Dear Pope Benedict,
You are cramping my style. Don’t you read Parchment and Pen. Don’t you know that I have been making the argument that things had changed since the Reformation? Don’t you see that there was some progress being made; we were moving in a direction that is more positive and hateful polemics were being looked down upon. Haven’t you downloaded Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft’s Ecumenism with Compromise to your IPOD?
Then I read this article about your recent actions saying that I and my Christ-fearing brothers and sisters in the Protestant church are not a part of the true church. This is very disheartening. What is up with that? It is not as if I thought that Trent said anything less, but level with me, (just between you and I) you guys always change your position, you just don’t call it “change,” you call it “progression.” I can roll with that. I am not too uptight. But the fact is that those on your side and ours thought that things were “progressing” in the right direction. Vatican II attempted to “progress” by softening the language of Trent. It essentially said to us, “we are sorry,” and that “Protestants are not confined to the pits of hell.” Phew . . . that was encouraging.
I know, I know, it was not as if I expected us to unify publically or for you to renounce your thro . . . umm, seat, but Trent’s claims to exclusivity were arrogant and beyond your authority (yes, question begging, but this is a letter, not debate). Some of us were even calling you a cult until Vatican II. And then there was John Paul II. While he was rather odd about Mary, I was excited to see his willingness to chan . . . ahem . . . I mean progress (I keep forgetting that you cannot admit change as a presupposed foundation to your system).
I have been getting emails from Catholics all over the world that read our blog saying that they were disappointed with this statement. Someone even apologized on your behalf. I know that this someone (I can’t name names – don’t want them to get in trouble) does not have the authority in your system to apologize on your behalf, but I was glad he did nonetheless. My saddened countenance is expressed by all those who believed that things were changing. Sigh . . .
But we can fix this! It is not too late. Here is what you can do to both rectify this situation and save face. First, you have to redefine your use of the word “Church” in that document. You know, like that clever maneuver you did when you changed the intent of Trent’s “anathema” upon Protestants. You softened it to the point that we are now “separated brethren.” That was nice. Kudos. Granted, I would have much rather you said that Trent was wrong and apologized for saying we were all going to Hell, but the “You just misunderstood us” was accepted.
What you can do here is say this: “You misunderstood me.” Oh yeah! You then continue, “All I meant to say was that Protestant Churches are not true Roman Catholic churches.” It would be like Baptists saying that all those not Baptists are not Baptists churches. Pretty self-evident, huh? That is the beauty of it! Then you go on, “But we did not mean that you were not part of the Body of Christ or that you could not gather in local fellowships.” That would be slick. I won’t tell anyone I told you to.
Later down the road, I was going to tell the next Pope to soften Vatican II, but you can only do so much.
BTW: I am working on the Evangelical church and our problems. They are many. We have so many maverick churches, denominations, and TV evangelists who say whatever they want. They have no regard for those who have gone before them. They have no regard for any type of authority out side of their own private interpretation. As you know, there are some who are claiming that God wants everyone to be rich and healthy. Others are saying that faith is a force. Still, others are beginning to devalue the exclusivity of Christ all together. We are an odd bunch and many in our ranks have either lost the Gospel completely or have lost focus. They are disrespectful and arrogant (oh, but that is a criticism that I have of you as well–but you already knew that). Protestants are just all over the place and frankly we don’t know what to do.
I know, I know, you warned us. But you must understand that most of us believe that it was still worth the risk. I am currently working on a project at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries. We have a program called The Theology Program which seeks to help people understand theology biblically and historically. It has been great. We have over 30,000 students online and in local churches. What it does is encourage people to reengage their minds helping them to be accountable to those who have gone before us and authorial intent hermeneutics. It also helps people to understand what essential Christianity is. OK, enough of the self-promotion, but I do think it can have a serious impact, Lord willing. (BTW: Could you endorse The Theology Program? Chuck Swindoll did. Your endorsement might make some of our constituency think we have gone soft, but I think it is worth it to help educate your people to think critically . . . we will talk more about that later).
Now I know that you cannot actually consider the contents of this letter since consideration itself will undermine your own offices’ authority (I know, it’s a crazy mess you guys have gotten yourself into. I will explain how to get out of that later . . .) And I know that critical thinking is not really encouraged since no one in your church has the right to criticize its head (nice job, BTW, keep them all in line). But I nonetheless encourage you to be wise, humble, and rethink what you have done here. The atmosphere has changed. “Progress” has ceased. You have come dangerously close to putting us back in the time of the Reformation and we will all have to act accordingly to preserve the essence of what Christ did for us.
Pope, we all have problems . . . this I know. None of us has it all figured out. But yours is very significant. Nevertheless, you can change and greatly help your people to realize the fullness of the truth and release them of their unnecessary burden. Please consider my shrewd yet sincere proposal.
