There is no doubt about the divisions within Roman Catholicism as well. And people from all sides claim to be interpreting “infallible dogma” correctly. Everyone will be held accountable for their private fallible interpretation of infallible revelation, whether they call themselves Protestant or Catholic.

There is a fear in leaving the magisterium, for it leaves one feeling vulnerable and thinking how can they possible grasp the truth when there are so many divisions among those who are not Roman Catholic. But in reality, there is great unity among Protestants about the gospel, of those who actually hold to the Bible as their ultimate authority. This idea that if one is incorrect about a lesser-emphasised topic in Scripture, then they will surely be incorrect about the more essential doctrines, is not true. For the most part, the Bible is clear on so much and Protestants find themselves in agreement about these things. The solution to disagreement is not an infallible interpreter, but humility and love, and time. And perhaps all sides shouldn’t emphasise things as necessary that the Bible doesn’t.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I am sure that it is very helpful for many as we think through these difficult issues.

You’re welcome.

I agree that nothing has changed in the dogmatics, but the direction and perception get altered and discouraged with hard-line statements are reiterated rather than softening in their articulation. VII softened many things from previous declarations. Of since I am not committed to papal or magisterial infallibility, I see this progress as change. But either way, this does seem to be a road block, detour, or a red light.

James White was exactly right in this respect: absolutely nothing has changed (not even in questions of tone and approach), and whoever thinks it has is simply unacquainted with the relevant catholic documents. It’s much ado about nothing. The so-called “spirit of Vatican II” is pure Catholic liberalism. One must read the document itself. Go to the sources; just as I do when I critique Protestantism.

Yes, but again, I think the language and rhetoric is very harsh are seem dismissive of progress that has been made.

It’s amazing to me that the positive aspects in the statement are passed right over, as are infinitely worse “potshots” in Protestant documents that are literally lying about Catholic beliefs and practices. For example, somewhere in the Lutheran confessions (it’s documented in one of my papers) the Catholic mass is directly equated with worship of Baal. We all know how often various Protestant confessions use antichrist to describe the pope or the Catholic system of theology. And you’re concerned about our tone in simply asserting our ecclesiology as it has always been and always will be?

ME: “To be interpreted differently on this matter of ecclesiology, we would have to cease to be Catholic.”

Again, this comes down to a difference in your terming it progression while I have no problem saying it is “interpreted differently.” Either way, the documents themselves need interpretation and clarification. I would be comfortable with Catholics saying, “You did not understand us? This is what we meant.” But this is not what is said here.

If indeed it is nothing new at all (as I contend and as James White does from an opposed theological perspective), then it follows that for you to require us to drop this sort of language in order to come to the table and do ecumenism with Protestants and to be loved and respected and regarded with great respect and affection as good tolerant postmodernists, we would have to (quite simply) adopt some variant of Protestant ecclesiology and ditch our historic understanding of same.

This is, of course, extremely intolerant and unreasonable on your part to in effect demand such a thing. We’re not allowed to hold our view, in other words, without being subjected to Protestant accusations of our supposed triumphalism, arrogance, and intolerance and something akin to “anti-Protestantism.”

But if that is so, of what purpose is ecumenism at all? If one party requires the other to adopt certain of its beliefs in order to sit down and talk and try to mutually understand at all, then this is the very furthest thing from ecumenism: it is coercion and the very essence of religious intolerance.

ME: “I would suspect that they were liberals or inadvertently influenced by liberal Catholic thought, and insufficiently acquainted with Catholic teaching. The pope is not a “hard liner”. He is simply an orthodox Catholic who correctly understand Vatican II and ecumenism in a proper Catholic sense. Pope John Paul II was neither a “hard liner” nor more ecumenical than Pope Benedict XVI. They are both equally committed to Catholic doctrine and dogma, Vatican II, and ecumenism (as I am myself).”

Please don’t take this disrespectfully, but this is the conclusion that your system necessitates.

Exactly! Then why don’t you accept it as such, instead of futilely trying to redefine Catholic teaching according to Protestant (and to some extent, postmodernist) presuppositions?

In other words, you have to say that he is interpreting VII correctly because of his presupposed authority. You don’t really have a choice to do otherwise.

I wasn’t arguing about the papacy and its prerogatives here; rather, I was strongly disagreeing with your characterizations of the two popes, as if they are different. They are not at all.

It is not so much that I am hoping that Catholics are becoming more Protestant per se,

I think it is the logical conclusion of some of your statements, as I believe I have demonstrated. I think if you pknder what I am saying and think more about some stuff you have said, you might see my point and even agree with it.

but that we have simply, do SOME degree, been talking past each other. I think that battle lines cause people to defend issues in a sincere yet imbalanced way. See my Advice to Christian Apologists.

Absolutely. It happens all the time.

Well, I do think the smoke from the reformation is clearing and we are redefining or better articulating sola Scriptura to mean more than the popular notion that the Scripture is our only source of authority, which is not true. Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is our only infallible and final authority. Therefore, while we may not change, I think that our defining of the issues, on both sides, makes us closer than the early polemics suggest.

Yep; I agree 100% Many many Catholics do not properly understand what sola Scriptura means (i.e., as explicated by its most able defenders). Likewise, many Protestants don’t have a clue as to how Catholics relate Bible, Tradition, and Church.

