by scripture alone is not what Rome teaches, and can never teach.
It does not teach scriptural doctrine. It actually anathematises people who believe, along with St. Paul, that we are “justified by faith and not by works”. It proposes a whole constellation of mediators, when the scriptures tell us that there is one mediator. Indeed, the Roman Church even bequeaths the properties of deity (omnipresence) upon the saints and Mary, for how else would they be able to hear all manner of prayers being made around the world to them?
Transubstantiation is a dogma that not only defies reason and God given sense, but was defined in an encyclical that also called Roman Catholics to war on a crusade. Apparently both were divinely instituted, even though modern popes have apologised for the Crusades. This is typical of Rome – continual contradictions, as Luther said, “Unless I am convinced by plain reason and scripture, and not by popes and councils that have so often erred and contradicted each other…”
The Papacy, itself, is a product of centuries of greed, politicking, deceit, forged decretals and war. The Pope takes to himself titles that belong only to God, calling himself the “Holy Father” (Christ uses this of God the Father only), calling himself an “alter Christus”, and calling himself the Vicar of Christ, which is a title that can only rightly be applied to the Holy Spirit.
Watching those poor simple souls worshiping a bit of unleavened bread, praying to saints, confessing to priests, submitting to dogmas infallibly defined by popes, appealing to Mary, the so-called “Co-Mediatrix and Redemptrix of the People of God” – it is surely no wonder that Roman Catholicism can be best described as a cult with an obsession with human mediators.
No, the Reformation is as relevant today as it was then. The fact that so many Protestant churches have succumbed to secularism, does not make the genesis of Protestantism any less real. And indeed, I would argue to be really deep in history, to be really anchored in the early church would cause one to cease to be Roman Catholic. Most Roman Catholic beliefs have a vintage of around 1,000 years. My Bible gives me something that is 2,000 years old.
Okay, confession: I’m taking an “RCIA” class. When I started the process I felt quite confident about the direction God was leading me in. After three weeks I have no such confidence, although I do intend to continue with the course because I am learning a great deal about this part of the Christian world that I didn’t know before.
The underlying issue that I think is troubling me is that, as I have been told, this is not a “sola scriptura” religion, rather doctrine evolves and it’s authority resides in the institution of the Catholic Church. So essentially, the Church can (and has) change its teaching at any point and that becomes the new truth. I don’t think I was prepared for that, and I do not have sufficient faith in human institutions to make that leap…
Hi W Nicholas,
It’s wonderful to hear that you’re exploring the faith and are invested in some RCIA classes. While I wouldn’t deny every criticism saxasalt levies at the Roman Church, I would be cautious before affirming them all. Do your research, ask the hard questions, and don’t just take the word of anonymous commentators.
Theological investigation takes time, and precision. Pray always, read widely, and don’t jump to conclusions! The peace of Christ to you as you journey onwards.
Roman Catholicism certainly does not operate on sola scriptura. It operates on “sola ecclessia” – the one rule of faith and practice is the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy itself.
They will tell you of the three legged stool, that the church has three pillars of authority: scripture, tradition, and the Church’s magesterium. However, in practice, the Church’s magesterium gets to define what is tradition and what is scripture, so it is not a three-legged stool at all. It is a one-legged stool. No clearer example of that can be found than when Trent closed the canon of scripture and included the apocrypha, which were texts rejected by the Jewish communities that produced them and by the earliest Christians. They do support, however, some of Rome’s innovations, so they were included.
They appeal much to “apostolic tradition”. But where is this tradition? Supposedly it is a mystical deposit that gets passed down from bishop to bishop by word of mouth, going back to the Apostles. But nobody knows where the tradition is until Rome suddenly defines it as a dogma. (Quite aside from the fact that Paul, in his reference to the traditions, indicates that those traditions had already been taught to ALL the Thessalonians – it was not some secret, furtive deposit outside of the stream of history until the modern Roman Catholic Church decides to create a dogma).
So here’s the ultimate question: How could a faithful Roman Catholic determine that what they are required to believe is God’s truth AND NOT a corruption of that truth over time?
How could it be done? What tools could the Roman Catholic use? With what yardstick could the Roman Catholic measure what they are being told? It could not be done. Each believing Roman Catholic is entirely dependent on their ecclesiastical system to provide all the answers to the tough questions, and they are never in a position to be able to tell the difference between a true dogma and a corruption of the gospel.
Papal authority is pointless. The fact that it took 1800+ years for the RCC to determine that the Pope is infallible is so amazing it borders on lunacy. And then what has the Pope done with that alleged infallibility? Has the Pope infallibly interpreted scripture? Nope. How much of scripture has the Pope infallibly interpreted? Not a line. Not a single line!
