|
SOME
SERIOUS THOUGHTS ON JUSTIFICATION WITH
PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO THE COMMON STATEMENT AND THE
FUNERAL OF JOHN PAUL II INTRODUCTION This paper was originally written to draw attention to certain concerns regarding justification by faith and the validity of whether Rome has really changed, or even can change. The paper at the very least suggests that there was more a possibility of change on the part of Lutherans than of Catholics. In recent days the TV hype has placed the last days, the death, and then the funeral of the late Pope John Paul II squarely on the world stage. The major emphases in that service showed clearly that the primacy and supremacy of the Pope remain as they always have. The two keys claimed by the Papacy remain intact. One only needs consider three Presidents of the USA, one current, two past, kneeling before the casket to see that very clearly. These too give cause for serious concern whether the claims that Rome has changed have any validity in actual fact. The signing of the Common Statement on justification by faith was hailed as a breakthrough of epic proportions, as it “opens the way to exploring the possibility of a more visible unity – as Jesus prayed, ‘that they may all be one.’”(John 17 v 21). 1) In the face of all the hype of the above two events, one is faced with the hazardous suggestion that the enthusiasm for both might well be tempered with just a little caution. The question could well be asked: “Why was all the signing done in Catholic Churches and none in a Lutheran Church? One feels just a little kinship with Micah (1 Kings 22) who was cautioned not to rock the boat before Ahab and Jehoshaphat when 400 prophets of Baal advocated what Ahab wanted to hear! It is indeed true that following the Second Vatican Council there certainly has been some change in the external attitude of the Roman Catholic Church. The major evidence of this is seen in the willingness to sit down with other churches to talk about and through theological issues. As well, no other pope before John Paul II has travelled the world and mixed with countries, their leaders, and even with Buddhists, the Dalai Lama, Muslins, Jews. The answer could be, of course, that he had the opportunity to do so with modern transport making it possible, but there is no question about his desire. It is also true that there have always been areas of agreement between Lutherans and Catholics e.g. the Trinity. There are other areas of agreement as well. The Augsburg Confession dealt specifically with those doctrines which were considered to be contrary to the Scriptures and a departure from the earlier teachings of the Christian Church. It should also be noted that the body within the Catholic Church that has the responsibility for guiding and monitoring dialogue with others is the “Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity”. 2) In other words, this is the body which deals with the application of Catholic dogma to a particular issue, and not the dogma itself. For dogma we need to turn to such books as “The Documents of Vatican II”, to examine whether the following claim can be justified: “…sufficient agreement exists that the Reformation era condemnations on both sides can be said no longer to apply to the dialogue partners as expressed in the Joint Declaration.” 3) This sentiment is echoed by the Joint dialogue committee in Australia on the same page. It is with regard to the claim that “sufficient agreement on this doctrine” exists, that the documents of Vatican II have been examined. I believe that they, together with the funeral service for the late pope John Paul, tell a different story. The official copy of the Vatican II documents used, from which information has been gleaned, was published in 1966 in England but with copyright in America and it bears the usual Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. It has the title: “THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II”. For the purposes of simplicity this book will be referred to as: Vatican II in the notes. While it is true that the preface says that “there are as yet no ‘official’ English translations of these Council Documents…” 4) the imprimatur shows plainly enough that it is authoritative and says nothing which contradicts the primary purpose of the book: to teach, to enlighten the faithful on what is Catholic doctrine and practice. References from this book will include the official Latin name for the document and where applicable the paragraph number or section number. The Joint Statement says quite plainly: things have changed. It is quite fair therefore to ask: What has changed? Who has changed? The Council of Trent (which still stands today in full force) dealt with some of the abuses condemned not only by the Reformers, but by others in the Catholic Church. It had to otherwise the Catholic Church would simply have collapsed. This fact is acknowledged by leading Catholic historians today. However, the Council deliberately avoided doctrinal questions disputed in Catholic schools and instead confined itself to dealing with refuting of Protestant doctrines. The Council “declared the need for a binding formula of faith, which was prepared by the College of Cardinals (1504) by order of Pius IV…..It was made binding on all priests and teachers and contains the oath of allegiance to the Pope”. 5) The Council set about to bring Lutherans and others back to Rome by force if necessary and possible. It was during this period that the Jesuits became the controlling force within the Catholic Church, something which has continued right up to the present time, particularly so in the College of Cardinals. The dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics leading to the Joint Statement notes that the anathemas once spoken no longer apply. This is indeed “in accordance with Pope John’s directive that the Council should be predominantly pastoral in character, Vatican II wished to propose its teaching without anathemas and condemnations. It exhibits the church, as Pope John expressed it in his opening allocution at the first session, as the ‘loving mother of all,’ spreading everywhere the fullness of Christian charity.” 6) In other words, for the sake of winning back the “separated brethren”, the anathemas of the Council of Trent are not going to be mentioned, but they were not going to be rescinded either. A.
SOME OF THE
MAJOR ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE THREE COUNCILS. 1. COUNCIL
OF TRENT. This first of the three councils of the modern era came only after many years of repeated calls from within the Catholic Church and only when disaster loomed. It was not Luther who started the call, though he became an ardent advocate when he “issued his first tentative appeal in his ‘Resolutions of 1518.”7) There were many delays but it finally came one year before the death of Luther and continued spasmodically for the next 18 years with breaks of 3 years and 10 years. It was intended as a two-pronged reaction: to Protestantism and to settle doctrinal disputes within the Catholic Church and to institute urgent reforms. “The significance of the Council is
threefold: (1) it shaped Catholic theology in deliberate anti-Lutheran and
anti-evangelical terms; (2) it set the theory of papal supremacy upon a much
firmer basis; (3) it inaugurated a reform which brought new vitality into a
decadent institution”. 8) Decisions made were to refute Protestant doctrines.
Eleven of the 25 sessions were devoted to doctrinal issues. The following
selections are relevant to the present paper: IV. The Scriptural canon; V.