Yes, but there also seems to be disagreement among committed Catholics concerning the particulars of VII. Isn’t this true?

Not all that much among orthodox Catholics, that I have seen. Most significant disagreement would be between orthodox and liberal, dissenting Catholics (just as Protestants have their never-ending internal struggles with liberals in their ranks: we’re both infected with this problem (as was the early Church).

“I am not sure what this will do to the ethos of the situation or the tone of the conversation between irenic Catholics and Protestants,

ME: It should do nothing whatsoever, for anyone who is familiar with Vatican II statements on ecumenism and recent encyclicals along the same line. They are all of a piece.”

Come on . . . you have to say that Dave

It is irrelevant what I “have” to say. This is simply an assertion of fact: so obvious that even James White and myself agree about this: he utterly opposing the teachings and I fully accepting them, but both understanding what exactly the teachings are, under consideration.

Again, your system does not allow otherwise.

In this case, the facts of the matter, as plainly seen in the documents, do not allow otherwise.

You do not have the option to critically question whether or not this is the case because of the presumptions of authority.

That’s absolutely irrelevant to the point at hand. One can state facts of a particular matter even if he comnpletely disagrees with theology that is tied in with the facts (hence, James white states the Catholic ecclesiological teaching under scrutiny here accurately, while not believing it. I have done the same, and I happen to believe it. But my belief in the theology has nothing to do whether the fact of the teaching is true or not.

But, fair enough . . . I hope that the next Pope softens the language as VII did.

Vatican II states exactly the same. Where do you think the description “ecclesial communities” was famously used? If this is what is ticking so many Protestants off, then, like I said, they need to be angry at Vatican II as well. For example, Decree on Ecumenism, 3:

“For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.”

This doesn’t mean that no Protestant can be saved, however, because in the immediately preceding paragraph, it was stated that Protestants “have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation.”

That’s OUR view. But even you yourself, in contrast, on James White’s Dividing Line tonight, said that Catholics can only be saved despite the teaching of their own communion (which is classic anti-Catholic rhetoric).

but it certainly has reiterated that the supreme bishop of Rome does not want progression in the way it was seeming to head.

Nope; I couldn’t disagree more, and have already explained why, at length.

Well, of course, this comes down to some fundamental disagreements about the nature of the Body of Christ.

Of course it does; that is the whole point, and is why it is absurd for you to be disappointed simply because we disagree with you. You already knew that we did that!

I do think that Peter Kreeft, in his recent MP3 on ecumenism displayed something much different. But, he is not the Pope

That’s right, and since he is not the pope, he doesn’t have the concern of guiding and leading a Church and being extremely careful with language. He is an apologist (like myself) who tries his best to speak in terms that Protestants can relate to. Vatican II urged all Catholics to do this. It’s one reason I am a Catholic myself, because a friend of mine took that approach to me when I was a Protestant and it bore fruit.

Well, I would disagree as well. At least from our perspective, you must understand how offensive what he said was.

Are you saying that you were previously unacquainted with the Catholic doctrine of “one true Church” as applied to itself (In find that hard to believe)? If you knew about it, there would be no grounds whatsoever for “offense.” I am truly baffled why this would offend anyone who already knew the teaching. I’m not offended by a Protestant asserting sola fide or sola Scriptura. I expect that just as I would for a dog to bark or a chicken to lay eggs. Being “offended” is irrelevant. It’s simply the reality of what is.

Truly try to think about it.

I don’t need to because I’ve dealt with these issues for 26 years as an apologist and 17 as a Catholic apologist. It doesn’t make any sense to me. If you as a Protestant are so concerned about tolerance and unity as much as possible, then you should attack mentalities of anti-Catholics like James White, who divide and polemicize and do little good at all when dealing with Catholicism (whereas he does a lot of good and helpful work in other areas) rather than object to us saying what we have always said.

Again, I realize that it is nothing new, but the language was softening which was about as close “I’m sorry” as we were going to get.

Huh? You expected us to say we were sorry for beliving that the Catholic Church is the Church? Nuh-uh. That is not going to happen, I can assure you. And there was not the slightest indication that it would happen in any Catholic official document. If you disagree, then you can easily produce an example of what you are saying.

I, myself, am willing to take a softening of the language. But to say once again, we are not true churches backs us up quite a bit.

Join the crowd. I get sick and tired of James White and his anti-Catholic cronies telling me I’ll go to hell if I accept Catholic teachings, that I am a Pelagian and idolater and apostate, who is in an evil system and an antichrist church: the whore of Babylon; that my own ministry is deliberately leading people top hell and the devil, and all the worthless rotgut that Calvin and Luther and lots of other folks have said about my Church for 500 years. If you are offended by this statement of Catholic ecclesiology, you wouldn’t last a day — not one — listening to all the crap I hear on literally a daily basis.

It has to do with an ethos that is set in with many. Not so much when documents were signed or when people said I am sorry. But again, look at it from our perspective. The Pope seemed to close the door more publicly yesterday.

I’m sorry; such an appraisal cannot possibly be familiar with the trajectory of authentic Catholic ecumenism over the time period you refer to.