Roman Catholics much much of this infallible authority, but it gives the Roman Catholic nothing. Firstly, as mentioned above, Roman Catholics are in the same position as Protestants when it comes to understanding their Bibles. Secondly, when the Pope issues dogmas and encyclicals, they STILL need to be interpreted. So the critical interpretive link in the chain is just pushed back. And given the months of confusion and wrangling over the latest encyclical “Amoria Laetitia” where even bishops and priests have been trading rival interpretations, it demonstrates that papal authority solves nothing. Thirdly, papal authority is unbiblical – no man can acquire properties of deity, such as infallibility. Fourthly, it is beyond accountability. Fifthly, it is inconsistent – Roman Catholics always have an escape hatch to justify Popes who spoke ex-cathedra, but spoke things that history would rather forget were ever said. (“Oh, THAT Pope was not speaking in unity with the bishops and cardinals, so that is why that can be disregarded!”).
One only needs to read the wrangling and politicking and intrigues that percolated when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was being worked out – that fact that even Lord Acton, the originator of the phrase “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, traveled to Rome as a good Roman Catholic to lobby against the adoption of this dogma. He makes the point in his famous letter that kings and popes should not be subject to different moral standards from the man in the street. That great kings and popes were often foul men, and that this should be illustrated. “Nothing is more corrupting,” says Lord Acton, “than the notion that office sanctifies its holder”.
Nobody can find the modern Roman Catholic Church, which is largely an evolution of the last 1,000 years, in the early church. Heck, you cannot even find Roman Catholicism in the first 600-700 years of the Christian church.
Questions to ask:
1. If Rome has always taught dogmas like Transubstantiation, when were the first tabernacles used in churches? Why did it take so long for this to develop?
2. Why did Cardinal Newman need to come up with his development hypothesis?
3. What was the legal basis for establishing the papacy and papal primacy? Look up: “The Donation of Constantine”, a forged decretal that formed so much of the justification for the development of the papacy. We now know it was forged, but the papacy is still here.
4. Why would God allow such wicked and twisted men, like the evil Borgias, to become Pope? In Scripture, did God ever use evil, greedy, sexually perverted men to serve in his own church to guide and lead his own people? What does Paul say to the Ephesians? “Christ gave gifts to men”, these being Apostles and Prophets. Were the Borgias Christ’s gifts to the church? Could any sane person describe Pope Innocent III as a “gift”?
5. The Roman Catholic Church believes in continuing revelation. How does this make them materially different from the Mormons which are also centered around a guy they claim can give new revelation and insight?
The list could go on.
I would recommend checking out some good Reformed teachers and scholars on this issue on Youtube. It might just change your life:
Dr. John MacArthur – preached a series on this.
Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries – engaged in moderated debates on Roman dogmas. These are must-watch material for anyone engaged in this stuff. Dr. James White is a seminarian professor and has done significant research with sensible historiography.
Martin Luther – re-read “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church”.
I am persuaded that no Roman Catholic who believes Roman Catholic teaching can go to heaven. It is a denial of the sufficiency of grace and the atoning work of Christ. So these are not trivial issues!
Well, I have to admit you have a far greater knowledge in this area than I do. I am tempted to ask who you are and how you have time to submit such lengthy and learned commentaries here. I won’t.
You had me until the final paragraph. However, as I see it, you are arguing that Roman Catholics who have accepted Christ as their Lord and Saviour through grace and the atoning work of Christ, and have therefore been saved by faith, can subsequently lose their salvation by thereafter following Roman Catholic teaching. In that regard it would come down to whether one believes salvation can be lost. If it can be so lost by subsequent actions, or lack of, then your view of the Protestant teaching of salvation is that it is also a form of salvation by works, just as much as the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church teaches. If salvation by faith is enough then it should not matter what one’s subsequent actions are, except perhaps it those actions are to the point of denying Christ altogether and not just by adhering to doctrine that may provide a believer with concepts such as that of the “three-legged stool”. That adherence may affect the treasure you build in Heaven, but not more unless it somehow extends to the point of the denial of Christ. If somehow you are arguing that the mere adherence to Roman Catholic doctrine amounts to a denial of Christ then I must respectfully disagree. The Roman Catholics I know are certainly not denying Christ. Frankly, there are Roman Catholics who are undoubtedly better Christians than I could ever be, in thought, word, deed…and faith.
This is the kind of thoughtful, interesting discussion that Christians ought to be having. Are having, to be honest, and have in fact been having for two thousand years.
