Bobby Jindal, 2003
Photo: Mario Villafuerte / Getty Images
What's especially curious about this is the fact that Jindal's arguments are completely consistent with traditional, orthodox Catholic theology. Bobby Jindal didn't write anything that could be construed as existing on the outer fringes of Catholicism. Indeed, his sentiments were recently expressed in a very straightforward manner by Pope Benedict XVI himself. The problem is thus not that Jindal said anything wrong, but rather than what he said is a bit inconvenient to publicize very widely.
Just as C.S. Lewis removed any room for comfortable opposition to Jesus by identifying Him as either "Lord, liar, or lunatic," so the Catholic Church leaves little room for complacent opposition to her doctrines. Without inflating the issues that separate Catholics from Protestants, for we do worship the same Trinitarian God who died for our sins, I want to refute the notion that Catholicism is merely another denomination with no more merit than any other.
The Reformers who left the Catholic Church rejected, to varying degrees, five beliefs which continue to be upheld by the Catholic Church. The Church claims that these points are found in Scripture, and they have been consistently and clearly taught throughout the Church's history. I will support the Church's claims here.
Source: Free Republic
The title of this piece was "The Catholic Church isn't just another 'denomination,'" and the point of writing it is made clear in the first paragraph above: a genuine Christian cannot easily oppose the Catholic Church's doctrines. What this means is that if a person who wants to call themselves Christian will have trouble doing so if they don't also call themselves Catholic. It's not that other Christian groups aren't Christian at all, but they are inevitably inferior to Catholicism. Once again, this is standard Catholic theology as are the reasons he offers.
The Bible does not contain either the claim that it is comprehensive or a listing of its contents, but does describe how it should be used. Scripture and Tradition, not the Bible alone, transmit God's revelation. Tradition is reflected in the Church's authority to interpret Scripture.
The meaning of Scripture is not self-evident. One cannot discern its intended meaning through prayerful reading alone, for Scripture is "hard to understand" and individual misinterpretation can lead "to our own destruction" ...It is nearly impossible to derive the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, and other teachings which were disputed in the early Christian community, from Scripture alone without recourse to Church teachings. Sincerely motivated Christians studying the same texts have disagreed on the fundamentals of the faith, thereby dividing not only Protestants from Catholics, but also particular Protestant denominations from each other.
...The same Catholic Church which infallibly determined the canon of the Bible must be trusted to interpret her handiwork; the alternative is to trust individual Christians, burdened with, as Calvin termed it, their "utterly depraved" minds, to overcome their tendency to rationalize, their selfish desires, and other effects of original sin. The choice is between Catholicism's authoritative Magisterium and subjective interpretation which leads to anarchy and heresy. All churches follow their own traditions, but the Catholic Church claims a continuous link to the oral tradition which preceded and formed the canon of Scripture, the same apostolic (Acts 2:42) Tradition St. Paul commanded us to abide by (2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 2:2).
This is a direct, unambiguous denunciation of the very basis of the Protestant Reformation. Christians, according to Bobby Jindal and the Catholic Church, cannot abandon the traditions of the Church in order to found a full, genuine Christian community on nothing but the individual's private understanding and interpretation of scriptures. The Christian scriptures are a creation of the Christian community and its traditions, not the other way around. So which has primacy? The community and its traditions, of course.
Contrary to Protestant churches, Jindal here states unequivocally that "scripture is not self-sufficient." Why would anything think it should be? Jesus as depicted in the Bible didn't create scripture himself, he transmitted his teachings orally in a predominantly oral culture. The importance of oral tradition is repeated throughout the New Testament as well. The original disciples are also depicted as transmitting their teachings orally. It was quite a while before anything was written down, and by that point the Christian church and communities were already well developed.
Christ founded the Church and vested her with unique authority. The apostles, the very men who wrote much of the New Testament, were the Church's first bishops, and they appointed successors. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church traces its lineage directly to the apostles, and, thus, the Church claims to be the one Jesus founded. ...The Church's foundation was not built on a plurality of prophets; rather the earliest Christians were unified on doctrinal issues in one body. The Catholic Church was the only church for some 1,000 years. Given Christ's promise to be with His Church always, so that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Mt. 16:18), it is hard to believe that the true Faith disappeared from the world with the "fall of the Church" (dated by Protestants at various points in the first seven centuries), failing to reappear until the Reformation around the 16th century. ...
