A typical accusation made of Protestants by Roman Catholics is that they are so divided. There are ostensibly at least 35,000 Protestant denominations, but only One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. Such a stark comparison is often sufficient for a wavering Protestant to capitulate in despair. Since his conversion to Roman Catholicism, the subject of our previous series, Mr. Joshua T. Charles, has shouted from the rooftops that the unified Roman religion with its Tradition and teaching Magisterium has finally set him free from the divisions and errors of Protestantism. Protestants constantly disagreed about everything, and at some point, he just could not stand it any more. Here is a small sampling of his Twitter criticism just from last month:

“I was protestant until I was 31. As such, the furthest I could get was different interpretations of the Bible. No one could say ‘thus saith the Lord’ as to which one was right. Good, educated people differed on every issue under the sun.” (June 4, 2023)

“I’m very, very, very glad I am no longer a protestant. Among all the interpretations, where is the true one? On so many issues that have been long settled in the Catholic Church, protestants continue to divide & fall into more errors, with no one capable of resolving the debate.” (June 10, 2023)

“[That’s] Why I am Catholic today. Interminable, unresolvable debates where the best any of us had was our best guess was unacceptable. I wanted to follow Jesus.” (June 13, 2023)

From this small sampling, which is indeed representative of Mr. Charles’ chronic indignation, we might suppose that the solution he had stumbled upon in Rome was a single authoritative source of clear teachings that removed all doubt, dispute and debate in the interpretation of the Bible, Tradition, the Magisterium. At last, no more error, guesswork, difference and revision, no more heresy, schism, contradiction and division! Nothing but smooth sailing!

Quite the contrary, in fact. Mr. Charles has since discovered that there exists within Rome just as much division, error, schism and heresy as there is without. Again from Twitter just last month, here is Mr. Charles acknowledging that the error, division, squabbling, chaos and scandal pervade Roman Catholicism from within (Tweets in ALL CAPS are hortatory Patristic quotes that Joshua uses to encourage faithful Roman Catholics to hold fast, despite all the evil within Roman Catholicism):

“ST. AUGUSTINE ON MAINTAINING CATHOLIC UNITY IN SPITE OF SCANDALS” (June 3, 2023)

“ST. AUGUSTINE: NEVER SEPARATE FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, DESPITE THE EVIL WITHIN” (June 4, 2023)

“Catholics can be and are absolutely divided. I never claimed or pretended otherwise.” (June 11, 2023)

“The inter-Catholic squabbles are exhausting. I don’t touch them with a 10 foot pole.” (June 14, 2023)

“That’s the beautiful thing about being Catholic: the Church and its teaching remains, even when there is scandalous behavior at the very top.” (June 14, 2023).

“The crisis in the Church/world will be resolved by the intervention of Heaven.” (June 21, 2023)

“As much chaos as there is in the Church these days, I have to constantly remind fellow-Catholics, having come from a protestant background, that they still have no idea how good we have it, overall.” (June 24, 2023)

“BICKERING IN AN AGE OF COWARDICE AND SCANDAL IN THE CHURCH” (June 27, 2023)

So, if he left Protestantism because of all the division, bickering and squabbles, and upon his arrival in Roman Catholicism discovered the same division, bickering and squabbles, why, exactly, are we to join him in his folly? Mr. Charles has a simple answer: because, despite the squabbles, scandals and chaos, the Roman Catholic Church has at least been imbued with the authority of Christ, and is the only “one capable of resolving the debate” or “capable of understanding Scripture” or “to do accurate exegesis“:

“It is undeniable Christ established just such an infallible mode of resolving disputes in the Church.” (May 1, 2023)

“Jesus Christ provided us with a means to do accurate exegesis: His Catholic Church.” (June 19, 2023)

“One of the reasons Christ instituted a Church with His authority to teach is because, frankly, most people are not capable of understanding Scripture at a deeper level when left on their own, with no divinely appointed teacher to teach them.” (July 2, 2023)

That sounds promising. Let us check in with Mr. Charles to see how that is working out for him.

Mr. Charles’ Tradition Problem

With his new knowledge that Jesus has provided him with an infallible interpreter of Scripture, we imagine Mr. Charles must have been very excited finally to discover the identity of “the Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2:6. After all, that identity is an oral Apostolic teaching delivered to the Thessalonians, and Roman Catholicism (as the custodian of such oral tradition) ought to know who it is. To Mr. Charles’ inevitable chagrin, the Roman religion does not know who the restrainer is, and cannot tell us. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia demurs:

“We can here only enumerate the principal opinions as to the meaning of this clause [“he who now holdeth”] without discussing their value” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Antichrist).