Truly and respectfully,
C. Michael Patton
Ordination 2001, Stonebriar Community Church
Th.M. 2001, Dallas Theological Seminary
President of Reclaiming the Mind Ministries
122 replies to "Letter to Pope Benedict"
I hope people see this for the fun that I was trying to have with this serious lament. I do truly believe that the Pope’s reaffirmation, while nothing new to Trinitine theology, did set things back.
Also, please understand that this does not represent a change in my position concerning the possibility of a Catholic being saved, intelligent, and/or who love and are committed to Christ. It is just a change in my countenance about their progression and the possibility of dialogue.
Sorry Michael, I don’t see this funny at all.
I am still mystified why you would even want to promote dialogue with a false church. Even Dave Armstrong seems to have a better grasp on the differences between Protestants and Catholics – I suggest you read through his answer to you in your previous post. Now I am sad that the Pope AND Dave Armstrong appear more firm in their beliefs than you.
I would really like to hear from you – is the RCC is a false church or not?
Frankly, I think the letter is a brilliant way of pointing out the differences between RC and Protestants, of showing how this differences have been softened in the past, and how they might be further softened in the future by employing the same tactics. You also pointed out very clearly some of the more difficult issues that will be harder to rectify (authority, infallibility).
Of course, the self-promotion that underscores our mission was a nice touch, too.
The only way it wouldn’t be funny is if he actually sent it to the pope.
Wait…you didn’t, did you?
Great – way to go Michael. Now your gonna get called to be on the Popes radio show!!!!
Pope Benedict on Converse With Scholars!!! Nah, you’ve had enough heretics already!!!
Ok, Just kidding
Yes, I sent it to [email protected].
Carrie,
By Presbyterian and Lutheran principles the baptists are false churches too. And by Lutheran principles so are the presbyterians. Is perseverance of the saints an essential part of the gospel? If so, since the Lutherans deny it, do they have a false gospel? How about forensic imputation? Augustine considered and rejected it. Did he preach a false gospel too?
Perry, we are all Evangelical, which is a transdenominational term that seeks to unite different Protestant traditions under the same spirit and essential doctrine. While we lament those who choose to say that they are the only true church in our own Protestant tradition, those who are Evangelical (which uncles many Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterian, Methodist, Bible Churches, Evangelical Free, etc) do not in any sense claim to be the one true church.
The one true Church, from a historic Protestant perspective, exists first ontologically as the invisible church of all those who are united with Christ by virtue of their trust in him and can be expressed by ANY who come together under a local authority that preaches God’s word and administrates the sacraments. We have much freedom as to how these things are done.
Therefore, Evangelicals do not say only certain Traditions or denominations are necessarily excluded from having a valid local church. They are only excluded if they fail to qualify either in belief (essential beliefs) and practice (not limited to a certain liturgy).
Perry,
That does not answer my question. Whether the RCC is a false church or not is based on the standards set my God, not the Lutheran’s opinion of the Baptists.
What is the difference between a true church and false church?
Michael,
From your silence I have a feeling that you do not believe the RCC to be a false church. If so, I would really love to hear your reasoning.
BTW, the Pope DOES have an iPod.
On the substance, I enjoyed the read and think you still have the right approach.
I think that Catholics can be saved the same way I think Calvinists can be saved, even though you are both wrong! 🙂
Yes, there is a qualitative and quantitative difference, I know, between the degree of error that might exist, but I see this as just the Catholics adding in a lot of junk, which means de-emphasizing a lot of important stuff. This could hamper the sanctification process, and could create other serious issues that impact the spread of the gospel, etc.
However, since my list of “essentials” for being “right with God” and saved and going to heaven, I expect to see both the Catholic and the Calvinist with me in heaven, no matter how wrong their theology is! 🙂
But what do you expect from an Arminian?! (or semi-Arminian, or semi-Pelagian, or psuedo-heretic or, well, whatever other label seems to fit from the other camps).
I love it, Michael! I think you really SHOULD send it to the Pope. I don’t know if you were kidding or not that you did, but if you didn’t, go ahead and send it. The worst that will happen is that someone on the other end will just delete it before the Pope even reads it. But hey, maybe the Pope will read it and get a chuckle. Maybe he could use a little bit of lightening up. Or maybe it will be just one of millions of emails he will get complaining about the latest statement (which we know is not really a change in the RCC’s beliefs, but like Michael says, it does seem to set back dialogue).
This bit about “false gospel” is a bit confusing. I think that when the Apostle Paul was talking about people teaching false gospels, I think he was referring to people who would deny that Jesus rose from the dead. I think that many of the churches today teach things that you cannot find directly in the Bible and that are not necessary for salvation, but I don’t think that means they are teaching a FALSE gospel. I think their teachings may just be FLAWED.