John and other apostles, as well as Timothy, were still alive and would have objected to any illegitimate exercise of authority. However, no protest was made, since Clement was acting within his rights as Peter's successor. In A.D. 110, Ignatius of Antioch praised the church in Rome for being "first in love, being true to Christ's law and stamped with the Father's name." During the second century, Ignatius of Leon defined the Roman position as the orthodox position. Bishop Irenaeus claimed "every church must be in harmony with [Rome] because of its outstanding pre-eminence"; he even listed and cited the succession of the bishops of Rome as a "most complete proof of the unity and identity of the life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now and handed down in truth."
In A.D. 250, Bishop Cyprian wrote, "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" Pope Stephen cited Matthew 16:18 as early as the third century to justify Petrine authority. St. Augustine taught that whatever was condemned by the Bishop of Rome was condemned by all. The historical references from apostolic times are plentiful; what is missing is any objection to the Pope's claim as successor to St. Peter with authority over the bishops.
Here Bobby Jindal is simply repeating standard Catholic arguments about why the Catholic Church is the only full manifestation of Christianity today. First, the current Catholic Church can trace its authority right back to the earliest disciples and therefore to Jesus himself. Second, the earliest Christian leaders all recognized the primacy of the bishop in Rome. Without one or the other, the Catholic Church based in Rome would not be able to claim any unique status or authority over Christians.
Of course traditional, orthodox Catholics believe this. They couldn't be Catholic if they didn't believe it. Jindal isn't expressing anything new, radical or even remotely unusual here. This has been a standard Catholic position taught to all the Catholic faithful for centuries. It would be remarkable if he didn't believe it, so why shouldn't he express it publicly? Do you really think that most Catholic politicians, and especially conservative Catholic politicians, don't believe this as well?
It is not intellectually honest to ignore an institution with such a long and distinguished history and with such an impressively global reach. I am not asking non-Catholics to investigate the claims of my neighborhood minister, but rather am presenting a 2,000-year-old tradition, encompassing giants like Aquinas and Newman, with almost a billion living members, including modern prophets like Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.
Kos comments by saying, in part, that "It looks impressive if you are easily impressed by cites and the such, but ultimately, it paints a picture of disdain for competing religious denominations. As an amateur theologist, this might fly. But as a candidate for governor in Louisiana?" I can't agree — this isn't amateur theology, but simply an expression of standard, traditional, orthodox theology. Bobby Jindal isn't breaking any new ground here and isn't presenting anything original. I doubt that any Catholic priest, bishop, or theologian would find much to complain about in the entire essay.
If Bobby Jindal released this as part of his campaign for governor, it would be incredibly bizarre. Because he released it several years ago, there's no connection. What we have, though, is more insight into the personal religious beliefs of Bobby Jindal than we do of most politicians, Catholic or Protestant. Usually politicians simply try to express empty platitudes about the importance of faith, religion, and occasionally Jesus. Jindal, though, is explaining some of his basic theological principles and ideas. He isn't just saying that his Catholic faith is important, he's explaining how and why. That's far more candor than we usually see and I, for one, respect that.
Of course, such candor comes with a price: by clearing stating what he really believes, Jindal has opened himself up to criticism. Clearly he believes, as a good Catholic should, that other Christian churches are deficient and do not share fully in the Christianity that the Catholic Church possesses. This will naturally not be greeted with much enthusiasm by non-Catholics, just as they were unhappy when Pope Benedict XVI reminded people of all this not long ago. If people are going to take religion into account when they vote, they will in this case be able to consider genuine, substantive, and serious religious ideas — not just empty platitudes.