What I find perplexing is why these points can be argued back and forth in good faith, and the end result can be an opening to agree to disagree (even when one of the participants’ conclusion is that one doctrine precludes entry into Heaven, rather a serious statement!) but any thoughtful discussion of “LGBT” sexual matters, for example, no matter from whom, no matter the historical or scriptural arguments, are dismissed out of hand. Not only are they dismissed out of hand, but suddenly the clarity of scripture is affirmed, when the above discussion demonstrates that the clash between the scripture and the real world renders them anything but obvious, and some serious hermeneutical gymnastics are needed to come to any kind of agreement.
Not at all. I very carefully qualified my remarks. I am certain some Roman Catholics are saved. There are no doubt all kinds of people who have come to a simple, scripture-affirming, genuine faith in Christ within the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit would maintain such people in a simplicity of faith, and a great, great many of those people would be drawn out of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, more Roman Catholics in recent times have left to become Protestants than the reverse, hence the massive hemorrhaging of numbers in places like Brazil. It was no accident that the College of Cardinals elected an Argentine Pope.
On the other hand, no consistent Roman Catholic who actually believes Roman Catholic teaching with all of its human intercessory activity, its idolatry, and its justification by works can possibly be saved.
I think you greatly misunderstand what salvation by faith alone is about. The Protestant doctrine does not teach that any faith in any Christ is sufficient to save a person. Rather, there must be a deposit of genuine truth in which a person places their faith.
St. Paul tells the Galatians that there is such a thing as a false gospel, and St. John tells his readers that there is such a thing as a false Christ. The Christian gospel has verifiable content to it and it is only by placing one’s faith in this truth that there can be salvation by grace alone.
Your argument seems to be that if a person is simply sincere in their faith then the actual objective content of their faith is irrelevant. That doctrine is tangential to salvation! Indeed, you go as far as to suggest that to insist upon truthful content is a form of salvation by works, which is a position that would have greatly agitated the Apostle Paul who tells the Thessalonians that those who do not receive a love of biblical truth are damned.
It is the apostolic testimony that a person cannot be saved if their faith is invested in a false Christ and a false gospel. You seemingly affirm the opposite. Your view, which I would identify as belonging to the “mere Christianity” movement, suggests that a basic minimum for salvation is to simply “believe in” Christ after which – aside from denying Christ – nothing else really makes a difference.
That is not, and never has been, part of the Protestant understanding of salvation.
Roman Catholics who actually know and affirm their church’s teaching – a shrinking number of Roman Catholics to be sure, as American bishops have been reporting now for about a decade – cannot possibly be saved because it denies the gospel itself. Rome denies that a person is justified by grace alone. Grace is necessary in Rome’s teaching, but not sufficient. That insufficiency of Christ’s grace is the operating basis for the sacraments, the priesthood, indulgences, Mary as “Co-Mediatrix and Redemptrix of the People of God”, of the papacy, the treasury of merit, the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, and the rest of the sacerdotal system.
How can a person offer worship to a piece of unleavened bread, claiming it is Christ, and at the same time not have a fatally defective view of both God and Christ and the nature of true worship? How can a person pray to Mary, and ask her for salvation and protection at the hour of death, and not have a fatally defective view of God and of Christ’s intercession?
How can a person place their faith in a church that believes in extra-biblical, continuing revelation delivered through an infallible man – some supposed carnation of Peter – and not have a fatally defective of truth, and the regal majesty of God’s enduring word, the everlasting Gospel?
Dr. John MacArthur, when preaching a sermon about the papacy, once said, “People ask me sometimes, ‘Is the Pope is going to hell?’. My response to the question is, ‘Is the Pope Catholic?'”
Hi point is a historical Protestant one: Catholicism is a damnable medieval heresy. And to fail to see that or to try to colour the edges in order to satisfy a squeamishness about drawing boundaries on what is properly salvific, calls into question whether one has ever truly understood, grasped, comprehended, deeply drawn from, or believed the gospel of Christ. Nobody, I contend, who has come to see the glory of Christ in the gospel can for one moment associate it with the horrendous mutation of Roman Catholicism which, for all of its outward pomp and theatrics, is sad, empty, and dead.
Saxasalt, I will leave you to your lengthy opinions. About the only thing I can be relatively sure of is that you are not a fan of C.S. Lewis.
I am afraid to burst your bubble, but I am very partial to C. S. Lewis and a great admirer of his work. I think he erred in “mere Christianity”, but I do understand his essential point. His point, regrettably, has been taken to untenable extremes in recent times.
I am disappointed that you categorise doctrine as a matter of mere opinion. It is, nonetheless, a characteristically postmodern posture. But doctrine is not a matter of mere opinion. It is verifiable. Its development can be traced and understood.
