Tim Enloe's Strange Missing Answer to a Simple Question About the Sacrifice of the Mass

[ source ]

[originally posted on 15 June 2004]

Here is the entire exchange with Presbyterian Tim Enloe (his words in blue), from some posts here, and also on the Reformed Catholicism blog, in one of the comment sections.

Tim wrote on my blog (6-10-04):

You know, this little apologetical pep-rally thing Dave has started with this flurry of one-sided anti-Luther posts is really damaging to the cause of recovering Christian unity and peace in the Church. If it proves anything it proves that most of you—Dave included—really don't understand what was going on in the sixteenth century at all. This is truly a sad sight to behold, my brothers.

Kevin Johnson added a most helpful comment on my blog (also on 6-10-04):

We are, I hope after all, interested in the truth of these matters. If the Roman Catholic Church is what it claims to be, there should be no worries about being honest with the history before us . . .

. . . we do expect honest and open dialogue that is freed from the typical arguments and counter-arguments of Reformed and Roman Catholic apologetic efforts that polarize issues, present each others' position in a way that is decidedly something other than what it really is, and that seeks victory in argument over the truth of the matter . . . It is high time that both sides deal with the truth of the matter and I hope that in this forum as well as others we can both honestly deal with the truth rather than hide behind our common shibboleths designed only to keep the 'party line' intact.

Tim wrote, (again on 6-10-04):

There are some of you, yes, who are more charitable and actually try to grasp what was going on in the past and what is going on today, and I value those of you who are like that . . . Catholics, however, who talk like most of the ones on this blog do are in serious need of getting a life, reading some real books about these matters, and drastically toning down their utterly naive, "conservative" and ultra-patriotic attitude toward "orthodox Catholicism". It may just be the case that "orthodox Catholicism" may not be as narrow-minded as "conservative" Catholic apologetics makes it out to be.

After much discussion along these lines that I was not a part of, I asked three related simple questions of Tim (6-12-04):

Is the adoration of the consecrated host idolatry, Tim?

Is the Sacrifice of the Mass a blasphemous replacement of the cross of Christ, that nullifies the Lord's Supper?

[Calvin believes both these things]

Would you worship with a Catholic at a Mass and consider it a Christian service every bit as valid as a Methodist or Baptist or Lutheran church service?

A simple yes or no would suffice for each question.

Tim replied:

Dave: as I told you earlier, I'm afraid I don't know at this point in time how to DIRECTLY deal with you in a constructive manner. That's all I'm going to say to you at this time.

Answering someone else in the same post, Tim stated:

. . . as the example of men like Cajetan shows us, the more scholarly an ultra-rigid papalist gets about his perfect Papalist Forms, the less he understands how created reality actually works and the less ability he has to deal with opposition in a fair manner. On the lay level, like with these lay Convert-Apologists it's simply condescending nonsense, ignorance of the sources, and inability to deal fairly and non-superficially with the tremendously complicated issues that blew the Medieval Church-society apart.

A day or two later, in his article, "The Scandal of the Unembarrassed Protestant," Tim wrote, mentioning me [this is important to understand the background context of my original; question to Tim]:

It is important to grasp, in terms of being Reformed Catholics, that the entire line of reasoning Armstrong gives is, for the unembarrassed Protestant, empty of all threat and need not cause us a moment's trouble. For, contra Armstrong's presumption, there is simply no reason in the world why a Protestant must feel a terrible, unbridgeable disconnect between himself and "historic Catholicism" . . .

It makes as much sense for us to run away from sober, fearless contemplation of the historic Church as it would for us to build a treehouse and then saw off the very branch it is sitting on . . .

It is sheer sectarianism for Roman Catholics to pretend that they exclusively own the history of the pre-Protestant Church and that they can simply swagger across the field of battle crying "Development of doctrine!", "Apostolic Succession!", "Sacred Tradition!", and a dozen other continuity-invoking slogans . . . There is no reason for the Protestant to feel any discomfort about arguments like Armstrong's, which are very commonplace in lay Roman Catholic circles. Such arguments work merely by assuming either ignorance of history or shame toward history on the Protestant's part.

. . . Give in to the ploy of the Roman Catholic to make you feel embarassed about even one item found in the pre-Protestant Church, and you will find yourself suddenly fighting a hopeless defensive war on twelve fronts at once, and on each and every one of them being made to feel, per the analogy Armstrong quoted, like Robinson Crusoe always wistfully looking at the wrecked ship wondering if he can manage to spirit away just one more thing . . .

And so at the last we will not simply gratis give our brethren in the Roman sect anything in the historical Church, but will, rather, require them to stand and fight--to the death, if need be--for every inch of ground. Let them deal with the truths of the historical Church--and they are many--which militate against their perfectionisms.