As I mentioned above, Republicans are upset about Jindal being criticized, but that's the price you pay for bringing religion in to the political arena. If Republicans want to keep using religion as a basis for public policy and to attack Democrats for being insufficiently religious, then they cannot complain when their own specific religious beliefs come under critical scrutiny. If they think it's inappropriate to criticize a candidate's religious views during a political campaign, it's only because religion never should have been brought into the campaign to begin with. They have to choose between leaving religion at home and in the church were it belongs, or taking their lumps when their religious beliefs are brought out into the harsh light of day.
>The Christian scriptures are a creation of the Christian community and its traditions, not the other way around.
This is so on the money. And this is one thing I actually love about the Catholic church. They acknowledge that the church created the Bible, and that it wasn’t the other way around. Most Christians are seriously ignorant on this point.
>Jesus as depicted in the Bible didn’t create scripture himself, he transmitted his teachings orally in a predominantly oral culture.
And I think it’s very important to note that according to all of these stories about Jesus, he never asked anyone to record any of it—and there is no divine command to created a canon of scripture for future Christian use.
This is very important since most average apologists online are completely unaware of this. In their heads, Jesus died, and the Apostles wrote the Bible. How those writings came to be collected and considered to be inspired of god is unknown to most of them. When you ask them “who created the Bible?” they will respond generally with “the apostles” or “writers inspired of god” (which is somewhat better, because not all NT writers claim to be apostles, such as Luke). You actually have to explain to them that you’re asking them who picked out which books to include and which to exclude and how they determined this. It’s a gap in their religious history that they never question unless someone happens to ask them about it.
In fact, one of the only churches that routinely addresses it that I’m aware of is the Catholic church. The Catholics don’t shy away from church history and tradition, because they use it to support their claims that (a) they’re the primary historical church, and (b) that they created the Bible, and that it’s simply one form of their authority. Most protestant churches don’t spend too much time on these topics—because they don’t support their claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God—and they are, understandably, not enthusiastic to acknowledge they’re worshipping what amounts to a Catholic creation as their main (sometimes only) source of authority.
Just as the catholic church knows that all the other denominations are not “real Christians” all denominations seem to know that all the other denominations are not “real Christians”. So……How do we determine who the “real Christians” are?
Christ said do not judge. So… when Pope Benedict stated that there will be no redemption for the other churches, Is he passing judgment? An Evangelical aquaintance agreed with me that he was. He then passed judgment on me about where I will go if I don’t change my belief. He then denied that he was passing judgment. My observation is that there is no one who is more quick to judge than a Christian. I realize that I make judgments here, but, I don’t deny it.
Well, perhaps we could say that the “Catholic church” created the bible. But what do we mean by the “Catholic church”? A rather heterogeneous group of people (in fact, quite heterogeneous) with a history stretching back to some point or other–exactly which point is a matter of heated dispute among Christians.
Catholics claim it is a single, unbroken tradition, supported and guided by the Holy Spirit, going right back to JC himself (“on this rock,..”), but outside historians (both non-Catholic Christians and non-Christians) would beg to differ.
In any case, I would argue, the whole Christian body of belief is a mythology on the level of, say, Greek or Norse or Native American mythology, and what we see here are a bunch of rather smart folks using their intelligence to figure out the “right” way to interpret this mythology. A rather sad waste of their intellectual powers, in my view, but who asked me?
I wouldn’t argue that Catholics put their own interpretation on the history and trace it back through a path of their own choosing. I just don’t see any other church that seems able to do anything similar. In fact, a lot of fundamentalist churches claim that the history of tradition is a history of straying farther and farther from “true” Christianity–as presented where? Oh, in the BIBLE. And they don’t recognize it was the church and the church traditions that _gave_ them the Bible–the same book they use to reject the authority of the church traditions today.
Sorry if I came across as seeming to say that the Catholic lineage is historically inarguable.
Meanwhile, Ron:
>He then denied that he was passing judgment.
I had a conversation with an ex-JW who goes to a Baptist church now. She was rejected by the JWs for some personal choices she made–but she still believes the JW doctrine. As I was asking her about their view of salvation, an interesting point came up:
She claimed nobody could say who was/was not going to Heaven/Paradise, etc. But this doesn’t jive with the fact that she proactively does things, like go to church. By going to church, she’s expressing that she thinks that’s a good idea with regard to upping her chances of getting the reward. And if she has some idea about what to do, then she must have some ideas about what must be required for entry. Which means, some idea of what will get a person rejected, or at least lower their odds.