I think a church teaching the TRUE gospel would teach that God loves mankind, that God came to earth in the form of Jesus to teach us and to die for us to bring us back in to union with God. We were separated from God (various churches will understand this differently) due to sin. God raised Jesus from the dead and the Holy Spirit was poured out on the world so that all who truly want to walk with God and do his will can, by the power of the Holy Spirit. That power comes to us when we accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour (again, various churches will interpret how this happens differently). Just about everything else the churches teach are open to “interpretation.” Well, that’s my opinion for what it’s worth.
It has been interesting reading about Catholicism. In the past two decades, I have spent a lot more time reading Protestant writings than Catholic and am learning more about what Catholicism teaches through this blog. Yet, my contemplative type of prayer would put me squarely in with so many ancient Catholic writers. Like I have said before on this website, I don’t really know what to call myself. I don’t even know that it really matters what I call myself. What matters is my relationship with God and my treatment of myself and my fellow travelers on this earth. Yet, I guess it is good to put a name to something. I have called myself in the past a “very ecumenical Catholic.” Yet, some say that if I don’t believe ALL that the RCC churches, I am not really a Catholic. A “liberal” Catholic may not be a Catholic at all in the eyes of many. So Michael, if you have figured out what I am, let me know!
Joanie D.
Carrie, I would say they are a church teaching a lot of false doctrine. But then, as I said, I think the Calvinists teach a lot of doctrine that is also not correct. I guess the difference is that the Catholics hold that these doctrines are dogmatically true (although, I wonder if some Calvinists might think that the 5 Points are equally, infallibly dogma).
I guess you would have to define what you think a false church is. One that teaches things I think are not true? On issues of what degree of certainty? On salvation issues only?
Once we get past the basic creeds (see Michael’s other thread), I am pretty reluctant to insist that any of the additional theological concepts are ESSENTIAL, in the sense that belief or non-belief in them is an issue effecting salvation. And, my first reaction would be to consider only those who can’t affirm the initial creeds as a “false church”.
But I am not dogmatic about that definition, and am willing to hear what you would define it as and why.
I would agree. I think I have been clear both on this blog and on the Dividing Line when I was asked this question about whether or not the Catholic Church has a false Gospel. I think their soteriology within their Gospel is lacking, but that does not make their entire Gospel false. The Gospel starts with the person and work of Christ. If you get this right, I don’t think you can broadbrush the entire thing as say they got it ALL wrong. It says a lot when they confess Christ as the God-man, that man is sinful and totally dependent on the grace of God that comes ultimately through Christ, and that faith is necessary.
Where they fail is not so much with the idea of forensic justification. This aspect of their Gospel is false.
I don’t know why it has to be a total either/or. I think that Protestants have certain aspects of the Gospel wrong, being very Gnostic in our belief about the ultimate end of the “Good News” but I think we have the more central features of soteriology correct.
I could be wrong about all this, but that is what I am willing to put in black and white today.
Semper Reformana my friends.
Here is a visual that I think may be useful. Picture a long, linear spectrum of belief. To the far right is perfect correctness in all areas of theology. To the left is error.
Now all of us will put ourselves on this line somewhere, and most of us will put ourselves well onto the right-hand side. Then we can line up everyone else at some degree to the left of us (we would, of course, put no one to the right or we would believe what they do!).
So, the question becomes how far to the left of us does someone have to be to be considered a “false Gospel” or a “false Church”? How far down the line would we say someone is not saved and going to heaven?
Michael,
It sounds like you cannot even define what the gospel is or isn’t. I tend to think the gospel can be defined.
But I won’t bother you further. I am sorry if you thought you had been clear, I was having trouble figuring out where you stand. I guess your best answer is “I don’t knowâ€. Thanks for finally answering me.
Vance,
I believe your thinking is flawed. You keep putting an emphasis on personal beliefs rather than looking at the teachings of an organization. The question is, what is the gospel?
Vance, that is a good way to think of it.
But here is what I would add, that there is a line that is crossed when you affirm your sinfulness, Christ person and work, and salvation by grace alone through faith. If you were to deny any of those, I do think your Gospel would be false.
But as I said on the broadcast, Arminians and Calvinists would be as different as Catholics and Calvinists with regards to some of these issues.
Carrie, I would ask you if you believe that Arminians have a false Gospel since they believe you can lose your salvation?