I appreciate your spirit of compromise and willingness to change your view to better reflect those of the Evangelical church and concede to all that I believe

Not sure what all this means, but thanks, I guess! (scratching my head).

Really, I do thank you for your time Dave. I pray that God blesses you and your ministry to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you; and I hope and pray the same for your own ministry, especially in those broad areas where we would completely agree as Christians.

I hope you have not been offended by my frankness and directness. It’s just me. I can’t hem and haw and tiptoe around issues. I must face them head-on. Some people don’t care for my style for that very reason. But I can only be me, and we all have our personalities and styles and can hardly avoid them. Not all will like any given style, as you well know, I’m sure, in your own apologetic endeavors.

To M Burke: you said the Marian dogmas are required for Catholics to believe for salvation. Can you point me to where that is written please? The last I had heard, it wasn’t considered necessary but I could very well be wrong. Thanks!

Since we’re discussing definitions here…

“…according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church — but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

The Marian dogmas are thus considered ” truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.”

“We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother. All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin — in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world… And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.” – Pius IX

Oh, but what does it matter! Modern Catholics say all sorts of things!

“There are various degrees of error as well, but this does not make the entire system and all its parts flawed does it?”

Can we say the same of any group that names Christ? How much cyanide can be poured into pure water until it’s deadly? It is one thing to recognize the historic orthodoxy within Catholic theology, but to laud it in lieu of condemning error is hardly useful. When one examines the errors of Rome, are the errors merely of degree or are they more damaging to the Gospel? The Reformers certainly thought the errors of Rome were such that it was necessary to part company, what has changed? When the current Pontif and Magisterium reiterate infallibly that Rome is the only true church (along with all her dogmas) it is clear that this is not merely a question of “degree of error”. A poster at this very blog declared Rome to be a “cult”. Do we “build bridges” to cults or do we seek to save their members through apologetics coupled with evangelism?

“They are great defenders of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the hypostatic union, the sinfulness of man, etc. I am pro-these vital doctrines which are a part of their system.”

But these are not distinctive of Roman Catholicism; historic Protestantism (as opposed to Arminianism) has also upheld these beliefs. These beliefs of historic Christianity are not resultant from the ritual system of Roman Catholicism but are in spite of it and contrary to it. You can be “pro” these doctrines but you must recognize and denounce the deadly error that is within Rome. Again, the dogmas of the Mass etc are not merely “matters of degree.”

“I am anti-infallibility and very much against the idea of mortal sins which send you to hell even if you trust Christ. Missing mass without a valid excuse is very difficult for me.”

But these doctrines have now been infallibly declared as dogma, they’re irrevocably enshrined within the genius of the Romans Catholic system. As the recent declaration makes evident, it really is an all or nothing proposition. I think a previous poster makes the case even better than I, “You need to study a bit more the relationship between Catholic orthodoxy and Catholic ecumenism.”

“Therefore, I feel they truly lack the fullness of the Gospel.”

This seems to indicate that they’re just a little off… is that really what you’re saying?

“But I also believe that Arminian who believe you can lose your salvation lack its fullness. They carry a heavy burden that Christ already took.”

Indeed, but such true Arminians are a rare breed and generally have other soteriological issues as well that almost certainly place them outside what would be considered orthodox. Most “Arminians” today are so because of both their own ignorance and the ignorance of their leadership and not because they’ve sat down and really examined the issues.

“You said:
“Do you accept the Marian dogmas (doctrines that must be believed for salvation, according to Roman Catholic teaching)”
No, but they do interpret these things differently. But I think they would even agree that these things can be abused and misunderstood.

How does one who presents the historic (and dare I say “infallible”) understanding of something “abuse” it whereas someone who constantly redefines it is somehow presenting truth?

There are volumes of writings on these issues, its not as if these are single statements that remain mysterious and open to definition! We can know for certain (and I highly recommend that all those who strive to involve themselves in apologetics study) what Roman Catholics actually believe. It certainly seems though, in this day and age, that the question of what “is” is has become central.

You said:
“Or believe that the Council of Trent did not pronounce anathema on Protestantism (as a direct consequence of the beliefs and teachings of Martin Luther) and that all these 4 centuries of debate is all over a misunderstanding?”
I don’t want to tell them how to interpret their documents. This has been my point. If they want to interpret them in a certain way that makes them seem different than they were in the 16th century, why not let them? Are we the watch dog of their hermeneutics, requiring them to follow a strict historical-grammatical authorial intent interpretation?

Words do have meanings, meanings can be understood from context and grammar… or have we (they?) gone so far to obfuscate things so as to make it impossible to understand what they believe?

Again, it is not as if these dogmas exist in a vacuum of single statements and declarations. With folks like Dave Armstrong around reminding us what has been said before, one needn’t claim ignorance to what they believe. It is also the apologists job to hold people accountable to the claims of their various systems, words have meanings and really cannot be redefined daily. I realize this is part of a larger debate over words and meanings, but we cannot allow Madonna theology (the singer, not the mother of God) to allow some form of agreement where none truly exists. Words having meanings, contra Madonna, and those meanings are evident in what has been written, otherwise the job of the apologist is an impossible one and we should go find something useful to do with our times like mumble incoherently in a corner.