The Xian who says they don’t really judge who is/is not going to be in Heaven isn’t being really honest. They may honestly be able to say they can’t be 100 percent sure–but they certainly have some idea that god has given them insights about what a person needs to do to be acceptable or unacceptable to god. I think they just don’t like going there, because it’s easier to sidestep it all together and just say, “Who knows?”
But my question is–why are you going to church, tithing, and reading the Bible then? Why were you baptized? Why do you pray? Why take communion? What is all that _for_–if not because you believe god expects it of you as an acceptable Xian?
Yes, Christians are caught on this eternal dilemma (among various other dilemmas): God certainly knows who will go to heaven, since he knows everything. And what Christian could stand to admit that they don’t know what God knows (all the while admitting, of course, that their poor finite human mind can’t possible know what God knows)? If you’re not in the know, what good are you? So a Christian has to both “know” and “not know” all sorts of things: who’s going to be saved, what it takes to be saved, what the “true, objective” moral principles are, etc.
On the history of Christianity topic, I think (as an outsider, sitting in the stands and watching the game, as it were), it seems to me that Protestants have an argument that sounds fairly reasonable. That is, that the Catholic Church might have started out creating the biblical canon, the Nicene Creed, etc., but over the centuries they blew it by being a religious monopoly, sinking further and further into corruption (popes with mistresses and kids, for Pete’s sake), until it was necessary to clean house and start over from the beginning. Of course, the Protestants eventually became equally corrupt (e.g., Ted Haggard).
Hey, if you look at these Christian maneuvers as something like a football game, and watch them from the stands, it can be sort of interesting, doping out their strategies and so on. Pretty hard to keep score, though. And they seem to be making up the rules of the game as they go.
What is it with the people who represent this first district of Louisiana? Did you know that Bobby Jindal replaced David Vitter, the man who became U.S. Senator in the 2004 election, the same David Vitter who was named in that D.C. escort service scandal recently?
And did you know that Vitter replaced Bob Livingston, the man who was supposed to become House Speaker in 1999 until it was revealed he had an extramarital affair during the Clinton impeachment scandal in December, 1998, and resigned instead?
Weird, huh?
Jon: I agree with your points. The one thing I would add/am trying to add is this:
>On the history of Christianity topic, I think (as an outsider, sitting in the stands and watching the game, as it were), it seems to me that Protestants have an argument that sounds fairly reasonable. That is, that the Catholic Church might have started out creating the biblical canon, the Nicene Creed, etc., but over the centuries they blew it by being a religious monopoly, sinking further and further into corruption…
Fundamentalist churches _generally_ take one of two stances:
1. The Bible is the only source of authority
2. The Bible is one source of authority–god’s personal revelation with the individual Xian is another source of authority.
_Usually_, what I’ve run into with regard to fundamentalist reasoning and _church authority_ is that the the _church_ derives it’s authority from the Bible–so we’re back to #1 above in reality–except on a church-wide scale rather than an individual Xian scale). OR, the church derives _some_ authority from the Bible, and some from a spiritual leader who has personal revelations from god–which is actually a form of #2. The “personal revelation” situation is extremely sticky, however–because Xians or chuch leaders who get “personal revelations” sometimes disagree with the Bible and sometimes with other Xians or other church leaders who also claim “personal revelation.”
Still, with regard to fundamentalist groups that reject personal revelation and accept only the Bible…where do they think the Bible came from and where did it derive it’s authority? They say “from god”–but historically, in reality, it came from the church (and I’m not discounted the idea they may have that the church was “god’s hands” in this matter–I’ll address that in a bit). The church provided the power to create the Bible and then call the Bible a valid source of authority; Now, many argue that the church has no authority except what authority it derives _from_ the Bible–because they honestly don’t know the history of the Bible or because they simply plug in the assumption that god mystically guided the church to produce the Bible–without god actually stating in any divinely clears terms that this was the plan or that this is the case. There is no basis for this assumption, and many Xians simply claim that the perfection of the book is proof of god’s guidance–but that encompasses many more assumptions that I can’t get into in a comments section, because I’m already verbose.