Carrie, I would say that it is easy to say the Gospel can be firmly defined, but harder to actually define it. I think Michael’s concept of the historic creeds, etc, is the closest we can get. And, yes, I do focus on what an individual believes, and for two reasons:
1. It is individuals that are either saved or not saved, so what THEY believe is what matters.
2. Most people who belong to an organization do not even really understand what that organization believes in every detail. Ask the guy in the pew next to you next Sunday about a list of theological issues and see what you get.
Yes, there ARE absolutes, and I think the Bible makes sure we have a clear understanding of the basics. But I think most of what we have developed as theological constructs are just that, theological constructs of man to do their best to articulate the ways of God into human language. Necessarily flawed to begin with, but some closer than others. On those points, I would be hesitant to get too dogmatic.
Even the Westminster Confession says:
“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
So, those things necessary for salvation are clear, but beyond that, things in Scripture are less clear and human interpretation (and thus human fallibility) gets involved.
I just had to laugh at Ed Kratz! Touché brother! haha…
Michael this is a funny post. I think it reflects what you have been saying all along. I am relieved to now understand what you have been saying all along. ïŠ
Oh and no I do not think Arminians have a false Gospel (wait that is to the other Carrie here. Hi Carrie 🙂 )
At any rate, if only what we said to the pope could change his mind. He however doesn’t hold to the same views of church discipline as we do.
In regards to this entire discussion that has built up over the past week, I rest in the fact that God will save whom He will save. We proclaim His Truth and He does with it what He will. His Word will not return void.
Blessings,
Carrie
Carrie, I would ask you if you believe that Arminians have a false Gospel since they believe you can lose your salvation?
I believe in general a person is saved prior to becoming an Arminian or Calvinist.
This is my point, I think you all are confusing downstream theologies with the actual gospel. You are trying to define WHAT saves based on the beliefs of those you think are saved. That is confusing.
FYI, I don’t consider myself an Arminian or Calvinist – I am on the fence. Shocking, I know.
when you affirm your sinfulness, Christ person and work, and salvation by grace alone through faith.
I would agree with you here for the most part, but those things can be hard to define experientially, don’t you think? I know that they are because less than a year ago I lead my friend to Christ and I had a real difficult time trying to explain to her the difference b/w mental assent and true saving faith.
BTW, my concern with the RCC in this regard is even though they “say†all those things you have listed, they defy the actual meaning through their actions. That is why fruit is more trustworthy than words when judging.
When you have to expiate your own sins in purgatory, have you really put your faith in Christ for salvation? When faith and justification are conferred to an infant through baptism, maintained by the Eucharist and recovered by penance, is that grace? When the Muslim and other non-believers can be saved without ever professing Christ as their Savior, is that really the gospel?
To give a summary of Catholic doctrine on that point (that may cause any Catholic to cringe at my crude presentation), Christ’s death and sacrifice created all the Grace sufficient to overcome any and all sins you may commit, but you have to go fetch that grace to wash it clean. It is a pool of grace you have to drawn from and wash, as it were, as you sin again. When you die without a last good washing, you have not utilized all the grace available to you, so you are still a bit dirty when you die. Purgatory is simply the place where you can go and get that final washing from Christ’s grace. More like an antechamber to Heaven where you wash your hands before going into dinner (although some need a lot more washing than others!).
So, Catholics would say it all still is based on Jesus, and his Grace, but you have to avail yourself of it. This grace is available to Catholics through all of the sacraments. These are where you can draw from the pool and get Christ’s grace as you go along.
Very simplistic explanation, and probably not exactly how they would describe it, but I think it is pretty close.
. It is individuals that are either saved or not saved, so what THEY believe is what matters.
Absolutely. But I am not judging individual Catholics, I am judging an organization.
I am assuming you would consider the Mormons a false church since they are non-trinitarian, correct? So if you met a Mormon who really seemed to be saved, despite what their church teaches, would you no longer consider the Mormon church false?
Second question, if a Mormon was truly saved, would you expect them to stay in the Mormon church?
(Hi Carrie -great name! :))
Carrie and Carrie,
Great comments. Thanks for stimulating discussion. I know this seems pointless at times, but it is iron sharpening iron I believe. God be merciful to us all!
Vance,
The grace you described is not what I would consider biblical grace.
BTW Vance, I think you have fallen victim to Catholic’s soften touch on their doctrines. Your version of purgatory is not quite accurate:
“Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.â€
“…The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.”
-Catholic Encyclopedia
â€In the communion of saints, “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.” In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.†CCC 475
Vance, great presentation.
Here is what I would add (and now here I go again!). The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is very ill-defined and debated. In some cases, to hear Catholics explain it, it sounds essentially the same as our view of Sanctification.