Original sin, including rejection of the intrinsic corruption of man; VI.
Justification by faith alone rejected; XIV. Penance and extreme unction; XXII.
Sacrifice of the Mass; XXV. Purgatory, veneration of relics and images,
indulgences, fasting, index etc. Significant also is the fact that the Pope
still reserved for himself the exclusive right of interpretation of Scripture
and the teachings of the Church. 9) According to Erasmus, the main “sin” of Luther was that he had attacked the pope’s crown and the priests’ bellies. It is no surprise then that the Pope resisted and even opposed the calling of any council which might limit his power and position. A convenient excuse at the time was the constant war between Charles V and Francis I, King of France. This made it relatively easy to put off calling the Council because of possible dangers to travel during this war. Ultimately politics determined the
issue. With the rejection of the Augsburg Confession, Charles V wrote to the
Pope, Clement VII, in his own hand: “No danger that a council might conjure up
is commensurable with the terrible harm that its neglect would entail. It is
even more urgently needed to ensure the very existence of Catholicism than for
the disposal of the actual dispute. 10)
So unwilling was the Pope
to call such a council that Pope Paul III “was almost willing to sacrifice Catholicism
in Germany to avert a reform of the curia”. 11) It is significant also that “a number of the pope’s inner circle found themselves to be in agreement with some of the fundamental Protestant views”. 12) When finally in 1541, a meeting took place as the last consultation between the opposing groups in the Catholic Church before the Council, it was at the insistence of the emperor rather than the pope, that this took place. In fact, the papal group “was headed by Cardinal Contarini, an outspoken supporter of thorough reforms and an evangelical sympathizer”. 13) This meeting at Regensburg showed the two groups split on the issue of the power and primacy of the pope, transubstantiation and personal confession to the priest. In fact, it was clear that most Catholic theologians were convinced that the lack of a full and dogmatic statement of the Catholic faith was needed “both to confirm the thousands of wavering Catholics and to provide a basis upon which Protestants could be tried and sentenced as heretics”. 14) It would take another 4 years before something finally happened but it could hardly be called a rousing success: just 10 bishops attended the opening on 21 Nov. 1545. This number did swell to 76 by 13 Dec. 1545 but could hardly claim the title “ecumenical”. While lay members could attend, they had no vote. It is not surprising that Protestants did not attend, as they were required “to accept the decrees of the council in advance”. 15) Two canons of the Council of Trent need to be noted because of their relevance to the Joint Declaration. They are canons 11 and 12: “Canon 11: If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema”. 16) “Canon 12: If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine merits which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema”. 17) Add
to these two Canons also the confirmation of the doctrine of the Mass (13th
session), penance (14th session), purgatory (25th
session), and we have real cause for concern about the validity of the Joint
Agreement and hopes of a future
successful outcome. When it is further noted that all that was decreed at Trent
had to be submitted to the Pope for his confirmation, then it is clear that
nothing of that Council can be invalidated or rescinded at any time, because it
bears the mark of “infallibility”. Though as already stated earlier, Pope John
XXIII insisted that there be no anathemas and condemnations at Vatican II,
those in respect of Trent also have not been revoked. At Trent, the Pope was
pleased to proclaim “his final authority in the church over any council or agency in the
bull Benedictus Deus, in which he made official all the canons and decrees of
the Council of Trent. He reserved for himself the right to interpret any
decrees that were unclear or that had been challenged”. 18) It is significant that the Council declared the need for a binding formula of faith. One cannot disagree with that principle, and there was no lack of disagreement within the Catholic church of the time, let alone disagreement with Lutherans in particular. The College of Cardinals (1564) were directed by Pius IV to draw up this binding formula which is known as the “Profession of the Tridentine Faith”. This consists of 12 articles: The Nicene Creed is the first and the other eleven embody the doctrines of the Council of Trent. This was made binding on all priests and teachers and contains the oath of allegiance to the Pope on pain of excommunication and even damnation. The Joint Statement has done nothing to remove this. The Council also proposed a catechism prepared for teachers rather than pupils. Though these have been revised over time and have been the responsibility of the Jesuit Order, these revisions have not changed the essential doctrines of Trent. So with power firmly centralized in the papacy, by Council decree, the Catholic Church was in a better position to work towards regaining lost ground, by force if necessary both within and outside the Catholic Church. It signalled the beginning of what is known in history as the Counter Reformation. Not only did this mean insisting on “right” teaching and action but also military might which was used with devastating effect against Lutheran provinces and countries. We need look only at the so-called “Thirty Years War” (1618 – 1648). The
modern history of the Roman Catholic Church began with the Council of Trent.
Later Councils continued to work through unresolved issues within the Catholic
Church and relationships outside. The Catholic Church is still shaped and
coloured essentially by the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent. 19) 2. Papal
Definition of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. 20) The position of the Virgin Mary was very obvious in the funeral of the late John Paul II. The words “Mater Ecclesiae” on the external walls of St. Peter’s Basilica were highlighted a number of times on T.V. As well the there was a large “M” on the casket containing the body of the pope. The veneration (perhaps we should more correctly call this the adoration and worship of Mary) was alive and well. This has an enormous bearing on the Joint Declaration. If the signing of the document is supposed to have an effect on the teachings and practice of the Catholic Church, it hasn’t begun to show yet! Two areas of this aspect of Catholic teaching and life are going to considered separately. The first, is the topic above. Historically this was never determined by any Council decision or decree. It is rather the culmination of centuries of adoration of the Virgin Mary. It is not referred to in the Smalcald Articles or the Treatise on the Papacy. Nor is it one of the 12 articles referred to above. It is true that within the Catholic Church in the past and up to today, there is considerable difference of opinion about the role and status of Mary. There is no question that the late Pope held Mary in very high esteem. Others within the Catholic church regret this almost total worship of her. It is also true that the cult of Mary raises her status to virtual equality with Jesus Himself. It is not the purpose of this present paper to discuss in detail the history of the development of the cult. One can suggest that men who have been deprived of the right to marry, will therefore turn to the adoration of Mary as a substitute for the wife they may not have. It is quite common for parish priests to wear a wedding ring to indicate they are married to the Church. It is quite easy to make the shift from Church to Mother of the Church. The
Breviary for the Office of the Immaculate Conception applies the following
titles to Mary: expiation of the curse of Adam; cause of salvation of all
mortals; mediatrix of all who are under heaven; restoration of the whole world.