What is Mr. Charles to do now? His religion, the sole custodian of apostolic tradition, was supposed to teach it to him so that he would not have to engage in best-guessery. Left with no certain knowledge of the identity of the restrainer, Mr. Charles did precisely what he has instructed others not to do: he has decided to determine the meaning of this cryptic passage on his own. He delivered his findings in a May 2023 video here, and summarizes his method for us, below:

What a relief! Lacking clear knowledge of the oral tradition of the apostles, Mr. Charles is now interpreting Scripture and teaching apostolic traditions to us on his own! Where would we be without Mr. Charles’ private opinion on the matter?

The chiefest irony of all is that Mr. Charles had complained that, among Protestants, “the best any of us had was our best guess,” and multiple contradictory interpretations of the Bible, to boot! And what has he learned from his “divinely appointed teacher” regarding this oral apostolic tradition? The church has no official position on the identity of the Restrainer, and the best consensus opinion from the Early Church Fathers and modern Catholics appears to be one great big exercise of best-guessery.

The identity of the Restrainer was unknown in late antiquity, and the best anyone could offer was, in point of fact, their best guess:

Chrysostom: “Some indeed say, the grace of the Spirit, but others the Roman empire, to whom I most of all accede.” (Chrysostom, Homily 4 on 2 Thessalonians)

Augustine: “I frankly confess I do not know what he means. I will nevertheless mention such conjectures as I have heard or read. Some think that the Apostle Paul referred to the Roman empire … But others think that the words … refer only to the wicked and the hypocrites who are in the Church … Thus various, then, are the conjectural explanations of the obscure words of the apostle.” (Augustine, City of God, Book 20, 19)

Modern Roman Catholics guess that the Restrainer might be the Papacy or John the Baptist or Michael the Archangel or traditional liturgical worship. In view of these data, Mr. Charles proposed in his May video that the “broad consensus” of the early Church was that the Roman Empire was the Restrainer. He recently added to his best-guessery by throwing St. Bruno’s 11th century opinion into the mix. Bruno taught not the Roman Empire, but Christendom, is the restrainer. How does Mr. Charles pivot with this discrepant and contradictory information? In a stunning attempt at continuity, he claims that Bruno was just building “on a long line of thought in the Church Fathers that the ‘restrainer’ is somehow Roman” (emphasis added). So, apparently, the “broad consensus” of the early church was that the Restrainer was the Roman Empire, and building on that, St. Bruno says it is not the Roman Empire. Interesting.

Well, we are happy that Mr. Charles no longer has to sail aimlessly on the choppy seas of epistemology, driven and tossed on the contradictory and inconsistent waves of Protestant speculation. He has an infallible Magisterium to guide him “into all truth” (John 16:13), so now he can sail aimlessly on the choppy seas of epistemology, driven and tossed on the contradictory and inconsistent waves of Catholic speculation.

We jest, of course, at Joshua’s expense. Despite his audacious claims to have finally discovered in Rome an authentic, authoritative, divinely ordained instructor, every Roman Catholic, including Mr. Charles, is nevertheless left to his own devices to compile his own personal collection of Apostolic Traditions.

Mr. Charles’ Scripture Problem

Mr. Charles was also relieved to know that the finality of Rome’s authoritative voice means he has escaped the uncertainty of contradictory interpretations of Scripture. Says Charles,

“The absolute and universal nature of Truth precludes the possibility of multiple contradicting doctrines belonging to the same Jesus. That is not possible. I realized this very early on as a protestant, without reading a single Catholic.” (June 26, 2023)

We imagine that Mr. Charles must have been very excited to discover Who crushed the serpent’s head in Genesis 3:15. Was it Jesus or was it Mary? Popes Pius IX, Pius X, Leo XIII and Pius XII all interpreted the passage to refer to Mary, the latter saying plainly that Genesis 3:15 is “unmistakable evidence that she [Mary] crushed the poisonous head of the serpent” (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854 (emphasis added)). But Pope John Paul II corrected that long-held traditional interpretation in a General Audience in 1996:

“Exegetes now agree in recognizing that the text of Genesis, according to the original Hebrew, does not attribute action against the serpent directly to the woman, but to her offspring. … in fact the one who defeats the serpent will be her offspring.” (John Paul II, General Audience, “Victory Over Sin Comes Through a Woman” (January 24, 1996)

Good thing Mr. Charles does not have to suffer through all those contradictory opinions about Scripture! He has an infallible Magisterium to guide him “into all truth” (John 16:13). As Mr. Charles correctly surmises, the “nature of Truth precludes the possibility of multiple contradicting doctrines,” and yet his own Magisterium cannot tell him whether Genesis 3:15 refers to Mary or to Jesus.