Some would say that it is timeless (being outside of time) and therefore, practically speaking, instantaneous. I talk about this on the Theology Unplugged broadcasts about Roman Catholicism. In essence, we are all moving to a state of perfection. When we die, we all find ourselves at various levels of sanctification (we all agree to this point). When we reach glory, we will all be perfect (we all agree again). There must be a transformation that takes place between death and glory that perfects us (we all agree again!). Some catholics would say that this transformation is purgatory and it happens instantaneously. You may experience pain, but it is literally “glorifying pain.” Wow! If that is the case, we are not THAT far off. (How is that for softening the language of the million years of the past-nice job to the liberal Catholics-although this may not be simply a liberal thing).
What I have heard is much closer to what Michael describes, and I have gotten that explanation from Catholics directly. A radio show that is worth listening to is Catholic Answers Live, and you can get it as a podcast from iTunes. They are a pretty conservative lot and seem to be discussing modern Catholic doctrine, and fairly “by the book” at the same time.
Good point about the Mormons. I think that if they had a belief sufficient to salvation, they would have to be clearly outside Mormon belief, and so technically no longer Mormon. But you are right, the institutional positions are worth discussing since the individuals are all over the board.
But the question is still the same: how far down the spectrum does the belief have to be (whether expressed by an individual or an institution) before it is “false gospel” and how far before it results in a lack of salvation? Are those points the same?
….or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions
That is from Carrie’s definition of purgatory seen above.
That is very problematic because Christ paid it all.
Now my question is this…
If someone dies and at the moment of their death they are of the belief that Christ did not pay it all, what do we say about that?
Yes, there is a bit of a disconnect between the definitions Carrie cites and what Catholics are saying nowadays.
That is a VERY difficult question you pose Carrie Hunter. Normally I would say that a person who has called out to Christ for forgiveness and salvation, and is honestly seeking, but just has a bad theological view of how it all actually happens, is still saved. But this “bad theology” comes very close to a “salvation issue” of wrong belief. I would say it is too close to call for us humans and God is the only judge of that one. I definitely would NOT say that is a slam-dunk case of someone falling outside of Grace.
Thank you for your response Vance.
I have to say this now about everything that has being going on now for almost 2 weeks.
I think we can find a million and one things about RCC dogma that show a departure from forensic justification.
Michael like I said last night on the phone…we proclaim the truth, the truth of the Gospel, and God will use it for His purpose. We do this without compromise, yet we do this in gentleness and meekness. That is all we can do as believers.
If someone is in the RCC and is saved it is God’s doing. If someone is in the SBC and saved it is God’s doing.
God will save people in spite of their bad doctrine.
If we encounter people who think they can add to what Christ did on the cross, we simply tell them “No, you can not. His work is perfect and we can not add to itâ€. Explain why we believe this, and leave the rest up to God.
Is that throwing in the towel? Or is it resting in God’s Sovereignty?
Yes, there is a bit of a disconnect between the definitions Carrie cites and what Catholics are saying nowadays.
Bingo!
I really feel this is a big problem in the discussions on this blog. You guys are listening to what lay Catholics have to say but lay Catholics have no authority and confuse their own church’s doctrines. Trust me, I grew up an RC and still know many RCs – the RCC is a comfortable place for the traditionalist to the universalist.
If you really want to get a better grasp on where the RCC stands, then look to their official teachings. Don’t listen to lay Catholics, even Catholic Answers. I think it is fairly easy to label the RCC as a false church because their beliefs are so clearly defined and because every Catholic is expected to follow in lock-step 100%.
What I have seen online is a lot of e-pologists â€protestantizing†their beliefs. They want to be accepted by Protestants as brethren in Christ and unfortunately, this latest announcement by their church has taken the wind out of their sails. Clearly these tactics work on many people which is why a small few try to keep flush out the real beliefs (like James White).
God will save people in spite of their bad doctrine.
But will the saved remain in a church that is full of bad doctrine? Would you question the salvation of the leadership in a church ripe with bad doctrine?
What you are saying Carrie is what I started out trying to say. Let’s focus on preaching the gospel rather than building bridges to organizations that at a minimum are questionable. Don’t purse Rome, pursue the lost. The catch there is that you need to identify the lost and if you ignore the Catholics b/c you think their gospel is close enough, I think you have made a grave error.
I will still try to post some more official RCC teachings that I think deny the gospel.
In fairness to the Catholic Church, I would like to add the actual words of the Holy Father that were written when he was known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the are reiterated and clarified in a question/answer format in the document that is causing the stir here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html ….
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XIV) states his intention in the conclusion of his Dominus Iesus http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
23. The intention of the present Declaration, in reiterating and clarifying certain truths of the faith, has been to follow the example of the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the faithful of Corinth: “I handed on to you as of first importance what I myself received†(1 Cor 15:3). Faced with certain problematic and even erroneous propositions, theological reflection is called to reconfirm the Church’s faith and to give reasons for her hope in a way that is convincing and effective.