“The
earth mother has been made to replace Heaven’s Son, as witness these titles
given her: Queen of Life; Re-creation of Life; Mistress of the Heavens; Ladder
of Heaven; Gate of Heaven; Joy of Heaven; the Second Eve; Our Hope. And from
the Latin, the official language of Rome: salvatrix, reparatric, restauratrix,
liberatrix, reconciliatrix, and redemptrix”. 21) There
is no question that there is considerable difference of opinion within the
Catholic Church as already stated. There is also no question that the
declaration of the Marian Year in 1950 widened the gap between Catholic and
Protestant. The confusion is aptly stated in the following: “On
one day, it seems our Roman Catholic friends put up posters asking us to pray
that all Christians may be one. On the next day they introduce a new teaching,
to be believed on pain of eternal damnation, which does more to divide
Christendom and to draw it away from possible unity on the basis of its New
Testament charter than all the cunning machinations of a hundred Communist
parties could possibly accomplish. (February 1954).22) This
is all the more confusing, seeing that even the Catholic Church admits that
this theology of Mary has no direct Biblical foundation. In fact, the Catholic
Encylopaedia openly states “that the Immaculate Conception is nowhere
to be found in early liturgical (worship) books. In early days there was no
thought of Mary’s immaculacy”. 23) Church Fathers such as Origen,
Basil, and Chrysostom even argued against the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
This was done also by some medieval popes and leaders such as Bernard of
Clairvaux. 24) In other words, the idea was being floated for centuries even before Trent and certainly before the actual decree. It is significant that the Council of Trent had to let the matter pass in order to avoid another schism within the ranks of the church. Opposition to the Franciscan monks came from the Dominicans and Thomists and from the university of Paris. 25) No wonder then that the Council of Trent resolved: “It is not the intention…..to include in the decrees which concern original sin the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God”. (Session V.) 26) In 1622, Pope Gregory imposed silence on all adversaries of the doctrine until the Pope should decide. But does a mere Papal pronouncement make it true and binding? Apparently, yes. The reason for concern over the signing of the Joint Statement is just on this issue of what is meant by original sin with particular reference to the so-called Immaculate Conception of Mary. The Papal definition of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated first by an open letter in 1849. After lengthy debate, a majority of bishops assented and the dogma was then proclaimed in the bull Ineffabilis Deus in 1854. Two elements in the bull are of concern in the present discussion: Grace and original sin. This dogma was made binding upon the faithful on pain of excommunication and this has not changed. We
need also to bear in mind the following:
“Roman theology is rational and logical, as its exponents boast it is,
then why is it inconsistent in the matter of ancestry? If Mary was conceived
and born without sin, then her parents, grandparents, and ancestors on both
sides, ad infinitum must also have been sinless. But as a matter of fact Mary’s
ancestors were Rahab the harlot, the incestuous Tamar and David, the
adulterer”. 27) We need
also to remember, that if Mary has to be born without sin, then she contributed
a quantity, if not a quality of sinlessness and holiness to her newborn Son,
which is not only impossible, but borders on the blasphemous. It certainly also
has a bearing on the miracle of the incarnation and is in fact, a direct
contradiction of the message of the angel regarding the origin of the holiness
of the Son of God to be born of Mary. 28) Almost a century later came the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. It is not surprising that a dogma on immaculate conception should be followed by this second dogma. This was promulgated in 1950. It is not surprising either from the fact that claims such as the following are made of Mary: “All power is given to you in heaven and on earth. Nothing is impossible to you”. 29) These facts also cast doubt on the definition of grace and sin as stated in the Joint Statement. It is not my intention to labour this further at this point but much more will be said later about Mary and her relationship to the Church. But one quotation will show what is to be believed on pain of excommunication and this does have a significant bearing on the understanding of grace and original sin. The quotation is from the papal encyclical Fulgens corona of December 1953. Among other things it proclaimed the following: “We firmly believe that during the celebration of this Marian Year fervent prayers be offered throughout the world to the most powerful Mother of God, who is also our tender mother; and that in those prayers special request be made of her efficacious and ever-present patronage”.30) This, together with what is said in Catholic pamphlets on Mary being Redemptrix and Mediatrix, urges considerable caution about what sort of agreement has been reached on grace and original sin, and the doctrine of Justification by Faith. As well, the evident place which Mary played in the life of the late Pope, shows that these references to Mary are alive and well. When I read the following from a District President, even more caution should be exercised: “They (i.e. Rome) will have to re-examine their teaching on sin and redefine the place of good works as belonging to sanctification, rather than to justification. This is a huge task and will take years. To this task, Rome has committed itself by signing this agreement. Without this agreement none of this re-education process could have been contemplated”. 31) I would love to share his optimism however since Vatican II and during the “reign” of the late Pope, there was very little that indicated such a total change in prospect. 3. Vatican I This was convened on 29 June 1868 by Pius IX in the bull: Aeterni Patris Unigenitus Filius (1868). One of the major issues, and probably THE major issue, before the Council was the Dogma concerning the Infallibility of the Pope. The idea was not new. What was new was the intention of making this now a formal dogma to be believed on pain of eternal damnation. The invitation to the Easter Orthodox, Lutheran “heretics” and other non-Catholics really meant a return to the only sheepfold of Christ, namely the Roman Catholic Church. 32) The proposed Constitution of the Church up for consideration at this Council contained four chapters; a. Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter. b. On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiffs. c. On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff. d. Concerning the Infallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff. 33) This authority was intended to extend over “all Christians”. Non-Catholics were shocked at the brazen conceit expressed in this proposal. A hue and cry went up also from many Roman Catholic officials. Unfortunately a ban was placed on printing and publishing opposition papers and the final vote by simply majority was hardly likely to ensure a proper determination of the issue. 34) One outspoken critic was Bishop Strossmayer of Diakovar, Bosnia. His presentation is remarkably Lutheran. It was from Scripture, from history and from the Church Fathers. The tract: The Case against the Infallibility of the Pope, is made up largely of the English translation of his presentation. 35) There was considerable opposition to this dogma: “Petitions signed by 137 prelates urged the inopportunity of the dogma. Before the last vote, 56 bishops returned to their flocks because they did not care to vote openly against the Pope”. 36) Tragically almost all opposition subsequently submitted and subjected themselves to this dogma, including Bishop Strossmayer. A few continued to resist including three eminent Roman Scholars of the day, such a Doellinger, von Schulte, and Reinkens. This resulted in their excommunication as heretics. 