The truth is, not only has Roman Catholicism not interpreted 2 Thessalonians 2:6 or Genesis 3:15, she also has not interpreted definitively any other passage of Scripture in all of her “2000” years. In a letter to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), an inquirer desired to know how many Bible verses the Roman Catholic religion had officially interpreted. The Executive Director of the USCCB responded with his own personal guesswork:

“a case could be made that the Church has defined something about the correct interpretation of … seven passages,” including Genesis 3:15 (emphasis added).

And even then, he continued, “It is difficult, also, to say exactly what was defined … and that this is the only meaning of the text” (emphasis added). Such is the poverty of the Roman Catholic who would rely on the Magisterium to interpret the Bible for him. Fewer than ten Bible verses have been kind of interpreted, and of those, it is difficult to say that the interpretation is “official,” or even to determine what the interpretation is.

Each Roman Catholic, including Mr. Charles, is therefore left to his own devices to try create his own personal commentary about what the Bible means, and apparently there are multiple contradictory interpretations from which to choose!

Mr. Charles’ ex cathedra Problem

On May 1, 2023, Mr. Charles attempted to explain why there is still so much division within Rome even on matters that the Pope has ostensibly clarified:

“People have free will. The fact that there IS an authority to clarify things doesn’t mean it will be obeyed” (May 1, 2023).

To this we responded that we were not convinced that the authority had even clarified anything. Anyone who knows the history of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994) understands the problem. John Paul II promulgated that document “that all doubt may be removed,” but its fruit is 30 years of Catholics arguing about whether or not John Paul II was speaking fallibly or infallibly (ex cathedra), or whether his statement was a teaching of the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Magisterium. Experienced and knowledgeable Roman Catholic apologists have taken both sides of both arguments, one of whom notoriously threw up his hands in despair that the church does not speak clearly: “When the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly” (Robert Sungenis, August 5, 2008). Mr. Charles was promised “an authority to clarify things,” but that promise has not been kept.

In truth, because there is no authoritative source within Rome that declares what has been stated ex cathedra, there is therefore no way for individual Roman Catholics to know what the popes have proclaimed infallibly. We examined this conundrum in some detail in another post, but we believe one Roman Catholic reader’s response summarizes the challenge facing Mr. Charles:

“[This problem is] is still very ground shaking! … the lack of consensus among the different Catholic apologists as to how many Infallible pronouncements Popes have promulgated … would seem [to suggest] that ‘each of the faithful’ cannot be certain … you cannot be sure what is infallible and what [is] not by simply reading what the Pope has said and how he’s said it. … this just emphasizes how confusing it is for the faithful to easily and immediately recognize that the Pope has taught something infallibly and that he hasn’t.” (Catholic Answers Forum (emphasis added))

Yes, indeed. “Each of the faithful,” including Mr. Charles is now left to his own devices to read the statements of the popes and decide for himself which of them is ex cathedra. To determine what his church has taught him, each Roman Catholic must compile his own personal list of ex cathedra papal statements.

Mr. Charles’ Succession Problem

According to Pope Paul VI, the authentic teaching of the apostles “was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time” (Dei Verbum, 8). This “unending succession” was ostensibly established in the three “Petrine Sees” of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, which together comprise a “See of One” imbued with Mr. Charles’ desired “divine authority,” according to Pope Gregory (Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle XL, To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria).

That unbroken line of successors from Peter is the constant theme of the Roman Catholic apologist, but it is a little known fact that the Early Church lost track of Peter’s “successors” in those three “Petrine” Sees within one generation. Was Clement the successor to Peter in Rome? (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32). Or was Linus? (Irenæus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, paragraph 3). Was Ignatius Peter’s successor in Antioch? (John of Chrysostom, Homily on St. Ignatius, chapter IV). Or was it Evodius (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 22). Was Annianus the first to preside over the church of Alexandria? (Eusebius, Church History, Book III, chapter 21). Or was it, Mark? (Council of Rome, III.3).