The Holy Father’s intention is clearly primarily to function in the teaching/pastoral capacity of his office. He’s doing his job for his Church—guiding his flock (Catholics) in the tenets of their faith and explaining the rationale. It is not addressed to the Protestant community or the Orthodox community—although both Protestants and Orthodox have an interest in what the Holy Father has to say.
In that regard, the former Cardinal Ratzinger simply expressed what has been the continual teaching of the Catholic : That the Church known as the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ. He is careful to explain this does NOT mean that other ecclesial communities are NOT TRUE, merely that the FULLNESS of truth is found only in the Catholic Church—the other communities have much to offer and can even be educational for Catholic laity, however, it is important to understand (as Cardinal Ratzinger points out) that what light there is in these other ecclesial communities, ultimately is sourced from the Church that Christ founded and which has maintained valid apostolic succession from the words of Christ.
To be frank—the Catholic position is that Jesus founded the One True Church and gave authority to Peter by giving him the “keys†to the kingdom and the power of “binding and loosing.†This authority can be historically traced through the ages via apostolic succession of laying on of hand in the episcopate of the Catholic Church. And finally, this valid Church—the single Church of Christ–established by Jesus himself and protected and preserved through the ages, is the source of all Christian truth both in the Catholic Church and in all other Christian communities.
This is the teaching of the Catholic Church and it is the Magisterium duty to inform the members of their Church concerning their beliefs. This is why Cardinal Ratzinger was careful to explain what he meant by “subsists in†in his original document Dominus Iesus.
This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with himâ€.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truthâ€,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Churchâ€.57
………………………..
17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Churchâ€.66
Great post Micheal!
It helps to have a sense of humor when dealing with such statements from the RCC, versus a knee-jerk reaction. By way of implication, some have only demonstrated to nip themselves by their own public statements.
I find it almost difficult to not to approach theology without a sense of humor (taking secondary issues too seriously).
I would rather learn through TTP than the catechisms.
Carrie,
It might be helpful to find out what “satisfaction” means in Catholic theology first or to lay out for your readers how it has been defined by official documents or at least representative Catholic theologians.
Catholicism doesn’t subscribe to a penal model of the atonement, so “satisfaction” for Catholic theologians like Anselm or Aquinas doesn’t mean what it means for Reformed Christians.
So for the intermediate state (aka purgatory) “satisfaction” as a term has a definate history of usage and development. It means more of something like amendment or correction of life/disposition rather than a paying God off for a debt. God requires sinners make amendment-set things right.
It is important to distinguish between popular abuses that Luther saw in his day like Tetzel and official and defined teaching. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in purgatory, but it doesn’t give you any credbility in the eyes of informed Catholics to attack a strawman based on a misunderstanding technical terms.
As for forensic justification, do you really want to say that people who considered it like Augustine and rejected it had a false gospel? Really?
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your suggestions. Sorry that I’m cramping your style.
I tend to do that to alot of non-believers. I don’t have an iPOD,
instead I have an infalliable access to God myself. You do know
that the problems with the Protestant sect could all be straightened
out with, oh I don’t know, say, top down theology. (Isn’t that
what you kids are saying these days?) Hey, here’s a novel idea,
why not let Christ appoint someone over the head of the Church
and then he could straighten out the issues. Oh, wait, sorry, he
already did that and you think your smarter than him. Your right,
you keep your sola scriptura (the view that anyone can interpret
the bible in any way they feel is right) and we will stick to the
teachings of the Apostles (of which I am) and the Church Fathers.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not sending you or anyone else to Hell.
If you end up in Hell you have no one to blame but yourself. I tell
you what. I’ll put your name on file and in say 63.8 years I’ll have a
mass said to get you out of Purgatory. And it won’t cost you a red
cent. How’s that for “progress”?
I whole heartedly endorse The “Theology” Program. It’s a perfect
way for Catholics to see how Protestants twist scripture and history
to their own demise.
In conclusion I can see how pride has blinded you. If you are a Jew
I have just reinstated a mass that would pray just for you. If not
then may God have mercy on your soul (this includes Chuck Swindoll
and your pope Rick Warren).
Lovingly in his Grace,
Pope Benedict XVI; Vicar of Christ
P.S. That’s Mr. Pope to you!
Perry,
You wrote,
“By Presbyterian and Lutheran principles the baptists are false churches too. And by Lutheran principles so are the presbyterians. Is perseverance of the saints an essential part of the gospel? If so, since the Lutherans deny it, do they have a false gospel? How about forensic imputation? Augustine considered and rejected it. Did he preach a false gospel too?”
C’mon Perry. Stick to topic on this. Don’t try to skirt around the issue Carrie raised, which was a good point.