You said:
“On what basis do you, a non-Roman Catholic, outside of the communion of Rome declare what is and isn’t the proper interpretation of Roman Catholicism? Since the Catholic Church doesn’t even give its own members such a right, surely you the lone ‘evangelical’ cannot declare truth in opposition to the centuries of Magisterial declaration.”

I don’t at all. But the fact is that those within the Church differ on how to interpret their own documents. Do you think that Catholic are monolithic in the interpretation of their own doctrine? If so, I think you should begin to speak more broadly to their scholars.

Again, this seems very naïve, Rome doesn’t allow individual communicants the right to interpret doctrine or Scripture, but what the Magisterium has historically determined is how things are to be understood and those determinations are available for reading. The claim of monolithic belief is the very claim of Roman Catholicism!

Individual Roman Catholics will often squirm on certain difficult issues, but their squirming does not change what Rome has infallibly declared nor does it give them authority to change Roman dogma.

There are folks who still believe the Earth is flat… does we really need to have a debate on the meaning of “flat” to recognize the error in their belief? Surely there aren’t “levels of flatness” that can be argued?!

You said:
“Also, how differently can one interpret “you must believe that ‘Mary was without original sin and actual sin, being filled with all grace and virtue, from conception unto her Assumption… to be saved’”? How differently can the Mass wherein Christ is “sacrificed again” (according to infallible Catholic teaching) be interpreted? These are not secondary issues, rather, these types of things strike at the heart of the Gospel.”

I would disagree that these are necessarily destructive to the saving grace of the Gospel. I totally disagree with these doctrines. But at the same time, I am not trying to say that we are the same. I have just made the statements that on many things we are closer than we thought. Even so close as some intra-Protestant denominations.

Wow, just… wow. The requirement of a continual, bloodless sacrifice of Christ that expiates the sins of those who partake of it and provides relief from time in purgatory is not “destructive to the saving grace of the Gospel”? The requirement for salvation that one believe that the human mother of Christ was free from sin throughout her life and was assumed into heaven isn’t “destructive to the saving grace of the Gospel”? If by this you mean that God can save men and women in spite of apostasy (and thus bring them into fuller understanding of the truth), I agree, if however you mean that the Roman Catholic system of merit, purgation and contra-Biblical dogma is simply another saving form of the Gospel, I totally disagree.

I could make the same argument about the Church of Christ’s view of baptismal regeneration or the Methodists view of the security of the believer. As well, I could look to the Pentecostals view of authority (being that they have prophets) and see the exact same issues that I have with the Pope. Do you see what I am saying? Why don’t Protestants see a parallel between these groups and Catholics and at least give Catholics the same grace they give to them?

If by the “Church of Christ” you indicate the various Campbellite groups, then you miss the fact that their view of baptism (not even baptismal regeneration) is tied to their failure to recognize the fallenness of man. What the Church of Christ believes about human effort and sin places them squarely within the historic church’s condemnation of Pelagianism. If that isn’t apparent to you, perhaps you shouldn’t use this as an example. I’ve spoken with Church of Christ members and teachers, I’ve debated their apologists… if you think the Church of Christ and Pentecostals are simply a little off, then we have a much larger disagreement, for not only would I, but they themselves don’t consider themselves “Protestant”.

ou said:
“With Pope Benedict XVI reiterating (infallibly?!) that the Roman Catholic Church is the only one true church and the current Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia issuing plenary indulgences(!!!), it seems that Dr. White’s understanding of Catholicism is more relevant than what has been posted here.”
The issue has never been about relevance or who is correct. It is about our approach, method, and attitude. This is where I part ways with James White.

How is it somehow more honorable to close our eyes to what has been said and defined and join in some some fuzzy ecumneical love fest than to stand for what we believe and expect others to do the same?

What do you mean “approach, method and attitude”? It seems that it isn’t about approach, method or attitude but actual content. You seem to differ with Dr. White on many aspects of what Rome believes and yet claim that you’re some how doing Roman Catholics a favor by “not defining” what they believe.

It is evident from what you’ve said here that you disagree with Dr. White, and apparently other posters at this very blog, that Rome is a cult and that its members require the Gospel for salvation. You decry Dr. White’s method as “anti-catholic” and yet claim to give advice on humility while showing that you neither understand nor seem willing to examine Roman Catholicism on the basis that you’re afraid of falsely defining what they believe. I’m not talking about who is right or wrong, rather who’s viewpoint is more relevant to what Roman Catholics actually believe and the proper response one should have toward them.

Given Dave Armstrong’s reply on this post, it remains evident that the content of Dr. White’s apologetic not only correct, but it provides the Protestant believer with the proper method and point of contact. We’re not to build a bridge to “cults”, rather we’re to expose the fallacy of their foundation and “with gentleness and reverence” lead them to the truth. But today we seem to have mistaken “gentleness and reverence” with ignorance and false humility. Strangely enough, on this point, I firmly agree with Dave Armstrong!

“Everyone personally knows Catholics who, while espousing Catholicism, do all sorts of things expressly taught to the contrary of their Church, this doesn’t mean that Roman Catholicism is in some process toward orthodoxy, in fact it simply underscores the failure of the Roman system. The only bright light here is that it provides the Protestant an opportunity to show their Catholic acquaintance the truth of freedom in Christ and a way out of Roman Catholicism.”