So, these are Mr. Charles’ three great “Petrine Sees” — Rome, Antioch and Alexandria — that together comprise the great “See of One” upon which the Church of Christ is built, and from which we have ostensibly received an unending line of successors from Peter. And within one generation, they forgot who succeeded him. And thus, there is no way Rome can legitimately trace its unbroken line of succession, except simply to presume that was unbroken.

Even today Roman Catholics cannot be sure who their pope is. Many Roman Catholics argued that Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid and that he continued as “true pope” even as a conclave elected Francis as his successor (The Beneplenist Wrinkle, July 17, 2020). In a collective case of “buyers’ remorse,” a growing voice within Roman Catholicism is claiming that Francis “is not a pope!” (Fr. James Altman, July 7, 2023). Roman Catholic apologist, Timothy Gordon, while not in agreement with Fr. Altman, has also not ruled out the Beneplenists, and by his own testimony is “at least 51% sure Francis is legitimate,” but thinks it would be great if he is wrong about that (Timotheeology, July 9, 2023). Are we between popes? Is Francis a wicked bishop issuing valid commands, or a valid bishop issuing “wicked” commands? Who can know? In truth, Roman Catholics alive today may never know in this life which is true. Until last century, the Annuario Pontificio included Alexander V (1409–1410) and John XXIII (1410–1415) in its list of popes, but modern editions of the Annuario Pontificio omit them, relegating them to the status of “antipopes.”

The result of unending speculation about who succeeded Peter in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (who knows for sure?), and whether the current list of popes is correct (it could change at any minute), and whether Benedict was the true pope after his resignation (who knows for sure?) and whether Francis is even a pope at all (it is currently a free-for-all), is that each Roman Catholic ends up deciding for himself who the “successors” of Peter are, and to which “successor” he prefers to submit. And thus, every Roman Catholic must compile for himself his own personal list of “Successors of Peter” so that he can rest confidently on the “Rock” upon which Christ built His Church. Does it start with Linus and end with Francis? Or does it start with Clement and end with Benedict? Inquiring minds want to know!

Mr. Charles’ Conciliar Problem

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Church’s infallibility — its “immunity from liability to error” — is “embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope.” The Roman Catholic takes great comfort in the knowledge that Ecumenical Councils cannot err. Thus, while Protestants have no divine and infallible means of determining the canon of Scripture, the Roman Catholic can claim to have identified it “infallibly” because the books of the Bible were listed by the ostensibly Ecumenical Council of Trent (Fourth Session, April 8, 1546). It is a common anthem among Roman apologists that Protestants possess a fallible collection of infallible books, but only Roman Catholics can say they have an infallible collection of infallible books.

However, the Roman Catholic has not sufficiently thought through his claim. Before he can identify the scriptures from an Ecumenical Council, he must first be able to identify which councils are ecumenical. In a remarkably candid observation, Professor of Canon Law, Fr. George Nedungatt, S.J. Ph.D., conceded that while it is believed that there have been 21 ecumenical councils in the history of the church, there is no “official list or canon fixed by any ecumenical council or papal definition or decree,” and “no authoritative church magisterium established this canon [of Ecumenical Councils].” (“The Council in Trullo Revisited: Ecumenism and the Canon of the Councils.” Journal of Theological Studies, vol. 71, no. 3, 2010, 657-58). In other words, the Roman Catholic has no way of knowing with certainty which councils of the church were ecumenical.

While this may seem only minimally problematic, it becomes exponentially more so when one understands the fact, as Nedungatt also concedes, that the “progress of scholarship in the study of the church councils” is still underway (Nedungatt, 660). In other words, the current list of “ecumenical councils” is still a work in progress — not because more ecumenical councils may be added in the future, but because a canon of Ecumenical Councils cannot be known with certainty.

In order to sort this out, we asked Mr. Charles (May 1, 2023) to provide an authoritative, infallible list of “Ecumenical Councils.” Mr. Charles responded that, “The Catholic Church has recognized as ecumenical those councils … ratified by the successor of Peter, the Pope. It’s very simple.” He rests comfortably under the false impression that the Church “has recognized” such a list of Councils. Little does he know how not “very simple” it is! The list has been, is now, and always will be, in a state of flux. No authoritative Magisterial pronouncement has ever determined the canon of Ecumenical Councils, no ex cathedra papal pronouncement has ever defined them, and serious scholarly movements are underway to add some and remove others because the “progress of scholarship” is still ongoing!