The basic problem is simply that the entity that wielded the authority to create and empower the book is now being judged as having no power except what power the book empowers it with. It is like saying that in the U.S., we have the power to create laws–but once we create them, the laws are the power and the people can’t ever change them or have any more authority over the laws or legal code.
The Catholic Church is OK acknowleding the Bible’s authority, but they’re saying that (1) attorneys understand legal code better than laymen, and (2) the entity that empowers the law (the people and/or the government) can override the law if that is deemed necessary–they can _change_ the law–even though, in general terms the law _is_ an authoritative secondary source (deriving it’s authority from the people who created it and maintain it).
Fundamentalists say that anyone can understand the law equally as well–even if they have no background in the context and history of it. And, further, that nobody can change the law–because it’s the _law_ that is the primary (and sometimes only) authority source and NOT the people (even though people created and empowered the law).
I guess it’s the long way of asking: Why do they accept the church’s power to produce and empower the Bible–but then argue that the church has no authority outside of the Bible? How did the production of the Bible totally castrate the church’s authority–since the Bible was merely a product of the church? (The same church that they accept had the authority to produce the Bible and empower it.)
It’s just one more bit of logic I can’t seem to grasp. Even as a Xian, when I encountered this idea–which I came to on my own while studying the history of the Bible–it was a solid blow to my faith in the Bible (which is actually the entity into which most protestant Xians place their faith).
I recently took a trip to South America. It was amazing. I saw such poverty, disparity and enslavement to the Catholic doctrine. I visited churches and found them to be just as amazing. Gold leaf, pictures and adornments that were astounding, and you were not able to enter a church without paying – 50 cents or better, but no less. Such ignorance and poverty was overwhelming. All I wanted to do was get a ladder and scrap the ‘gold leaf’ and give it to the peasants who were so impoverished yet were at those churches – praying for better times [I assume that].
The church and all its money and still trying to impoverish everyone with they’re unwavering 10th century tactics – “Give to the church and you shall be rewarded”. I left that country with sadness – I could not help even one of the poor – the poverty was so great. It wasn’t just the horrors of daily life but the draining of humanity because of that faith. Empty, meaningless faith that takes as much as it can in tribute and gives nothing back – nothing!
The point of this story is this: That so called ‘only true religion’ has impoverished millions though the centuries, not to mention the fear they instill in their under educated devotees. Anyone who has studied catholic history knows how corrupt that religion really is. It goes on even to this day with the priests and their exploits – How can people [educated?] be so duped by lies and so willing to give all they can toward a reward that has yet to be proven by any of the religious zealots.
“How can people [educated?] be so duped by lies and so willing to give all they can toward a reward that has yet to be proven by any of the religious zealots.”
Brainwashig, Tricia, brainwashing. I was born and live in Latin America, and can tell you that since I was a little kid I was taught it was crystal clear that the Catholic Church was a hundred percent right.
By the way, you can remove the question mark after the word educated. The elite in Latin America, that means, the better educated, are educated in private schools, who are most catholic schools. Thus the indoctrination of the upper class is even more efficient.
It is true that evangelical denominations are making inroads in Latin America in the last years, but I don’t see it necessarily as an improvement.
Ricardo
I am a Catholic myself and I cant stand how Christians keep arguing among themselves. I see so many Protestants denouncing Catholicism and vice versa. I find it appalling when people start assuming things about the Catholic church and make up their own stuff. The first thing to resolving this is to opening your ear to the other person to listen to what he or she has to say.
To me, it ultimately boils down to if you are walking with Christ, and you are letting him build a home in you, you are in good hands. Though I still feel that Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity.