No, these are Catholic apologists who disagree. There are hardliners, moderates, and liberals. All committed to Rome, but all interpret her differently.

Of course! When the going gets tough, Catholics punt!

I’ve heard Catholic apologists say all manner of things when confronted by the facts of what the Early Church Fathers have said, or what their Magisterium has declared, but what remains is what is written. If nothing else, the fact that so many Roman Catholics interpret Roman doctrine so differently is not a sign of potential positive movement in Rome’s doctrine, rather it is the sign of an internally flawed system… but varying opinions (again by INDIVIDUAL CATHOLICS who have NO AUTHORITY to make decisions on such matters) have no bearing on the official beliefs of Rome. This is why the official proclamations and documents are so important, for no matter how much like nailing-jello-to-the-wall-squirmy Roman Catholic apologists are, the official documents determine what Rome believes, and reminding said Catholics of such is the good apologist’s job. This is why I’m thankful for such pronouncements from Rome as have recently been issued, they clarify Rome’s true stance against the shifting views of individual Roman Catholics.

Again, keep in mind that the claim of an infallible interpreter and authority is one of the central arguments used by Roman apologists and evangelists in wooing evangelicals to Rome. If, as you seem to think, Roman Catholic doctrine is malleable by the beliefs and views of individual liberal scholars and the occasional e-pologist, then we should actually see such changes occurring, instead (in this 400+ year debate), as recently as 1950 we have Rome creating ever more infallible gaps between Rome and Protestantism.

You said:
“What individual Roman Catholics believe about specific doctrines within their system is unimportant given the authority structure of the church. You seem not to be aware that Rome teaches that individual believers cannot personally interpret Scripture, and that apart from infallible, authoritative, commentary from the Pope and/or Magisterium they cannot be truly sure what any specific verse of Scripture teaches. This point is central to this discussion and seems absent in the posts and replies here.”

This is simply not true. All information requires interpretation. To some degree, you are interpreting my comments right now. Although in my mind they seem to make sense this does not mean that you are interpreting me correctly. Even the Pope’s statement yesterday is being interpreted differently by different people. All information, but its nature, must be interpreted.

Oh for goodness sake. Let Madonna and her ilk have the “words have no meaning” bologna and be done with it. Words do have meanings and their meanings are not alterable by the views of individuals later. Just because Roman Catholics attempt to reframe the meanings of doctrines and dogmas defined in the past, they do so only to attempt to appeal to the sensibilities of modern thinking, and this hardly helps the Protestant evangelist but simply liberalizes the discussion and further distances any discussion of “truth”.

You said:
“Rome has ‘infallibly’ declared anathema on Biblical Christianity”

I agree. (Now I feel like I am starting to be forced to argue points that I don’t even fully agree with But here is the 1 million dollar question: What does anathema mean? Some Catholics will say it means you are going to hell (hardliners), some will say it means that you are outside the graces of the Church (moderates), some will say it has been revoked (more liberal).

This is silly, and indicates to me that there really is no point discussing further as it is evident that every word will be examined and redefined again and again. This constant Clintonesque redefinition is pointless and really does nothing to serve either side. Be honest about what you believe, and what has historically been believed or don’t bother. I say this to Protestants and Catholics alike. Let your yes be yes and no be no…

The fact that some wish to minimize the language only serves to show either how ignorant they are of history or that they’re not serious about what they believe in the first place and are perhaps the last people we should be talking to. The fact that you’re willing to engage in such discussion speaks volumes.

Micah Burke

I wanted to add a few things to the debate.

First, I wanted to post a link to a live discussion about the Pope’s decree on Christianity Today. It is interesting to see the comments in context to what we have been saying: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/07/the_reformation_1.html

Second, I wanted to point out http://www.getreligion.org ‘s post on this same news story: http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2538#comments

I thought they where interesting to view in the context of our ongoing discussion. God Bless.

Amen to M. Burke. I thought his comment was excellent.

I am not a regular reader of this blog and have only read the last few posts here, but I felt the need to speak up about some of the themes here that sadden and confuse me.

I am somewhat baffled as to why you would want to build some sort of ecumenical bridge to Roman Catholicism. Quite simply, the gospel of Rome is not the gospel of Christ, it is a false gospel. Any bridge that would be built should simply be a means to get people out of that false system.

You state your beliefs are fairly in line with James White but that your methodologies are just different but that doesn’t seem true at all. It seems your message is quite different from James which concerns me. You all here seem somewhat surprised by the latest proclamation of the Pope which makes me wonder if you truly understand the teachings of Roman Catholicism (he said nothing new). Combined with the fact that you seem to want to find some common ground with a false church makes me hope that you truly don’t understand what the RCC is all about, otherwise I have to ask, whose next, the Mormons?

I do not believe that unity is something we should be striving for in the way that seems to be promoted on this blog. Unity is something that should simply occur when people come to a knowledge of the true gospel of Christ. We should be striving to bring Catholics into a true communion with Christ rather than looking for some common ground that we can erroneously call communion. Light has no place with darkness.