. . . Perhaps rather than merely naysaying Reformed Catholicism with one-sided objections they might deign to provide some sober-minded interaction with the theological and historical concerns of Reformed Catholicism, thus demonstrating that they really are catholic themselves, and not merely Roman sectarians.

. . . We must not scandalized by the historical Church at all, but love it and cherish it and criticize it because we love it and cherish it . . . Reformed Catholicism is, indeed, a scandal to the scandal of sectarianism and historical introversion—whether found on our own side or on the side of the Roman Catholics.

I responded on the Reformed Catholicism blog, trying again to get a simple answer out of Tim, as he took it upon himself to write an article focused mainly on myself:

Thanks for your post. I'm delighted that you are unembarrassed by your beliefs. It would have never crossed my mind that you (especially you) or any of your comrades were . . . we do have this aspect and "theological confidence" very much in common.

Just one question, if I may (for you or anyone else here): is the Sacrifice of the Mass a properly "catholic" Christian doctrine?

God bless!,

Dave

Posted by Dave Armstrong at June 14, 2004 12:22 AM

Tim replied:

Well then, Mr. Armstrong, I expect that if you realize what you said you realize about us, there will be no more of this simplistic Luther and Calvin prooftexting that you've been up to for the last few days. I expect you'll respect us enough to provide some actual interaction with the reasons behind all those quotes you provided, and some sympathy for men who did the best they could in times that are for the most part simply incomprehensible to us living today. And you can start your better interaction by admitting that you recognize such elementary facts as that Eucharistic "sacrifice" isn't a terminological given that you can "simply" ask "Is this a catholic doctrine?" Of course "sacrifice" is a catholic doctrine. But not all kinds of sacrifice are catholic doctrines. Try not to pose loaded questions and you might get some of that decent interaction you say you're after.

Posted by Tim Enloe at June 14, 2004 02:55 AM

I tried again, in vain:

Of course "sacrifice" is a catholic doctrine. But not all kinds of sacrifice are catholic doctrines.

Very well, then. Which ones are, and (if you have time) who held to these kinds before 1517?

Short, concise answers are fine (and much preferred). You need not take up all your time to answer . . .

Posted by Dave Armstrong at June 14, 2004 08:55 AM

Tim answered someone else, stating a general principle he holds to:

. . . I accept all of the things in pre-Reformation history that are contrary to my Reformed beliefs, and I accept them as being legitimate parts of my spiritual heritage. I don't try to duck hard questions, and when I don't know something I admit I don't know it . . .

Posted by Tim Enloe at June 14, 2004 07:19 PM

One last time, I tried to get his attention, in the midst of a flurrry of posts from others:

Hi Tim,

You obviously inadvertantly overlooked my question, since you have clearly stated, "I don't try to duck hard questions, and when I don't know something I admit I don't know it."

Therefore, here it is again, for your convenience. I will check back to see your answer later [then I cited my previous question] . . .

One short clarification for readers: I wasn't talking simply about "sacrifice" (which might have all kinds of penitential or intercessory meanings) but rather, the "Sacrifice of the Mass."

Thanks and God bless!

Posted by Dave Armstrong at June 14, 2004 08:00 PM

Tim made presumably his final reply (well, at least until he sees this), and reiterated his absolute determination not to answer my rather simple question:

Hey Dave (Armstrong), instead of always trying to put the Reformed on the defensive with your wearyingly one-sided assertions, why don't you stretch yourself a bit: worry yourself with all that Church-State stuff so you can more fairly interpret the 16th century conflict. I'll check your blog later today to see if you've posted anything meaningful on the Papal Monarchy or the Decretists and Decretalist doctrines of "positive law" and its limitations and the rights of subjects to resist tyrannical rulers. You need not take all your time to answer; short and concise answers are fine as long as they demonstrate some grappling with the sources. Thanks, and God bless.

Posted by Tim Enloe at June 14, 2004 08:28 PM

One can only try . . . maybe Tim will provide us his answer in this post. Or if not, explain why in the world he is so extremely reluctant (he being the remarkably historically-conscious, "unembarrassed Protestant" that he is and challenging Catholics daily to defend their historical perspectives) to give his opinion, since he has stated:

There is no reason for the Protestant to feel any discomfort about arguments like Armstrong's, which are very commonplace in lay Roman Catholic circles. Such arguments work merely by assuming either ignorance of history or shame toward history on the Protestant's part.

Maybe it is my own inability to understand the English language correctly, but it seems to me that if Tim's historical argument is so superior, then he could quickly demolish my own concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass; all the more so since mine "works" by virtue of "ignorance of history." Go figure . . . Golden Opportunities like this to show the historic bankruptcy (per Calvin) of Catholic Catholicism are not to be missed!