Between Two Worlds: A Mix of Theology, Philosophy, Politics, and Culture



Friday, July 13, 2007

Al Mohler on the Division Between Protestants and Roman Catholics

17 comments | Permalink
Al Mohler is neither offended nor surprised at the statement approve by Pope Benedict XVI that the Roman Catholic Church is the only institutional form in which the Church of Christ subsists. On the contrary, Mohler appreciates the Pope's candor and sees this as an opportunity to discuss one of the defining issues of our division with respectful candor and clarity. His essay is worth quoting at length:
It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.

The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church -- and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word -- the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true Church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.

I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement -- it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)

I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.

The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

The Rev. Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, responded to the press by saying that the Vatican's "exclusive claims" are "troubling." He also said, "what may have been meant to clarify has caused pain."

I will let Bishop Hanson explain his pain. I do not see this new Vatican statement as an innovation or an insult. I see it as a clarification and a helpful demarcation of the issues at stake.

I appreciate the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue, and I believe that Evangelical Christians, with equal respect and clarity, should respond in kind. This is a time to be respectfully candid -- not a time to be offended.


17 Comments:

Anonymous jmoore said...

That is very helpful, especially this observation:

"I do not see this new Vatican statement as an innovation or an insult. I see it as a clarification and a helpful demarcation of the issues at stake. "

7/13/2007 07:50:00 AM  
Blogger Bryce said...

this is an excellent article.

7/13/2007 08:12:00 AM  
Blogger Reid S. Monaghan said...

Hey guys, I pulled together some of the historical statements from Rome on the matter. Dr. Mohler is right - not offensive, not surprising.

See post Is the Pope Catholic?

7/13/2007 09:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Tope said...

The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church.

Mohler is wrong on this point. The Eastern Orthodox Churches are true Churches and they deny the authority of the papacy (and the statement says quite clearly that they are true Churches). Churches that have maintained apostolic succession and have the sacraments of the Eucharist and Holy Orders are considered true Churches from the Catholic perspective, even if they are out of communion with the Pope. This includes smaller, less well-known Churches like the Assyrian Church of the East and the Polish National Catholic Church.

7/13/2007 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger JT said...

Tope,

If you read Mohler's whole statement he points out that the statement acknowledges that the Eastern Orthodox ecclesial communities are 'churches.' I don't think it says "true churches," though. The committee regards them as "venerable Christian communities."

JT

7/13/2007 10:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

does anyone know why john piper refuses to criticize roman catholicism?

7/13/2007 11:00:00 AM  
Blogger JT said...

Anonymous,

He's on record criticizing the RC teachings on (1) the authority of the pope, (2) the place of tradition alongside Scripture, (3) the veneration of Mary, (4) the belief in the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, (5) the claim that baptism regenerates, (6) the teaching on purgatory, (7) the denial of sola fide and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, etc. Doesn't sound like much refusal to me!

JT

7/13/2007 11:14:00 AM  
Blogger J.A. said...

Mohler is pretty insightful in this article. The statement made by Pope Benedict does not help the Christian cause one bit--it only fragments us more. This is strangely reminiscent of what is going on in the episcopal church. Basically, as the church further divides itself, we get further and further away from our roots in the first century CE. What we should be striving for is a "worldwide catholic church," meaning a universal church of believers. Unfortunately, it does not look like this is going to happen anytime soon due to a lack of recognition of the Word as authoritative.

Like the article! If you want to see more on church fragmentation, check out my blog.

7/13/2007 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger Peter Kirk said...

According to Mohler, Pope Benedict "believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments." But as I understand it this does not apply to baptism, for the Roman Catholic Church accepts the validity of any Christian baptism - even Baptist baptism as long as it is not re-baptism of those baptised as infants. So Mohler's comment surely applies only to the Lord's Supper, assuming that he doesn't accept as sacraments the other ceremonies which Catholics call by this name. And the issue here may be less about papal authority than about acceptance of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

7/13/2007 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger JT said...

Peter, I don't profess to be an expert on this, but I would think the key word here is "efficacy." The RCC may accept John Doe's baptism from the First Baptist Church of Tinytown, but that doesn't mean that First Baptist's sacraments themselves are efficacious.

Anyone else want to join in? It's a good question.

JT

7/13/2007 01:53:00 PM  
Blogger SJ Camp said...

Herein is in part the Romanists' view of baptism. Surely no orthodox Christian church would support their heresy. I have seen and concur that any Romanist that comes to genuine salvation by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone, should be baptized and that such baptism be not acknowledged as being "rebaptized;" AND that any baptism performed previously under Romanist authority be considered false.

Consider the following:
SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: "If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).