Jay
CMP:
I would like to echo carrie’s question? Is the RCC true or false? (If you’re wondering why this question is so important, imagine talking to a brother in Christ that is spending much time with a Mormon elder, reading and recommending Mormon works, subtly jeering at his previous convictions, while claiming not to be crossing/swimming/fishing the Salt Lake)
You keep directing folks to your non-answer (ie. last night’s Dividing Line with James White). You suggest that the RCC has some soteriological issues, but their doctrine of God is correct.
OK, fine.
Now back to the question: Can a soteriological problem render any gospel as false?.
If you believe that Rome is true, based on correct doctrine of God (as well as their ecclesiology-per your confessed sympathy w/ Beckwith), is there anything regarding soteriology that they could possibly (infallibly) proclaim that would render them false in your mind? If so, what?
You answered my earlier post (a few days ago) by washing yourself of any implied relativistic bent, yet, I can’t help but scratch my head when I hear and read some of your perspectives regarding Rome.
Can we look at a system (armed with knowledge of the Bible) and determine it’s rightness or wrongness? My assmumtion is that you (CMP) would point to JW’s or Mormons and categorically declare their gospel as false. Is this assessment fair?
Here’s a topic for ‘combox tennis’: Should the following words be directed to anyone other than Christ? If so, to whom?
“In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul.”
If you said that this plea can be rightly directed to Mary, you’re right (by RCC standards).
Clearly, this is a soteriological question. Is it, however, offensive to you? If not, why?
I don’t mean “offensive” in a sense like someone lighting up a cigarette at table adjacent to your family in a restaurant “offensive,” I’m referring to an ache in your gut that comes from someone robbing from your Lord “offensive.”
If it is this offensive to you, why isn’t such (and there are many of the like) a prayer as this enough to sever your affair with Rome? Obviously, there are many offensive beliefs about which we differ from the RCC, but I selected this one to (hopefully) finally establish your position.
Your thoughts?
Seven and others, here is a simple question I posted in the “heresy” thread, which is also applicable here:
Can a heretic be saved? Can a heretic go to heaven?
Once we define what orthodoxy is, and thus what heresy is, that would mean that anyone who does not accept ANY one of those essentials is a heretic.
If we say that heretics can not be saved, then we say that anyone who does not accept one of the essentials, even if he accepts the rest, is not saved and is eternally damned.
So, looking at the list for an example: It someone believes, with all their heart, every single thing on that first list EXCEPT, say, the authority of the visible church, are they damned to Hell?
What if they accept the authority of the visible Church, and all the others, EXCEPT for the infallibility of the Scripture? Also damned to Hell?
I am not saying that it would not be the case, but it makes for interesting consideration. Ultimately the question is one that Michael and Rhome have brought up before: how LITTLE can a person get right, with a sincere heart, and still be under God’s Grace? How MUCH can a person get wrong in their understanding and still be going to heaven?
I am glad I am not the judge of that, but I see a lot of people who seem willing to pass judgment on such issues by labeling heresy/false Gospel. I agree that we must draw the line somewhere and be willing to call a spade a spade, but where do we draw the line?
Jybnntt,
She did raise a good point, and I am asking her and others to be consistent with it. It seems that you guys are playing by a double standard. Oh sure, Rome is heterodox but on the very same principles, you give protestants or your own historical personal heroes a free pass. I am asking her to be consistent. If you aren’t going to say Lutherans or others are heretics on the very same denials (perseverance of the saints, limited atonement, baptismal regeneration, qualifications for being a true church), then either you need to give a good reason as to why the principle doesn’t apply or you should not be identifying THE gospel by those theological markers, or you should call them heretics too.
Felicity,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify some things. I can sense your concern and really appreciate it.
You statement here was particularly helpful:
“That the Church known as the Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ. He is careful to explain this does NOT mean that other ecclesial communities are NOT TRUE, merely that the FULLNESS of truth is found only in the Catholic Church—the other communities have much to offer and can even be educational for Catholic laity, however, it is important to understand (as Cardinal Ratzinger points out) that what light there is in these other ecclesial communities, ultimately is sourced from the Church that Christ founded and which has maintained valid apostolic succession from the words of Christ.”
Thanks again.
For those of you reading, Felicity is a friend from Catholic Answers. She puts up a great “fight.” Welcome Felicity.
Seven, I already answered it here, there, and on this blog in explicit posts. Do you really think that all things are equally clear in Scripture? If not, are you a relativist?