As a simple believer, it seems to me that you guys are over-analyzing this on a theological level. Debating what doctrines are essential or not, how many false doctrines can one believe before no longer being a Christian, etc. There is nothing wrong with those types of discussions but I think it misses what seems blatantly obvious to me.

Justification (being saved) is a transaction that occurs between a person and God. If a person has been truly saved (in God’s eyes) that person now has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I do not believe for a minute that the Holy Spirit would sit around at mass and listen to all the false beliefs that belittle the grace of God for very long. A saved person will eventually leave the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, I am not saying that every Roman Catholic is not saved – I think some are, but they are saved despite the false teachings of the RCC and I would expect them to eventually leave. When you are truly in Christ, the teachings of the RCC will make you very uncomfortable. The majority of former RC/now Protestants know exactly what I mean.

I would stop focusing on individuals Catholics and focus on the Catholic Church. Is it a false church or not. If it is, then there can be no common ground and it must be opposed. Free its members from the bondage of slavery using the gospel of Christ and leave the false system to its own devices.

I apologize if I have painted anyone here with a broad brush. This topic is very important to me as this is bigger than just Roman Catholicism but stricks at the heart of the gospel. It is sad for me to think that the Pope seems more consistent and firm in his false beliefs than we collectively as Protestants are in the one and only gospel of grace. Hopefully that is not the case.

Hi Joanie,

You write:
“To M Burke: you said the Marian dogmas are required for Catholics to believe for salvation. Can you point me to where that is written please? The last I had heard, it wasn’t considered necessary but I could very well be wrong. Thanks!”

There are four de fide Marian dogmas that must be assented to if one is to be a faithful Catholic.

1)Mother of God
2)Perpetual Virginity (which includes virgin inpartu, which means that Mary remained bodily intact during the birth of Christ)
3)Immaculate Conception
4)Bodily Assumption

Number’s 3 & 4 were proclaimed ex cathedra (whereas the first two were by councils). You can read those proclaimations here:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MUNIF.HTM

What you might be thinking of in what you posted would be “Co-Redemptrix,” which has not been defined as a de fide dogma.

You may find this site helpful to learning what Catholicism teaches concerning Mary:

http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/aboutmary2.html

I apologize for not being as thorough as I would like, as I am at work.

Douglas Mabry
(Gojira)

To Dave Armstrong: very well-written and considered post you have written with helpful clarifications. Thank you.

To M Burke: you said the Marian dogmas are required for Catholics to believe for salvation. Can you point me to where that is written please? The last I had heard, it wasn’t considered necessary but I could very well be wrong. Thanks!

Joanie D.

Hey Dave,

Thanks for taking the time to do this. I am sure that it is very helpful for many as we think through these difficult issues.

Your comments are in bold and in quotes:

“No one should have any “egg” on their faces. Nothing has changed!”

I agree that nothing has changed in the dogmatics, but the direction and perception get altered and discouraged with hard-line statements are reiterated rather than softening in their articulation. VII softened many things from previous declarations. Of since I am not committed to papal or magisterial infallibility, I see this progress as change. But either way, this does seem to be a road block, detour, or a red light.

“2) I don’t think “illegitimacy” is helpful or adequate. Why is it surprising that Catholics reiterate that Protestants lack apostolic succession and ordination? That has always been our position. We can only call the catholic Church “the Church” by the very nature of our ecclesiology; otherwise, our ecclesiology would be Protestant. So this is simply the reality of how the two camps approach the issue differently.”

Yes, but again, I think the language and rhetoric is very harsh are seem dismissive of progress that has been made.

“To be interpreted differently on this matter of ecclesiology, we would have to cease to be Catholic.”

Again, this comes down to a difference in your terming it progression while I have no problem saying it is “interpreted differently.” Either way, the documents themselves need interpretation and clarification. I would be comfortable with Catholics saying, “You did not understand us? This is what we meant.” But this is not what is said here.

“I would suspect that they were liberals or inadvertently influenced by liberal Catholic thought, and insufficiently acquainted with Catholic teaching. The pope is not a “hard liner”. He is simply an orthodox Catholic who correct5ly understand Vatican II and ecumenism in a proper Catholic sense. Pope John Paul II was neither a “hard liner” nor more ecumenical than Pope Benedict XVI. They are both equally committed to catholic doctrine and dogma, Vatican II, and ecumenism (as I am myself).”

Please don’t take this disrespectfully, but this is the conclusion that your system necessitates. In other words, you have to say that he is interpreting VII correctly because of his presupposed authority. You don’t really have a choice to do otherwise.

“We do not have to cement our polemics in the context of the 16th century, especially if things are changing.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. What is changing is a more tolerant and ecumenical attitude, but not doctrines, because they cannot change.”

This is encouraging. Thanks.

“Nothing has changed! I think some Protestants see various things in the Catholic Church that they like and they have this notion that Catholics are becoming more “Protestant” (when in fact, we are simply what we are and have always been, and some Protestants discover to their surprise that we weren’t as bad as they thought, and so they assume we are “changing” in that particular respect; I see quite a bit of humor in some of this, but it is within an affectionate feeling for my Protestant brothers and sisters — having been in their camp myself).”