I am not certain if under Tridentine doctrine a protestant baptism is considered legitimate or not; but the point is moot isn't it... If a protestant defected to Romanism and sought entry into their church asking or granted that their protestant baptism is welcome, their faith would be suspect anyway... unless they ultimately repented of such spiritual treason against the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This concern has been accelerated these days due to the heartbreaking news of Dr. Beckwith defecting from biblical Christianity to embrace the false church, false gospel, and false teachings of Rome.

A few other points of Roman doctrine related to this issue:

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATON:
"If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on Confirmation, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST:
"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS:
"If anyone says that the sacrifice of the mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).

In light of the above, it is of major concern when any evangelical partners with Romanists on social causes-- as if "Rome had anything in common with Jerusalem." (Tertulian)

Mohler was spot on...
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7

7/13/2007 03:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Tope said...

JT,

The statement can be found here. Question four and the following response are the relevant portions concerning the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

The question and response quite clearly state, multiple times, that non-Catholic Eastern Christians (Eastern Catholics do exist) are members of true Churches. The exact phrase "true Churches" is never used in the statement to refer to the Orthodox - but in fact the phrase "true Church" appears nowhere in the document, even in reference to the Catholic Church herself.

Instead the document refers to the non-Catholic Eastern Churches as "local or particular Churches." "Particular church" is the same phrase that the Catechism uses to refer to the individual rites of the Catholic Church. For example, the Roman Catholic Church is one "particular Church," the Maronite Catholic Church is another, the Melkite Catholic Church is another, and so on. The universal Catholic Church is comprised of many local and particular Churches. (See paragraphs 832-835 of the Catechism. Incidentally, this is why it's a misnomer to describe the Pope as the head of the Roman Catholic Church rather than of the Catholic Church period, since the RCC is just one rite/particular Church among many particular catholic Churches.)

In fact the Catechism states that the communion between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church is "so profound that it 'lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.'" The Eastern Orthodox do not constitute an "ecclesial community" in the sense that Vatican uses the term. Mohler is absolutely wrong on that point.

7/13/2007 04:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SJC
Isn't the quote "what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem"?

SDG
J.D. Heinrich

7/13/2007 04:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Tope said...

Peter and JT -

Re: the question on the efficacy of the sacraments, I'm afraid this is another point on which Mohler got his facts wrong!

According to Mohler, Pope Benedict "believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments."

The response to question four, which deals with the status of the Eastern Churches not in communion with Rome, states quite clearly that these churches have "true sacraments" - i.e., efficacious sacraments - despite not being under the Papacy. The Catholic Church does not teach that the efficacy of the sacraments is dependent on whether one is in communion with Rome or not.

With respect to non-Catholic Churches that have preserved the apostolic succession, the question of sacramental efficacy is quite simple: they're all valid. The case with ecclesial communities is rather more complicated.

Disclaimer: All of the following refers to Catholic teaching, naturally - so I don't have to keep repeating "according to the Catholic Church . . . "

For a sacrament to be valid you need an appropriate minister of the sacrament. Baptism is a sacrament that can be administered by anyone - it doesn't have to be a priest - so any water baptism (immersion, sprinkling, pouring) done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is efficacious. The ministers of the sacrament of marriage are actually the couple themselves, not the priest. So any marriage between two baptized Christians is considered a valid, sacramental marriage. Priests or bishops are the only valid ministers of the remaining sacraments (Eucharist, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, and Holy Orders).

So as far as Rome is concerned, baptisms and marriages at First Baptist Church of Tinytown are efficacious. Communion and ordination are not. But of course Baptists don't believe any of those things are efficacious anyway (except perhaps marriage), so it seems a moot point ;)

7/13/2007 05:07:00 PM  
Blogger Bryan L said...

Thanks Tope. Very informative. Can you recommend any resources or books that might help better understand this issue or just Catholic issues.misunderstanding in general?

Blessings,
Bryan L

7/13/2007 05:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Tope said...

Bryan,

The unabridged Catechism of the Catholic Church is the go-to reference, of course, but it's massive. For abridged versions of what it contains I would check out the U.S. Catholic Catechism for Adults or the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Those resources are pretty comprehensive, but also on the dry side. As far as the less dry stuff goes, many of the most recent books on Catholicism are by formerly-Protestant converts. One of the downsides of this is that a lot of them are oriented towards apologetics rather than exposition of doctrine, so they might not be the best for someone who's just looking to learn more about Catholicism. Thomas Howard's On Catholicism is probably the best of the bunch of convert-authored books I've read.

One book I've had highly recommended but have yet to read much of is The Spirit of Catholicism by Karl Adam. It's an older book, published in the early 20th century, by a lifelong Catholic. Pope Benedict's (then Cdl. Ratzinger) Introduction to Christianity is also supposed to be quite good.

7/13/2007 09:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Tope said...

Bryan -

Oh, I just thought of a book that's specifically geared to clearing up misunderstandings/confusion about Catholicism: Why Do Catholics Do That?.

Hope that's helpful!

7/13/2007 09:05:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home