37) In other words, the pope’s authority is absolute even when he is wrong. The purpose of making this statement, is that is not just so simple a matter as saying: the old condemnations don’t apply any more. 38) There is something ironical in the fact that following the funeral of the pope, there was a cooling off period before the serious business of selecting a new one. During that time, as stated in funeral service, “God has deprived His church of its shepherd”. I believe, we will wait in vain to hear that the new pope is planning to delete this dogma. Only if we do will there be some truth in the claim that things have changed. As well, there is also only a thinly veiled reference to “Progressives” and “Conservatives” within the hierarchy. All of the texts rejected by the Treatise on the papacy were used in the service to show the ongoing nature of the papacy today. 4. Vatican II Like its predecessor, this council was termed an ecumenical Council, though it can hardly be defended really because only the Catholic hierarchy was involved. Of course it involved a degree of participation with the eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches. Each section of the documents has a response from some leader of other churches. However, it is doubtful whether any comments were made by such non-Catholics had any bearing on what the final product would be. It is relatively clear from history, that Councils have been called, including in more recent times the Roman Catholic Church, whenever there was a crisis to be resolved or met. So for example the Council of Nicaea faced the crisis relating to the Person of Jesus Christ, and resulted in the formulation of the first two parts of the Nicene Creed. However, this Council was not called in any way by the Catholic Church or any so-called Pope in Rome with supreme authority. It was actually called by the Emperor Constantine in an endeavour to safeguard the peace of the empire. The three councils summoned by Rome all had specific crises to meet which faced the Catholic Church. Trent endeavoured in some degree to deal with the obvious need for reform ‘in head and members’ in the face of the growth of the Reformation. While it succeeded in some reforms, it also saw the hardening of the authority and primacy of the Pope. Vatican I was faced with national upheavals within Italy itself of a political nature, but which also had significant implications for the Papacy. This rise in nationalism in Italy resulted in the virtual loss of all lands except for what is still the Vatican today. It also meant that the Papacy could hardly function as it once had on the political sphere as it had in the middle ages. So the promulgation of the “Infallibility of the Pope” was part of the answer. Vatican II amongst other things, completed some of the unfinished business of Vatican I: “This session (session 3) produced the Council’s master and pivotal document on the nature of the Church. It presents a panoramic and richly biblical view of the Church as the People of God. Concluding the main unfinished business of Vatican I, it formulated with solemn conciliar authority the traditional doctrine of collegiality”. 39) However, a pressing need was in relationship to such issues as “Freedom of Religion” and its acceptability in Rome as compared with the United States of America, and issues in the third world had to be met. The Council also took into account not only “the cherished dream of Pope John, the reunion of all Christians” 40) but also the obvious pressure from the World Council of Churches for the same end, though probably for a different reason. So Vatican II saw an opportunity and hence softened the public primacy of the Pope with such statements to lure back the “separated brethren”. It is evident, that what is spelt out in Vatican II is not a change in doctrine but rather the application of established doctrine to the present time in an effort to maintain the cohesion of the Catholic Church throughout the world in such a variety of situations. Vatican I could hardly have conceived of a Cardinal from either a black nation or even Australia. It has long been a cause of offence about the claims made about the person and authority of the so-called Vicar of Christ. This was just so obvious in the funeral service of the late Pope and there was no effort made to conceal it. A further offence is the adoration, veneration and virtual worship and deification of the Virgin Mary to the point of making her equal to Jesus Christ. Nothing of this has changed in Vatican II. We could say that it has been reinforced. While these two alone remain, let alone a couple of other dogmas, there can be no change or substance to the signing of any common statement. In fact, we have to say that it cannot change without entirely at the very least undermining the dogma of Papal Infallibility. If the primacy of the pope was true when first promulgated, it cannot now be false without virtually destroying the structure of the Catholic Church and its claims for the power and primacy of the Pope. It is not the intention of this paper to deal in full with the entire list of documents. Rather, a few of the major issues will be looked at that have a direct bearing on the Common Statement. a. Positive Aspects. Popes have traditionally been almost all of upper class stock. The appointment of Pope John XXVII was a clear break with that tradition. He was of “peasant stock”, and so came to be known as “The Peoples’ Pope”. It is significant that Pope John Paul II was also a non-Italian pope and was equally a Pope of the people, and even of the world. Pope Paul VI saw a return to an Italian Pope. In the lead up to Vatican II there were major divisions within the Catholic Hierarchy which continued into Vatican II. A major leader in the cause of positive reform was Prof. Hans Küng of Tübingen University. He pleaded in his book, “The Council, Reform and Reunion, for “Roman Catholics to look upon the council as more than ‘just a negative matter of housecleaning and repairs”. He saw it rather as an opportunity for a “vast, positive task of constructive building”.41) Those who followed Hans Küng in their hopes were labelled the “progressives” and became a source of hope for better things amongst Protestants for big changes in the Catholic Church. The other side who felt that Pope John XXIII had made a rash and impetuous decision and who were determined to bring the council to a speedy yet face-saving conclusion in order to maintain the “status quo” were branded as “conservatives”, the traditionalists. 42) Yet despite such obvious tensions, the Council went ahead. It really had no other choice with the world’s media sitting right on top of it. So it went ahead with an openness never before seen in this church and it carried out “its internal upheaval before the eyes and ears of an amazed world”. 43) The untimely death of Pope John XXIII caused some concern about what his successor Paul VI would do. He decided to continue along the same lines, at least publicly. In principle, “Episcopal collegiality” was accepted, a most radical step.44) However, the value of this is at once restricted in that it in no way changed the doctrine of papal infallibility of 1870. As well, it had no authority except with the Roman Pontiff. 45) It was now granted that while the Roman Catholic Church still believes it alone “perfectly embodies the Church of Christ on earth”, the Church can still be found, though only imperfectly, in other Christian “communities”. A still more major change is that for the first time, the Reformation principle (probably better: Scriptural) of the “priesthood of all believers” became an acceptable one. This has meant that lay people are no longer considered to be somewhat “inferior”. 46) Other major changes can be summarized as follows: i. the use of the language of the people in worship. 47) ii. involvement also of lay people in worship. iii. Involvement in dialogue with other Christians. 48) iv. Encouragement to read and study the Bible. 49) I
want to conclude this section with a relevant comment from Paul McCain CPH. “With