Thus, each Roman Catholic, including Mr. Charles, is left to his own devices to come up with his own, personal list of Ecumenical Councils, so that he may render due obedience to the ones, in his personal opinion, that are infallible. But the best he can do is compile a fallible list of councils that may or may not be infallible. And it is from that fallible list of (in)fallible councils that the Roman Catholic must choose before he can even begin to determine the canon of Scripture. And if his personal list of Ecumenical Councils includes Trullo (as Cardinal Agagianian’s did) and excludes Trent (who is to say for sure?), one may very well end up with a canon of Scripture that excludes the apocrypha and Revelation, as the Council of Laodicæa and Gregory Nazianzus did. By this means, an earnest Roman Catholic may very legitimately compile his very own personal canon of Councils, and from that, his very own personal canon of Scripture!

Mr. Charles’ Catechism Problem

Smooth Sailing

So how is Mr. Charles doing? He has comforted himself with the knowledge that despite the ongoing divisions, schisms, “interminable, unresolvable debates,” scandals, chaos and bickering in Rome, at least he is not Protestant. That comfort seems fleeting to us, if not outright imaginary. Once he realized that his switch to Rome did not relieve him of the chaos, scandal, contradictions and interminable debates, his sole remaining comfort was the knowledge that at least the Magisterium could teach him — something it plainly cannot do. In the words of one Timothy Gordon: “No one really knows.” That will not be a pleasant epiphany for someone who joined Rome to know at last with certainty “what saith the Lord.”

While Mr. Charles allegedly sits under an authoritative teaching ministry “with a means to do accurate exegesis” and “capable of understanding Scripture at a deeper level,” he still does not know who the Restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:6 is. At this very moment he and his fellow Roman Catholics are involved in a prodigious work of guessing about something Roman Catholicism was supposed to teach him. While he expected truth that “precludes the possibility of multiple contradicting doctrines,” he still does not know with certainty whether Genesis 3:15 refers to Jesus or Mary. In fact, the teaching organ of Rome still has not actually, definitely interpreted any Scripture with certainty and clarity. He does not know with certainty which Papal statements are ex cathedra, and cannot identify with certainty which Councils were ecumenical. The best he can do is compile his own list of each and hope that he has guessed correctly.

He may feel confident that the Catechisms will not mislead him, but the Catechisms change over time, and he cannot know in advance what will change. If the death penalty, which the Scriptures authorize, is now immoral, how can he be certain that adultery, which the Scriptures prohibit, is not? His catechisms assure him that while he may be devoted to Mary, he is not obligated to heed the teachings of the apparitions. And yet, wiser and more studied scholars are not so sure, for the Popes certainly seem to think it is their duty to feed the flock with their nonsense. The best he can do is contemplate which catechisms reflect his personal beliefs, which of the teachings of the apparitions appear to teach correctly, and which papal statements he feels comfortable heeding, and do his best to invent some semblance of a consistent epistemology of his own. He may desire to avoid schism, but to do so he would have to be able to identify schisms infallibly, something even Rome appears to be unable to do, as each Roman Catholic assesses the evidence on his own, and comes to his own conclusion.

His last and only option is to cast his faith upon the Magisterium, and hope — though he cannot know — that what the Magisterium teaches is true even if, as Mr. Gordon despaired, “I don’t know what it all means.” We won’t know for centuries what the current Magisterium has even taught, much less whether it was true!

While we acknowledge the many, many divisions among Protestants, our divisions are about how to interpret the Scriptures. Mr. Charles’ challenge, on the other hand, is extraordinary for its magnitude. Every single Roman Catholic on earth faces not only the challenge of identifying which teachings are Scriptural, but also which councils are Ecumenical, which Traditions are apostolic, which papal statements are ex cathedra, which apparitions should be believed, which Pope is valid, which schisms to avoid and which catechisms to trust. And then, an even larger challenge awaits him: finding another Roman Catholic with exactly the same answers to those questions, so they may fellowship together and say “thus saith the Lord.” Not only is there no unified theory of epistemology that could possibly answer those questions consistently, but we are quite certain that there is practically zero probability that any two Roman Catholics could possibly arrive at precisely the same answers to them, and even less chance that their answers would be true. So we can honestly say that while there may be many denominations within Protestantism, there are one billion in Rome — one for every Roman Catholic on earth.

Oops, we forgot to include Mr. Charles.  It’s a billion and one.