It is not so much that I am hoping that Catholics are becoming more Protestant per se, but that we have simply, do SOME degree, been talking past each other. I think that battle lines cause people to defend issues in a sincere yet imbalanced way. See my Advice to Christian Apologists.

“What the Catholic Church has emphasized since Vatican II is quite significant, I think: other Christians have many graces and wonderful attributes, and even sacraments (baptism; marriage in many cases). We rejoice in them. We acknowledge that God is working in and through and with our Protestant brethren. See my paper:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/how-catholics-view-protestants.html“

Thanks for this helpful resource.

“But we cannot change our ecclesiology or we would cease to be who we are. Our doctrine of the Church is not the “invisible church” notion. Protestants cannot expect us to adopt Protestant ecclesiology wholesale (in fact, Protestants have huge disagreements amongst themselves on ecclesiology and Church government, as most here would well know).”

I agree. I also think that this is one of the major things we have lost. I think we can both learn from each other concerning the church’s visibility and invisibility.

“That’s not going to happen! And it is unreasonable to expect this to happen, just as it would be if I were to expect Protestants to drop sola Scriptura tomorrow, so we could “do ecumenism,” and if you didn’t, and reiterated your belief in it, for me to feel that I had egg or mud on my face. It was an unrealistic expectation in the first place.”

Well, I do think the smoke from the reformation is clearing and we are redefining or better articulating sola Scriptura to mean more than the popular notion that the Scripture is our only source of authority, which is not true. Sola Scriptura means that the Scripture is our only infallible and final authority. Therefore, while we may not change, I think that our defining of the issues, on both sides, makes us closer than the early polemics suggest.

“The Pope’s declaration yesterday, ironically, did demonstrate that what I had said about the progress and attitude of modern Catholic scholarship was true. This perceived disagreement and change in the Catholic church is the exact reason why the Pope felt it necessary to sign this document yesterday.

Yes, because liberals who think ecumenism is about unprincipled compromise and “watering down” and doctrinal indifferentism rather than principled attempts at mutual understanding, have distorted things somewhat.”

Yes, but there also seems to be disagreement among committed Catholics concerning the particulars of VII. Isn’t this true?

“I am not sure what this will do to the ethos of the situation or the tone of the conversation between irenic Catholics and Protestants,

It should do nothing whatsoever, for anyone who is familiar with Vatican II statements on ecumenism and recent encyclicals along the same line. They are all of a piece.”

Come on . . . you have to say that Dave Again, your system does not allow otherwise. You do not have the option to critically question whether or not this is the case because of the presumptions of authority. But, fair enough . . . I hope that the next Pope softens the language as VII did.

but it certainly has reiterated that the supreme bishop of Rome does not want progression in the way it was seeming to head.

“And most of all, it lacks humility that is necessary for any further reformation.

I don’t see how it is a lack of humility for a Christian to state what it is he believes. This is our ecclesiology. It is no more lacking humility for us to state this than it would be for a Protestant to reiterate his belief in sola Scriptura and sola fide.”

Well, of course, this comes down to some fundamental disagreements about the nature of the Body of Christ. I do think that Peter Kreeft, in his recent MP3 on ecumenism displayed something much different. But, he is not the Pope

“God shines in our boxes, but he certainly shines outside these boxes as well. The Pope essentially said, “No, He really only shines in our box.”

I strongly disagree. If you look at the citations above from the document, it grants all sorts of graces and a place in salvation in Protestantism: far more than many Protestants grant Catholicism, where (for anti-Catholics like James White), for a Catholic to be saved, it must be in spite of Catholic teaching, never because of it. This criticism should be directed toward Protestant anti-Catholics, not orthodox Catholics like this pope and the last one.”

Well, I would disagree as well. At least from our perspective, you must understand how offensive what he said was. Truly try to think about it. Again, I realize that it is nothing new, but the language was softening which was about as close “I’m sorry” as we were going to get. I, myself, am willing to take a softening of the language. But to say once again, we are not true churches backs us up quite a bit.

“My proposal has been that within the ranks of Catholic and Evangelical scholarship, attitudes have begun to change over the last 15 years. Doors were beginning to be opened. This proclamation is a strong attempt to shut these doors.

Again, not in the slightest. I don’t know what the magic number of “15 years” has to do with anything. Catholic ecumenism has been rapidly developing since World War II, and especially after Vatican II. There has been no reversal or change of policy.”

It has to do with an ethos that is set in with many. Not so much when documents were signed or when people said I am sorry. But again, look at it from our perspective. The Pope seemed to close the door more publicly yesterday.

“I look forward to some discussion on these matters. No one seemed to want to discuss my last two posts. They are just sitting there, without comment. I hope this one will be different.

Thanks for allowing me to speak freely!”

As well, I appreciate your spirit of compromise and willingness to change your view to better reflect those of the Evangelical church and concede to all that I believe

Really, I do thank you for your time Dave. I pray that God blesses you and your ministry to the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thanks M. Burk,

I appreciate what you have to say and you passion in saying it. Please forgive my statement “anti-Catholic” as I did mean “anti-Roman Catholic.” I know that James is not anti-Catholic. This is why he spends time the way he does, he loves those who need the Gospel.