a heavy heart early this morning I watched a good portion of the Pope’s funeral
mass. I thought of the wonderful things that John Paul II did for the cause of the culture of life, for the collapse of communism in Europe, for his strong defense of the Biblical doctrine regarding homosexual[ity?] and his refusal to accept the ordination of women and other such deviations from what is simply the historic, Biblical, truly catholic faith that we hold in common. I do thank God and appreciate all these things. And I think of how I truly liked the man who was pope. Obviously, a deeply religious and caring man, who love[d]our Lord very much. I do not doubt that. I do not question that. I do not attack the man, per se. 50) He then went on to point out what an absolutely fabulous opportunity was lost to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with its forgiveness and hope of eternal life in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. It was missing almost entirely. b. Negative Aspects. i. The
Power and Primacy of the Pope This
has already been touched on but it will be useful to recall the reasons why the
Smalcald Articles (part of our Confessions which are reaffirmed at each Synod)
were prepared in the first place. In the Introduction to these articles we
read: “During the early years of the Reformation Luther and others proposed
again and again that a general council of the church be convened to discuss and
arbitrate the questions of doctrine and practice that were in controversy”. 51) This
request fell on deaf ears because the pope fully believed that he could simply
flex his muscles, as had been done before, and eventually the fear of
excommunication would bring the Lutherans to heel. When that failed, Pope Paul
III finally called a council in June, 1536 to meet at Mantua the following May.
Even though it would be 1545 (a year before Luther’s death) before the council
got under way, the announcement by the Pope made it necessary to Lutherans to
prepare a statement “indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made
for the sake of peace and the articles in which no concessions could be made”. 52) Luther at once set to work to draft the necessary articles on various issues and submitted them for review by a small group of theologians assembled in Wittenberg. They were later submitted to what was called the Smalcald League. This was a mixed group of petty rulers favouring the Reformation but did not adopt the Articles as hoped. This was partly due to the fact that Luther could not attend due to his continued illness. 53) Luther had no confidence whatever in seeing a Council called. Amongst other things he stated: “The Roman court is dreadfully afraid of a free council and flees from the light in a shameful fashion”. 54) Luther did not oppose a council but was prepared to abide by one in the hope of restoring unity. He conceded that even Catholics had their doubts about the calling of a Council. Nevertheless, he did not see the need for a Council on the part of Lutherans but most definitely on the part of the Catholic Church. He could see the Judgment of God falling on them like on Sodom and Gomorrah. 55) Enough of the history. Three of the Smalcald Articles are noted briefly because of their obvious connections with the funeral of the Pope John Paul II. They are: Article II [The Mass]; 56) and The Invocation of saints; 57) Article IV [The Papacy] 58) Very briefly, the Sacrifice of the Mass was plainly evident in the Requiem Mass, as the body and blood of Jesus was offered to God in atonement. If ever we needed proof that there is no agreement in the Common Statement on Justification by Faith, then this is it! There was also a lengthy period in the Requiem Mass where saints were addressed again and again with congregation response for the repose of the pope’s soul. And then there was the clear statement of the primacy and authority of the Pope made in the homily at the funeral where the usual misquoted and misapplied texts claimed for Peter as first pope and the current and future popes as his successors, were reaffirmed. What was rejected in this Article IV (above) and further enlarged on in the “Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope”, remains the official teaching of the Catholic Church. I quote: “The Roman bishop arrogates to himself the claim that he is by divine right above all bishops and pastors. Then he adds that by divine right he possesses both swords, that is, the authority to bestow and transfer kingdoms. Finally, he declares that it is necessary for salvation to believe these things, and for such reasons the bishop of Rome calls himself the vicar of Christ on earth.59) The footage at the funeral of people like Bill Clinton, Bushes [father and son] kneeling before the casket of the pope showed that the claims of the sovereignty of the Pope not only over the Catholic Church but also over all nations is alive and well and kicking. The reading out of the list of the countries present and represented sounded for all the world like the parade of athletes before the Olympic Games. The very texts that were rejected by Lutherans were the ones read as lessons at the Requiem Mass. This is quite offensive when the Pope takes over from Jesus, as if Jesus is incapable of ruling His Church on His own. 60) So much for the supposed change likely in the Catholic Church. It is quite clear that the primacy and power of the Pope remains the pillar of the Church, and openness has in no way diminished this claim, with or without collegiality. In the document “Lumen Gentium” we have these significant statements: “After His Resurrection our Saviour handed her [i,e, the church. My note] over to Peter to be shepherded (Jn. 21:17),commissioning him and the other apostles to propagate and govern her (cf. Mt. 28:18 ff)…..This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor….61) A note at the foot of the page clearly links this statement with the Tridentine Profession of Faith. There is a further note which links all this also to Vatican I Session 3. This authority showed up following the Council in that the pope made 19 editorial changes in the text on ecumenism after it was too late to do anything about it. 62) There is one further significant point on this issue which is of concern indicated in the following quotation: “The Church recognizes [There is footnote 51 at this point in the Vatican II document which refers to the Decree on Ecumenism] that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honoured with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter”.63) Or even more specifically: “Continuing in the same task of clarification begun by Vatican I, this Council has decided to declare and proclaim before all men its teaching concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, and the visible Head of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God”. 