Recently I've had a handful of conversations with Roman Catholics concerning the schism between Catholics and Protestants. The conversations have served to increase my awareness of my own continued protest. I desire unity among all who call themselves Christians. But not at any cost.
In the meantime, I remain under the Roman Catholic "anathema" which means "condemnation" which means in the opinion of the Roman Catholic church, I stand eternally condemned and am no child of God.
Here is the ruling of the Council of Trent:
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
Well, that's exactly what I saith. Thus, still protesting. God haste the day when your Church is one under the free grace of Jesus Christ.
9 comments:
I'm pretty sure that Vatican II reversed that. I'm a protestant doing a minor in religious studies at a Catholic university and I've never heard anyone say that protestants are anathema.
Trent one has been contradicted but never reversed. As a Church council, it remains authoritative.
Funky,
This might be a discussion outside of blogdom, but what do we do with Rome? If we listen to your "average" Presbyterian, although historically maybe not aligned with the tradition, we hear the centrality of justification by faith. When you hear PCA ministers say "You have to preach the Gospel to yourself", i.e. you are sinful, but Gospel sees you as righteous, this doctrine is usually what they have in mind. Now, IF this is the GOSPEL and Rome anathematizes the Gospel, what are we to do with them? Paul makes it abundantly clear that anyone who preaches another Gospel is accursed. IF justification by faith alone IS THE Gospel, then I say they have to be accursed. IF faith alone is not the Gospel, then their baptism is valid and we can fellowship with them. I don't think we can say "enough of the Gospel is there" if their official stance is to anathematize the Gospel. We don't say "enough of the Gospel is there" with Mormons and JW's. Is it because they reject "faith alone" or basic Christology?
Personally, I see the Gospel more Christological, "confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord..." The sermons in Acts are extremely Christ-centered (Who is he? Where is he?) rather than sinner-centered (how is an individual made right before God, i.e. 'justification by faith', oh, look at the active and passive obedience of Jesus).
I'm protesting, but not convinced our tradition is right at every turn.
semper reformanda
KDNY,
You know how I feel about Rome, though most of our blog readers do not, so I should be quick to say that I have a great deal of respect for the RC Church and she does a great deal many things very well. As protestants, we have much we can learn from the RC's about transcendance, mystery, history, and the like. In general they are folks who still believe in right and wrong, the inspiration of scripture, the divinity of Christ and a substitutionary atonement, which is more than I can say for many protestants! In otherwords, I do not work on a paradigm of Protestant=Good & Catholic=Bad. I just want to see all traditions of Christendom re-formed by God according to scripture.
While I don't think sola fide is THE gospel I think sola fide is A CENTRAL aspect of the gospel. This gospel is dangerously & nearly unrecognizably distorted when sola fide is negated. Is it distorted so much that it is no longer the gospel? I don't know. It may just be the numerous doctrinal contradicitions present in the RC (Compare Trent 1 with Trent 2 on these issues) that keeps me from saying Rome is not a true Church. I believe (today!) she's a true church with a high degree of systemic and serious doctrinal error. Should she ever be Re-formed according to scripture I will be the first to declare unity with her.
Of course, I'm not a pope, so my assessment of Rome is far less important that Christ's. Wether Rome is a true church with a high degree of systemic, serious doctrinal error, or a false church with a high degree of overlap with the true Church does not matter with respect to the solution: Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone, For God's Glory Alone and Continual Reformation. We all need that. I need that. My church needs that! So do the RC's. Everybody does.
What is the Gospel? What is one accursed for not preaching or preaching another? What specifically is Paul talking about in Galatians 1? Most Presbyterian ministers tell me it is 'justification by faith alone', but seem to take a step back when pressed with the implications. So, either they aren't convinced this is the Gospel or aren't willing to be truly Pauline, despite protests to the contrary. So, what is this Gospel? What are we ministers of?
Or, put another way, how do I know when a group is engaging in the solution? I agree with the solution, but we don't say the Jehovah's witnesses are part of the solution. Do you? We don't say Salt Lake City is, do you? No, they are preaching another Gospel. They are accursed. So, if Roman Catholicism is not a true Church the solution is in a very substantive sense much different and our view of Roman Catholics is much different. If they just have some errors, then it is an issue of family discipline, so the solutions are in a very real sense different.
Yes, "we" need the solution, but we, or at least I, are substantively different than JW's, Mormons, Moslems, and a host of other would be counterfits. I have the boldness to say we are ministers of the solution, ministers of a new covenant, and that I've been called by God, but I don't look at SLC or JW's as having anything to do with the solution or being called by God. Do I see Rome like them or do I see them like the baptists? How can I recognize the solution? Is it recognizable?
Maybe I'm chomping at the bit, b/c fellowship around here is limited to saying 'grace' a few times in a conversation, viewing theology as divisive, esp. when it comes to actually defining the Gospel, & assuming what the Gospel is without it ever being defined.
KDNY,
I don't really understand your second paragraph in the above comment. I guess I would hold that the solution is the same wether it is a church discipline issue or an evangelization issue. Different form, same content. But like I said, I'm not sure I understood that paragraph and what you were getting at there.
I think "gospel" is a summary term for the basic core content of the Christian faith. I think to add merit of any kind to the grace of the gospel is to compromise that basic core content. Does that make theirs "another gospel"? I'm not sure, and I'm ok being not sure, because in my protest, I have declared myself free from Rome's rule and hence am able to proclaim the gospel in a biblically appropriate way.
I guess I'm basically asking, who has the Gospel? Does Rome? Do Mormons? "Gospel" is thrown around, assumed, and promoted as a solution, but no one is willing to really tell me what it is. Who has this solution? What is this core?
How can one be a minister of the solution/Gospel, but not sure who has it? If one is accursed for preaching another Gospel, how can we be o.k. not knowing if another group (Rome or Mormns) has it & yet claim to be a minister of such? I would like to think that a doctor can say, "No, that won't cure your sickness, but this will. That is poison and will kill you." Paul is willing to say another Gospel will accurse you, and I am willing to say the same. I find some wanting to follow Paul say it, b/c they have to, but there is no content to their claim.
To show my hand, no, I no longer think Rome preaches another Gospel, but I'm still curious how others are defining the Gospel. It truly is an issue of life and death.
Pastor:
I think it might help in your discussions with Catholics and your own attitude toward the Church if you did a little research on what the word "anathema" actually means in the context of the canons of a Council as well as the attitude of the Church toward the theological descendants of the "Reformers."
Pax.
Post a Comment