Am I a relativist simply because I say that the requirement for belief in the resurrection and the Lordship of Christ is clearer than the doctrine of sola fide? This is a fact. It does not mean that sola fide is not important, but Catholics do have a point about the confusion of James 2. You should at least try to understand where they are coming from even if you don’t agree. While I believe that Paul was very clear about the doctrine, it is not THAT clear in the rest of Scripture and some people will honestly read James 2 and take it at face value. Do you really blame them. Are they going to be damned to hell for this. Yes, it lacks the fullness of the Gospel, but I don’t think it is ultimately damning in and of itself. What is damning is a denial of salvation by grace through faith, the person and work of Christ, and human sinfulness.
It is faith in Christ alone that saves, not an explicit affirmation of this doctrine.
Do you believe that Arminians who believe that you can lose their salvation have a false Gospel and are damned?
For some reason, no one wants to answer this, but, ultimately, there is no difference.
Michael
Vance,
I believe that a heretic can indeed be saved. With historic orthodoxy, there are those central things laid out in the Bible that people CANNOT reject and be Christian: The deity of Christ (Rom. 10) and his work (1 Cor. 15).
But, for example, as off the wall as it is, I believe that full preterists, who are, by definition, heretics, can still be believers.
Michael
Perry,
The question at hand is whether Roman Catholic dogma teaches a false gospel. If protestant dogma (i.e. a confession of faith) teaches the same principle soteriological error then it also teaches a false gospel.
Lutheran dogma (The Book of Concord) does not teach the same error. Are there any Protestant confessions that do? I don’t know, but if they do I assure you that I would indeed evaluate them the same.
Okay, now that that is off the table, back to the main point . . .
Pope,
Why would an infallible teacher need to give a reason for anything he says?
Jay
Bennet,
Oh? wso Lutheranism teaches the perseverance of the saints? Thats news! The denial of which was your previous basis for saying that Catholicism teaches a false gospel.
Perry,
I’m not sure which comment you are referring to. I do not recall saying that.
Also, failing to teach a doctrine and outright rejection are two different things.
The Book of Concord teaches a monergistic view of salvation. God alone is the sole, ultimate, only, alone, by himself, efficient cause of one’s salvation.
But again, totally beside the point.
Jay
I will say this only once to Michael. Please refrain your flock from
addressing me. This letter is addressed to me. I know that you
Protestants think that everything written is written to you. But,
in this case when a letter is addressed to a person it is for that
person from another person. Namely Michael and Myself. I think it
would be rather wise of you to abide by the authority given in this
blog and show respect.
Thank you Michael for seeing to this issue.
In His Loving Grace
Pope Benedict XVI; Vicar of Christ
P.S. that’s Mr. Poep to you M. Jay Bennett
sorry M Jay *
Mr. Pope
I’ve been gone on a business trip since Dan’s last post. So, please excuse my ignorance if I’ve missed anything.
To CMP, Vance, Perry Robinson, Dan Wallace, and all other ecumenical types:
carrie and Seven have brought up a great point concerning the Mormons, and so, I think this point needs to be emphasized.
Hypothetically, let’s say that you have someone that believes in all the historic, orthodox distinctives of Protestant Christianity (deity of Christ, Trinity, sola gratia, solus Christus, etc.) EXCEPT that this individual *denies* that Christ came in the flesh. Would that be grounds for exclusion from the Covenant (1 John 4:3)?
Secondly, using your standards, on what basis could Paul exclude the Judaizers (Galatians 1:6-10)? I mean, they didn’t deny the Messiahship of Jesus or His atonement on the cross. They simply added circumcision to the gospel. Paul was such a bigot! How dare he?!?
[BTW: Unless I am mistaken, it still remains that no one has given an exegesis of Galatians 1 and why that would not apply to Roman Catholicism.]
Oooooohhh. . . . where’s the infallibility now, Mr. Poep? 🙂
Respectfully,
Jya
Sorry Poep,
Jay (I am fallible after all) 🙂
Vance said, “If we say that heretics can not be saved, then we say that anyone who does not accept one of the essentials, even if he accepts the rest, is not saved and is eternally damned.”
No. We exclude them from the visible church and *consider* them heathen (Matthew 18:17). It is the job of the church to enforce orthodoxy. If they do make it to heaven, then it wasn’t the church’s fault for exclusion.
Second, how do you deal with the Scriptural statements which state that those who deny the essentials “have cut themselves off from Christ” (Galatians 5:4), are “antichrists” (1 John 2:22), “are not from God” (1 John 4:3), etc.?
Vance said, “Can a heretic be saved? Can a heretic go to heaven?”
I would differentiate between Heresy (i.e. a denial of essentials) and heresy (i.e. denial of non-essentials). As to ‘H’eresy, John clearly states that “there is a sin leading to death” (1 John 5:16). In the context of 1 John, this sin was Gnostic teaching. So, a denial of essentials should result in the exclusion from the Covenant (or at least visibly by the church).