64) Various notes at the bottom of the page link this with the decree of Vatican I, “Pastor aeternus” and reaffirms the primacy and infallibility of the Pope as Peter’s successor. And even more revealing [and may I say, damning] statement comes in connection with the infallibility of the pope. “This infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and morals extends as far as extends the deposit of divine revelation, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. This is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (c. Lk. 22:32) he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter. Therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person. Rather, as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, as one in whom the charism of the infallibility of the church herself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith”.65) A number of footnotes again make reference to Vatican I and various other documents from the pope. One wonders what was meant by the comment during the service that “God had deprived the church of her shepherd and head” with the death of the Pope. In other words considerable caution needs to be exercised in regard to what is called change in what the Catholic Church teachers with regard to grace and original sin. There is no way the Papacy can or will change its teaching on this issue. The so-called Common Statement is a vain dream for change. We are reminded of the elephant and the flea after they had crossed the bridge together: “Boy, we sure shook that bridge, didn’t we”. ii. The Virgin Mary – person and work. There were many prayers offered for the repose of the soul of John Paul II, that God would receive him into heaven. One can therefore validly ask the question: Where, in heaven’s name, did they think the Pope was? Were there doubts about his going to heaven? Or was “His Holiness” having to endure some cleansing still in purgatory. “I wondered why, if Christ in fact has offered the once-for-all and completely acceptable sacrifice on the cross and gave to John Paul the forgiveness of all his sins, as the scriptures say is so for all who are in Christ, then why this begging, pleading and crying to God to accept John Paul into heaven? Very sad indeed”.66) At first glance, it may appear that the subject of the Virgin Mary has little to do with the Common Statement. However, it soon becomes evident that it has a great deal to do with the subjects both of grace and original sin. Voices were raised during Vatican II for the Council to play down references to the Virgin Mary because this was a serious cause of offence to other churches and could hinder their return to Mother Church. However, Pope Paul chose the closing moments of the third session to deliver his closing address in which he ascribed “new honours to the Virgin Mary. This despite the fact the council has made it plain it wanted this delicate subject soft-pedaled!”67) The decree “Lumen Gentium” Chapter VIII, part II, is devoted to the topic: “The role of the Blessed Virgin in the Economy of Salvation”. In a lot of what now follows there is a real need to define much more clearly what is meant by grace because in Part I we have this statement: “At the message of the angel, the virgin Mary received the Word of God in her heart and in her body, and gave Life to the world…As a result she is also the favourite daughter of the Father and the temple of the Holy Spirit. Because of this gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all other creatures both in heaven and on earth”.68) Does this mean she surpasses even the Pope in his holiness and infallibility? If more is needed to convince us of the idolatry of the virgin Mary, the following epithets applied to Mary are given. They are all references from “Lumen Gentium”. · “The Father of mercies willed that the consent of the predestined mother should precede the Incarnation, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life. This contrast was verified in outstanding fashion by the Mother of Jesus. She gave to the world that very Life which renews all things, and she was enriched by God with gifts befitting such a role”.69) · “It is no wonder, then, that the usage prevailed among the holy Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, fashioned by the Holy Spirit into a kind of new substance and new creature. Adorned from the first instant of her conception with the splendours of an entirely unique holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is, on God’s command, greeted by an angel messenger as ‘full of grace’. (cf. Lk. 1:28). To the heavenly messenger she replies: ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word”. (Lk. 1 :38) 70) · “By thus consenting to the divine utterance, Mary, a daughter of Adam, became the mother of Jesus. Embracing God’s saving will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son. In subordination to Him and along with Him, by the grace of almighty God she served the mystery of redemption”.71) · “Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as cooperating in the work of human salvation through free faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she, ‘being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race”. 72) · “Hence in their preaching not a few of the earthly Fathers gladly assert with him: (i.e. Irenaeus) “The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosened by her faith. Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her ‘the mother of the living’ and still more often they say: ‘death through Eve, life through Mary”.73) More could be quoted but what has been quoted is on just one page of “Lumen Gentium”. It is pure and sheer blasphemy and a damnable lie to team a human being with Jesus in the work of salvation. Sufficient has been indicated to show that there is serious doubt about the sincerity of the claim of change in the Catholic Church and the claim that they are moving towards accepting Justification by Faith as Lutherans have taught and the Scriptures have established. Perhaps I should hesitate to use the term “blasphemy” because I have no doubt that both parties to the Common Statement were very sincere but sincerity has never been a guarantee of truth. Vatican II was at great pains to “carefully and equally avoid the falsity of exaggeration on the one hand, and the excess of narrow-mindedness on the other”.74) However on the other hand it also stated: “Let them painstakingly guard against any word or deed which could lead separated brethren or anyone else into error regarding the true doctrine of the church. Let the faithful remember moreover that true devotion consists neither in fruitless and passing emotion, nor in a certain vain credulity”.75) All that has been said with regard to the Virgin Mary, is to be received and proceeds from “true faith by which we are led to know the excellence of the Mother of God, and are moved to a filial love toward our mother and to the imitation of her virtues”. 76) A Response to Lumen Gentium by Albert C. Outler (a prominent Protestant ecumenist) had this to say, in speaking of the references to the Virgin Mary “as the foremost of all those who have shared in, and will enrich, the communion of saints may well be the effect, among other things, of recalling Protestants to an important aspect of Christian faith that they have tended to underestimate in their reaction to what was deemed the excesses of conventional Mariology”. 77) It seems he has no problem with Jesus being relegated as Mary is elevated. His claim that Protestants (and Anglicans) would have reacted against any new anathemata, is true enough. However then to go on to say that they “will find little here that offends and much that edifies”78) shows a complete lack of understanding of the Scriptures which point to Jesus alone as the Saviour of the world. Adding Mary to the equation, rather than adding, in actual fact becomes a denial. Beware the Greeks when they come bearing gifts! iii. Penance This is another area of concern. Penance, or to use the Catholic term: “doing penance”, is applied to the so-called need to remove as a cost to the faithful, effects of venial sins. It is not the intention to go into detail here over a confusion between repentance, and what is titled “penance” in the Catholic Church. The only comment that needs to be made is: If penance remains, then there is clearly a need to define much more clearly what is meant by grace, and what is meant by sin. Or it is just a coincidence that an indulgence was proclaimed for the year 2000? iv. Purgatory It is simply not true to state that we have reached substantial agreement on what is Justification by Grace while the doctrine of purgatory remains. If somehow a cleansing is still required after death in some limbo place, then we are just not talking the same language even while using the same words. Either we are forgiven totally or we are not. Either at the point of death we go immediately to Paradise, like the thief on the cross, according to the express promise of Jesus, or He held out a false hope. Either Jesus has totally forgiven our sins, having atoned for them entirely, or He has not. We cannot have it both ways. And to repeat: Just where was the Pope during those days after his death, that prayers were necessary to the Father to receive the Pope into glory? v.