You said:
“Does this mean you are “pro-Catholic” or only slightly “pro-Catholic”? Are you “pro-Catholicism”? What does “anti-Catholic” mean anyway?”

I am no more pro-Catholic or anti-Catholic than I am pro-Arminian or anti-Arminian. There are certain tenants in each that I am against, but I am not willing to broadbrush the entire system. In other words, I think all systems have error. There are various degrees of error as well, but this does not make the entire system and all its parts flawed does it?

You said:
“If you are in some way “pro-Catholic”, how so?”

They are great defenders of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the hypostatic union, the sinfulness of man, etc. I am pro-these vital doctrines which are a part of their system. I am anti-infallibility and very much against the idea of mortal sins which send you to hell even if you trust Christ. Missing mass without a valid excuse is very difficult for me. Therefore, I feel they truly lack the fullness of the Gospel. But I also believe that Arminian who believe you can lose your salvation lack its fullness. They carry a heavy burden that Christ already took.

You said:
“Do you accept the Marian dogmas (doctrines that must be believed for salvation, according to Roman Catholic teaching)”

No, but they do interpret these things differently. But I think they would even agree that these things can be abused and misunderstood.

You said:
“Or believe that the Council of Trent did not pronounce anathema on Protestantism (as a direct consequence of the beliefs and teachings of Martin Luther) and that all these 4 centuries of debate is all over a misunderstanding?”

I don’t want to tell them how to interpret their documents. This has been my point. If they want to interpret them in a certain way that makes them seem different than they were in the 16th century, why not let them? Are we the watch dog of their hermeneutics, requiring them to follow a strict historical-grammatical authorial intent interpretation?

You said:
“On what basis do you, a non-Roman Catholic, outside of the communion of Rome declare what is and isn’t the proper interpretation of Roman Catholicism? Since the Catholic Church doesn’t even give its own members such a right, surely you the lone ‘evangelical’ cannot declare truth in opposition to the centuries of Magisterial declaration.”

I don’t at all. But the fact is that those within the Church differ on how to interpret their own documents. Do you think that Catholic are monolithic in the interpretation of their own doctrine? If so, I think you should begin to speak more broadly to their scholars.

You said:
“Also, how differently can one interpret “you must believe that ‘Mary was without original sin and actual sin, being filled with all grace and virtue, from conception unto her Assumption… to be saved’”? How differently can the Mass wherein Christ is “sacrificed again” (according to infallible Catholic teaching) be interpreted? These are not secondary issues, rather, these types of things strike at the heart of the Gospel.”

I would disagree that these are necessarily destructive to the saving grace of the Gospel. I totally disagree with these doctrines. But at the same time, I am not trying to say that we are the same. I have just made the statements that on many things we are closer than we thought. Even so close as some intra-Protestant denominations.

I could make the same argument about the Church of Christ’s view of baptismal regeneration or the Methodists view of the security of the believer. As well, I could look to the Pentecostals view of authority (being that they have prophets) and see the exact same issues that I have with the Pope. Do you see what I am saying? Why don’t Protestants see a parallel between these groups and Catholics and at least give Catholics the same grace they give to them?

You said:
“With Pope Benedict XVI reiterating (infallibly?!) that the Roman Catholic Church is the only one true church and the current Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia issuing plenary indulgences(!!!), it seems that Dr. White’s understanding of Catholicism is more relevant than what has been posted here.”

The issue has never been about relevance or who is correct. It is about our approach, method, and attitude. This is where I part ways with James White.

“Everyone personally knows Catholics who, while espousing Catholicism, do all sorts of things expressly taught to the contrary of their Church, this doesn’t mean that Roman Catholicism is in some process toward orthodoxy, in fact it simply underscores the failure of the Roman system. The only bright light here is that it provides the Protestant an opportunity to show their Catholic acquaintance the truth of freedom in Christ and a way out of Roman Catholicism.”

No, these are Catholic apologists who disagree. There are hardliners, moderates, and liberals. All committed to Rome, but all interpret her differently.

You said:
“What individual Roman Catholics believe about specific doctrines within their system is unimportant given the authority structure of the church. You seem not to be aware that Rome teaches that individual believers cannot personally interpret Scripture, and that apart from infallible, authoritative, commentary from the Pope and/or Magisterium they cannot be truly sure what any specific verse of Scripture teaches. This point is central to this discussion and seems absent in the posts and replies here.”

This is simply not true. All information requires interpretation. To some degree, you are interpreting my comments right now. Although in my mind they seem to make sense this does not mean that you are interpreting me correctly. Even the Pope’s statement yesterday is being interpreted differently by different people. All information, but its nature, must be interpreted.

You said:
“Rome has ‘infallibly’ declared anathema on Biblical Christianity”

I agree. (Now I feel like I am starting to be forced to argue points that I don’t even fully agree with But here is the 1 million dollar question: What does anathema mean? Some Catholics will say it means you are going to hell (hardliners), some will say it means that you are outside the graces of the Church (moderates), some will say it has been revoked (more liberal).

M Burke,

Thanks for the time you have spent on this. It has been stimulating. Please understand that I respect you and Mr. White, I just disagree that your proposed methodology is biblical or productive. See my statements about how Paul dealt with these type of issues.

God bless.