I suspect you have never read the Dogmatic Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, which laid the framework for so much of modern Roman Catholicism. Its lengthy list of anathemas indicates that Rome recognised as far back as the Counter-Reformation that Protestantism leads to a doctrinal divide that cannot be bridged. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes Protestants as “separated brethren” – separated doctrinally, and in Rome’s mind, having only a part of what they deem Christian truth.
We shall leave it there. “Lengthy opinions” are, after all, rather hard work when all one wants to do is have a quiet, lazy, meandering discussion about religion and not to be reminded of the nasty realities articulated by the Lord that these are matters of life and death, of eternal salvation or eternal damnation. I get the distinct impression that that’s it’s all a bit too hard, and a bit too boring, and having an opinion that has involved a meaningful investment of intellectual effort is rather irrelevant and passe. It is only religion, after all.
I’m sad that the reply space is getting so narrow in the web format…
I just want to register my appreciation for saxasalt’s ‘lengthy notes’ which I have found interesting and informative.
(Lest other posters worry that I am a vulnerable intellect at the mercy of random comments, allow me to reassure them that I have a rather strong filter and will continue to think, pray and inwardly digest these things.)
I do recognize that it takes time and energy to post with the level of care that saxasalt has done and for my part it is much appreciated.
I am very much from a Reform background. I am most definitely NOT post-modernist. That you would suggest that I am based on the little I wrote speaks volumes about you.
This is not a matter of “lengthy opinions” being rather hard work, nor is it a matter of wanting to have a quiet, lazy, meandering discussion. Lengthy and rather learned dissertations. I do relatively frequently. They are part of my profession. I have demands on my time and resources that preclude engaging more in a discussion here. Most people do. That is why I am putting this out quickly so late at night.
It would be interesting to hear you in a debate with a learned Roman Catholic theologian who is just as able to argue doctrine, quite well and adamantly, as to why no one who is not RC will go to heaven. There are those who could. I suspect it would be a real dogma fight.. Or, it could just empty the hall.
At any rate, to quote an old saying, “Christianity is as simple or as complicated as you want to make it.” You appear to want to make it complicated. Did Christ?
Newman was never a Protestant; his Evangelical warming, “the inward conversion…elected to glory”, at the spiritually tender age of fifteen (1816), was the receiving “into my intellect impressions of dogma, which through GOD’s mercy, have never been effaced or obscured”; until it “faded away…at the age of twenty-one”.
What dogma was this? “the human means of the beginning of Divine faith in me,was the effect of the books, which he (The Reverend Walter Mayers, Pembroke College, Oxford) put into my hands, all of the school of Calvin” (* p 16, ‘Apologia Pro Vita Sua’ ). For Calvin, “sound doctrine” is Sola and ever Biblical, ‘ad Fontes’ (v. ‘The Christian Institutes’ – once the classic theology text of Church of England Candidates for Ministry);
as it was for our LORD + “By what authority?” He ever asks of His Church as its Sola Head, The Living WORD of GOD
+ Matthew 21:23-27.
In the widespread assault of the 18c &19c ‘isms’ on the deposit of faith, both from within and without, Newman opted for doctrinal development as a sanguine counter-force; he did, however, draw back at Papal Infallibility.
Most of the Anglican-to-Catholic converts I know made the change for reasons related to theological or moral conviction. Most of the Catholic-to-Anglican converts that I know did so for personal reasons – because their lifestyle choices were out of sync with RC morality. Admittedly, this is a broad generalization – just my experience.
I have never been a fan of Mr. Coren because I find his combative style to be unhelpful to both those he opposes as well as to those he supports… When the news broke some time back about his choice to move and the reason he gave for doing so, I had a hard time believing that was all there was to the story. Perhaps in time more will be known.
I hope he is able to find some time in his new and very busy schedule (now that he has moved to a more liberal position he seems to be appearing in many publications that would not have been interested before) to reflect on what it is in life that he is truly seeking. And I guess I hope that he will encounter some people who are generous and wise enough to explore those questions with him in a way that is honest and helpful.
Thank you for this, saxasalt. It’s extremely interesting and I will reflect on it to the best of my ability.
Mind you, I think you read rather a bit more in my post than what was there. 🙂
Personally, I do not really care much about Christian denominations. There is only one universal church, and the one on earth is not perfect. I am more interested in the sequence of salvation according to the Rev. Dr. James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) – God’s foreknowledge, predestination, then His effectual call of us, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, sanctification and glorification (Foundations of the Christian Faith, 1986, p. 403).
When a religion gets too simple, it often becomes unkind. It can even become cruel.
I’m finding the idea that Christ made his message simple quite startling. Unless we’re talking about the main undercurrent — “don’t be awful”.