Other Religions
and Salvation It is in this connection that we encounter clear evidence of universalism in Roman teaching which contradicts all they say about the cooperation of Jesus and Mary in salvation. It also at the very least threatens to undermine the validity of the Common Statement on Justification by grace alone. A few quotes will be given to illustrate areas of serious concern. · With regard to Hinduism, it is stated that “men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry”.79) Then followed a footnote which states: “Mention might have been made of the similarities between Hindu and Christian beliefs – e.g. the concept of God’s appearance on earth; the concept of grace; sacraments; and similarities between the Christian Trinity and the Hindu ultimate reality…..” 80) · With regard to all other world religions, the Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in these religions. However, while acknowledging the existence of the natural knowledge of God, a footnote goes well beyond that to something which is contrary to Romans chap. 1. The footnote reads in full: “This paragraph presents an understanding that is traditional in the Catholic Church. One recalls, for example, Justin Martyr in the early Church attributing all the truths in non-Christian religions to the Word of God who enlightens every man who enters into this world – a concept found at the beginning of the Gospel according to John. Through the centuries, however, missionaries often adopted the attitude that non-Christian religions were simply the work of Satan and the missionaries’ task was to convert from error to knowledge of the truth. This Declaration marks an authoritative change in approach. Now, for the first time, there is recognition of other religions as entities with which the church can and should enter into dialogue. 81) One wonders whatever happened to Matt. 28: 18-20? · With regard to the Muslims, there are two quotations which I believe are even more a call for caution. After stating that the Church looks upon the Muslims with esteem, we have the following: “They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to men. They strive to submit wholeheartedly even to his inscrutable decrees, just as did Abraham, with whom the Islamic faith is pleased to associate itself. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. 82) This last sentence ought to raise alarm bells in light of what the Scriptures say with regard to rejecting Jesus as God’s Son. · The second quotation is even more questionable. First of all reference is made to the Moslems, who, “professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind”. 83) This quotation also should have sent alarm bells ringing. The section continues: “Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and, ,moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace”. 84) Ever heard of salvation by works alone? This is a total denial of the saving work of Jesus Christ, the only Saviour of the world. It rejects the Gospel which is so much spoken about in Catholic Circles. c. CONCLUSIONS. i. What do we believe? Papal Infallibility makes it quite clear that the documents of Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II are required dogma to be believed on pain of excommunication and damnation for Catholics. The Common Statement says: “In the light of this substantial agreement the remaining differences of language, theological expression, and emphasis in the understanding of justification need no longer be divisive in themselves”. 85) If this is correct, then we have a clear “sell-out”. Call me bigoted if you like, but then justify if you can, an acceptance of all the quotations in this paper. If the above statement is correct, then I believe we are entitled to hear and read in BOLD PRINT from Pope Benedict XVI as part of any reforms he plans to bring in, at least the following: i. that the Roman Catholic Church is now ready to subscribe wholeheartedly to Article IV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession on Justification, because it is no longer church divisive. ii. That the Pope acknowledges that the statements with regard to his own infallibility, with regard to making the Virgin Mary virtually equal in honour to Jesus, with regard to salvation by way of natural knowledge of God, are all contrary to Scripture, and can no longer be upheld as dogma on pain of excommunication and eternal damnation, and in fact condemns those who believe them to eternal damnation. The quotations given, and there are many more that could have been included, show very plainly especially in reference to the issues named in (ii) above, that any possibility of a “more visible unity – as Jesus prayed: ‘that they may all be one’. (John 17:21)” 86) is a vain dream and a long way off as things stand right now. It raises the valid question: Who changed? Catholic dogma cannot change without a change in papal infallibility. If they have now come to believe as Lutherans do, on the issue of Justification, and all the fuss was really only about terminology and images, then this raises questions about the confessors of 1530 who saw clearly what the issues were, and were ready to die for that confession. If the Catholics have not changed, as is clear from the constant requirement to uphold dogma as stated in Vatican II, then it is the Lutherans who have changed. That also raises further questions which may need to be addressed by another paper. In conclusion I want to make the following points: i. The purpose of this paper is not to re-ignite the animosity of years ago and so in effect to turn back the clock. Rather it is to present what is the past and still current teaching of the Catholic Church. ii. It is clearly being stated since the election of a new pope that there will be no new changes. He belongs to the conservative party much to the dismay of feminists within the Catholic Church and the homosexual lobby. Hopes are even being expressed that because of his age he will not be pope for long and a new pope will be elected who might be a progressive. iii. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who have sat over the years in dialogue with Roman Catholic theologians. However, sincerity by itself does not guarantee and establish truth. iv. I do not deny that there have been changes in attitude and practice within the Roman Catholic Church, for which I thank God e.g. recognition of baptism and so-called mixed marriages. v. I do not deny that there are many over the centuries, both clergy and lay people in the Catholic Church who have deplored the excesses of papal infallibility and the adoration of the Virgin Mary and have recognized the church divisiveness of both. However, as long as both remain, no amount of common statements will change anything and will remain largely worthless. After all, 1.2 (?) billion Roman Catholics who adhere to both the above, are hardly likely to accept any change in that direction at the moment. We can only pray that the new pope will work towards this. vi. Therefore extreme caution must be exercised in the claims made about the removal of what divides and the possibility of a more visible unity. Not only did Jesus pray ‘that they may all be one’, but He also clearly stated this would be on the basis of Himself as sole Saviour, head of the church, shepherd of the church, and on “all that He has commanded us”. Otherwise, an apparent unity will be a farce. Let us remember that the aim and object of Rome, as stated repeatedly in Vatican II is to lead “the separated brethren” back to Rome. While rank and file lay people and some priests yearn for a closer link with their fellow Christians, it is not they, but ultimately the one claiming to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, who sits in the saddle. It has been openly stated by Catholic leaders, that with the election of Benedict XVI the Church is in good hands. For some reason I had the idea that the people of God were in the Father’s hands, and no one could tear them out of there. vii. Yes, we can thank God for the stand being taken by the Pope on the issues of women’s ordination and homosexuals and morals in general. But there is much more to it than that. viii. Consider well that the Dialogue committee tail does not wag the papal infallibility dog! Geoff Noller Ararat Victoria (April 2005) FOOTNOTES. 1. p.11 Common Statement 2. p.2 ibid. 3. p.
3 ibid. 4. p.
ix preface, Vatican II 5. p.
924 Concordia Cyclopaedia –
The Council of Trent 6. p.
11 Vatican II – Introduction
to “Lumen Gentium” 7. p.5 The story of the Council of
Trent – Tract – Herbert I. Mayer – Concordia Pub. House 1962. 8, p.5 ibid 9. p.924 Concordia Cyclopaedia – The
Council of Trent. 10, p. 8 “Geschichte des Konzils von
Trent” Hubert Jedin 1949 (Translation:
A History of the Council of Trent
by Ernest Graf – St, Louis,
1957, p. 26) 11. p. 9 The story of the Council of
Trent – Tract – Herbert I. Mayer. 12. p. 9 ibid 13. p.10 ibid. 14. p.11 ibid. 15 p.
12 ibid 16 p.15 ibid 17 p.15 ibid. 18. p.
19 ibid. 19. p.
20 ibid 20. p.
924 Lutheran Cyclopaedia
-- C. Papal definition of the
Immaculate Conception. 21. p.18 The Truth about the Virgin
Mary. Paul E. Schuessler STM (CPH) 22. p.4 ibid. – quotation from “American
Lutheran”. 23. p.7 ibid. 24. p.8 ibid. 25. p.8-
9 ibid 26 p. 9 ibid 27. p.10 ibid 28. p.10 ibid 29. p.653 Lutheran Cyclopaedia –
Mariolatry. 30. p.17 The Truth about the Virgin Mary. 31 Dr.
David Stolz – Pastor to Pastor 32. p.7 The case against the
Infallibility of the Pope – Richard Sommerfeld (C.P.H.) 33. p.8 ibid 34. p.8-9 ibid 35. p.10
ff ibid 36. p.28 ibid 37. p.28 ibid 38. p.
11 Common Statement. 39, p.
xv. Introduction – Vatican
II. 40. p.xvi ibid 41 p.7 The New Roman Catholic Church –
Norman Temme (C.P.H. 1965) 42 p.8 ibid 43. p.8 ibid 44. p.9 ibid 45 p.10 ibid 46. p.
10 ibid 47 p.10 ibid 48. p.11 ibid 49. p.12 ibid 50. Paul
McCain on ‘cyberbrethren@yahoogroups.com’ – Saturday 9 April 2005, 12:06 AM 51. p.287 Tappert – Introduction to the
Smalcald Articles. 52. p.287 ibid 53. p.287-288 ibid 54. p.
288 Tappert – Preface of
Dr. Martin Luther. 55. p.
290 ibid §11 56. p.
293 Tappert 57. p.
297 ibid 58. p.298 ibid. 59. p.
320 ibid §1-2 60. p.
323 ibid §22-38 61. p.
23 Vatican II – Lumen
Gentium §8 62. p.
14 The New Roman Catholic
Church, cited previously. 63. p.33 Vatican II – Lumen Gentium §15 64. p.
38 ibid §18 65. p.48-49 ibid §25 66. Paul
McCain – Cyberbrethren cited previously. 67. p.
14 The New Roman Catholic
Church, cited above. 68. p.86 Vatican II – Lumen Gentium §54 69. p.
87-88 ibid §56 70. p.
88 ibid 71 p.
88 ibid 72 p.
88 ibid 73. p.
88 ibid 74. p.
95 ibid §67 75 p.
95 ibid. 76. p.
95 ibid 77. p.
105 Vatican II response to Lumen Gentium 78 p.
105 ibid 79. p.
661-662 ibid. Declaration on the Relationship
of the Church to Non-Christian Religions. Nostra
aetate. §2 80. p.
662 ibid §2 81. p.
662 ibid §2 82 p.663 ibid §3 83. p.
35 ibid – Lumen Gentium §16 84. p.
35 ibid 85. p.
11 Common Statement. 86. p.11 ibid |
>/td> |