The Catholic church is the worst example of the Christian faith that we have in the world today. Not only has this church killed millions of people throughout history it in does not follow the Bible in so very many aspects. Just being considered “The Catholic Church” is not Biblical. The Bible does not speak of one united body of churches like this but rather the church at ——- (whatever city that church was in). Catholicism holds its own very unbiblical traditions above very Biblical laws from God himself. The catholic religion changes the ten commandments ( they remove the second then split the tenth so they still have ten) to suit their beliefs. And whoever wrote this article how about quoting scripture instead of dead people that thought the same thing you did? Because scripture would prove Catholicism to be very wrong. In my reading I hve come across a few verses that reminded me of Catholicism : deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you. Deut 16:22 Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the lord thy God hateth. Matt6:7 But when ye pray use not vain repititions, as the heathen do. The Bible also says to pray to Jesus not Mary or any other dead human person. If the catholic church has taught you good values then great, I’m glad that the most practiced religion teaches that abortion is wrong and there are a lot of good catholic people who just want to lead good Christian lives and that’s great. But if your priest tells you not to read your Bible because you’re too stupid to understand it and that a few sprinkles of water will take your child to heaven someone lied somewhere and that lie has made it all the way to you and if the catholic churn has brought people to heaven and changed their lives for the better then great but the Bible says to go to heaven you must be saved which means believing in His death burial and resurrection and trusting Him as your Savior. The Bible does not say baptism or good works will get you to heaven and if the catholic church yells you a few drops of water will take you to heaven anoutou never think about it again you are in trouble and who knows how many people placed their trust in what a priest said and are now in hell today because they were not told the truth because no one reads the Bible. Ephesians 2:8-9 for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God: Not of works lest any man should boast. By the way Im reading the unabridged version of the Bible. I did not read all the comments but an individuals opinion does not matter in this subject. If any religion teaches something that is not biblical that religion is wrong. No matter what it is called. And I’m sorry whoever wrote that article I implore you to prove the catholic church wa established by the disciples. I know what the Bible says and if the disciples did establish the catholic hutch then what the catholic church preached woul not be such an abomination. I’m Holly St. Myers my email is hstmyers@edisonohio.edu I welcome any criticism although I’m sure I’ll never see it because this page only has like ten comments which means not a lot of people have seen it. I attend a baptist church in Sidney Ohio and I obviously prefer the baptist denomination. Solely because the churn I attend believes the Bible word for word. The Bible is our authority not tradition or what a man who is thousands of miles away says. And if the church I atten ever started teaching something that was unbiblical the church would be wrong. Although there are many denominations there shouldn’t be because there is only one Bible and unless people place the bible a their authority the petty arguments over denominations will never stop. Just read the Bible people.
@Holly.
You make a lot of points and I won’t go through them all. But I would also like to point out a few of your sterotypes.
Not once have I ever heard a priest tell me to not read my Bible because I wouldn’t understand it. The opposite is true, and my Confirmation class were all given FREE our own study bibles.
Also, I lot of the Bible verses you quote are taken out of context. Who is speaking, where is it at etc. In regards to “repetitive prayers” most are Gospel scripture (Our Father, Hail Mary etc) and are not the only form of prayer used. Of course there is free-form prayer, but we also have words to rely on for those times we are too emotional to find words or wish to pray our worship together as one.
The Catholic 10 commandments reflect more accurately the Jewish ones (the original) and the Protestant ones (the most different) came last historically. Combining 2 and splitting one.
Of course good works don’t get you into Heaven! No one teaches that at Catholic Church either.
We pray to Mary and the Saints for intercession, jsut like when you ask a friend to pray for you, we ask them to pray for us. Have you ever talked to a loved one that has passed? It is the same thing.
Lastly, “catholic church yells you a few drops of water will take you to heaven anoutou never think about it again you are in trouble and who knows how many people placed their trust in what a priest said and are now in hell today because they were not told the truth because no one reads the Bible.”
This is a lie. Frankly, it made me cry, and I’m being literal. It is this ignorance among Christian towards each other that makes me the saddest of all.I pray every night for this hatred to go away. It is not true at all and I am VERY sorry that you view us this way.
(I also attend Baptist services with my parents, and I attend a Baptist Bible Study along with my various Catholic groups. So, I understand a lot of your beliefs, even if I sway on a few)
Get notified when a new comment is posted: