Bishop Barron's inclusivism

Ben Shapiro asks Bishop Robert Barron about salvation according to Catholicism. I don't recall Shapiro asking William Lane Craig or Ravi Zacharias this question, but it's possible I missed it. Shapiro may have asked John MacArthur, but I didn't watch that episode.

What’s the Catholic view on who gets into heaven and who doesn’t? I feel like I lead a pretty good life - a very religiously based life - in which I try to keep, not just the ten commandments, but a solid 603 other commandments as well. And I spend an awful lot of my time promulgating what I would consider to be Judeo-Christian virtues, particularly in Western societies. So, what’s the Catholic view of me? Am I basically screwed here?

No surprise Barron gives a terribly unbiblical response:

No. The Catholic view - go back to the Second Vatican Council - says it very clearly. I mean Christ is the privileged route to salvation. "God so loved the world he gave his only Son that we might find eternal life." So that’s the privileged route.

However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now, they’re saved through the grace of Christ, indirectly received. So the grace is coming from Christ. But it might be received according to your conscience. So if you’re following your conscience sincerely - or in your case you’re following the commandments of the law sincerely - yeah, you can be saved.

Now, that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism. We still would say the privileged route - the route that God has offered to humanity - is the route of his Son.

But, no, you can be saved. Even Vatican II says an atheist of good will can be saved, because in following his conscience, if he does - John Henry Newman said the conscience is "the aboriginal vicar of Christ in the soul" (it's a very interesting characterization) - it is, in fact, the voice of Christ if he is the Logos made flesh, right? He's the divine mind or reason made flesh. So when I'm following my conscience I'm following him, whether I know it explicitly or not. So even the atheist, Vatican II teaches, "of good will", can be saved.

Just a brief response for now:

1. Why bother becoming a Catholic if what Barron says is true. Heck, why bother becoming a theist if what Barron says is true.

2. Barron equivocates between "following one's conscience" and "following the commandments of the law". The two aren't necessarily the same. Especially if we're referring to the 613 commandments in rabbinic Judaism. It's not as if a non-Jew's conscience (however "intact" it may be) would necessarily tell him to follow kosher laws, observe Shabbat, and wear a tallit with tzitzit.

At best, I think, conscience might coincide with the Noahide laws, but even that's hardly a given. Does a pagan's conscience necessarily tell them not to worship an idol? Doesn't a good Buddhist (Mahayana) think he's doing right by his conscience in what he does for Buddha? Doesn't a good Muslim have a clear conscience when worshiping Allah? Yet post-Vatican II Catholicism even accepts that good people in other religions can be saved.

Or take the prohibition against murder. One could be a good communist who believes murder is wrong, but who doesn't consider killing the bourgeoisie "murder". One could be a modern American progressive Catholic who believes murder is wrong, but who doesn't think abortion is murder. That's not what their conscience tells them.

3. Perhaps Barron would reply these people have a seared conscience. A good conscience would have to align with biblical morality. But how far does that go? Wouldn't a Catholic in Barron's vein accept that worshiping a false god could somehow be done unto the true God? Similar to how Emeth in The Last Battle worshiped Tash. Yet biblical ethics would say that'd be a clear violation of the ten commandments.

4. I don't follow how Christ being the Word (Logos) made flesh means our conscience is "the voice of Christ". I don't doubt God could well speak to us through our conscience. I could even agree with Barron's conclusion that a good conscience is God's voice. However I don't see what this has to do with Christ being the Logos.

5. Of course, much turns on the phrase "of good will". What does that mean exactly? Who decides? I suspect much of this turns on Catholic natural law. All this would suggest severe faultlines in Catholic inclusivist soteriology, but I'd have to do a lengthier post about all this.

The bottom of the slippery slope

From the 24 min mark to the 38 min mark, it's striking to see Buckley express the same concerns about the state of the Catholic church almost 50 years ago that are raised today by conservative Catholic laymen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZwcU4EfJYM

This was on the heels of Vatican II and the pontificate of Paul VI. Sheen's answers are clever and cagey. He's a team-player. The loyal spokesman for official policy. 

The main difference between now and then is that Catholicism was higher up the slippery slope at the time of the interview while it's nearing the bottom of the slope today. 

In addition, due to the enveloping clerical abuse scandal, there's been a total collapse in the moral authority of the Catholic church in public perception, even among many Catholics. 

What was wrong with Vatican II

http://www.academia.edu/25898605/What_was_wrong_with_Vatican_II

Roman Catholicism today

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ypLDtHUI8

How Vatican II Changed the Roman Catholic Church

"The core of what Roman Catholicism stands for has never changed". Probably one of the main challenges is going to be The battle over words. Rome uses basic Protestant language, and tries to re-define it, in its own way.

See also: http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/03/weigle-room-at-christianity-today.html

The church should be a liberal-free zone

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/12/miniscule-and-majuscule.html

Post-colonial Catholicism

It's interesting to compare and contrast Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II.

i) Trent was a rearguard action. Post-Reformation Catholicism was like a post-colonial Empire. The remnants of the erstwhile empire. 

When colonies or satellite countries break away, they effectively redraw the political map. The new borders of the erstwhile empire are drawn from the outside. Its borders were pushed back by the loss of its colonies or satellite countries. 

At Trent, Rome allowed itself to be defined by Protestants. It ratified by boundaries drawn by Protestants. Rome was whatever the Protestants were not, and vice versa.

Whoever erects a fence first draws the boundary for both sides. By the time Trent was convened, the Reformation was irreversible. Trent was simply an acknowledgement of the new status quo. An admission of defeat. A forced accommodation to what it could not change.

Trent was not itself disruptive. The disruption had already occurred. At Trent, Rome was cutting her losses and conserving what remained. 

ii) Vatican I was a one-man ego trip. Unlike Trent, which was necessary, Vatican II was elective.  

Although it wasn't terribly damaging, it proved to be an embarrassment to the papacy. Problem is, the pope claims to be infallible under vaguely specified circumstances, but he rarely dares to exercise that alleged prerogative, for the moment he makes a testable "infallible" proclamation, he will disprove his infallibilist pretensions.

It's not coincidental that this prerogative has only been exercised twice since Vatican I, and on both occasions to proclaim safely unfalsifiable dogmas. The pope might as well issue an infallible encyclical on the mating habits of unicorns. You can't disprove it.

iii) Vatican II was very disruptive. And on the face of it, this was an unforced error. I don't know why John XXIII convened it. Not beyond the catchphrases about "aggiornamento" and "throwing the windows open to let in the fresh air."

One possible interpretation is that John XXIII was like Gorbachev. His Russian counterpart understood that the Soviet Empire was militarily and economically unsustainable. In that situation, you have two options: you can just let the empire fall apart–like the Roman empire and the Ottoman empire. Or you can take the initiative. 

Either way, there will be losses. But if you take the initiative, you have more control over the outcome. If, by contrast, you simply wait for the empire to crumble on its own, you will be entirely at the mercy of events. Others will dictate the end-game.

Maybe John XXIII thought the Tridentine/anti-modernist paradigm was unsustainable, and he wanted to get out ahead of the inevitable break up. Indeed, even under his predecessor, the papacy was making tactical concessions to modernism (e.g. Humani Generis; Divino afflante Spiritu).

One problem with that attractive interpretation is that John XXIII isn't reputed to have been much of a thinker. Perhaps, though, the impetus came from theological advisors. In the council itself, modernism was well represented among an influential contingent of bishops and their perti. Even Joseph Ratzinger was originally a progressive theologian.  

But at Vatican II, Rome lost her balance, and has yet to right herself. But perhaps, had she tried to maintain the Tridentine/anti-modernist paradigm, that would have run aground. When the fundamentals are unsound, there's only so much you can do to postpone disaster.  

The Ultimate Roman Catholic Apologetic

To those of who want to advocate “catholicity” or “reformed catholicity” of any kind – look at what you are getting yourself into:

The many grave disturbances which the Church experienced in the Middle Ages were not true crises since through them all the Church was never in danger of changing its nature or dissolving itself into something else. Low moral standards among the clergy and lust for riches and power disfigure the face of the Church, but do not attack its essence by attempting to alter its foundations.

This is “catholicity”. This is why things like murderer popes, Inquisitions, sex scandals and sex abuse scandals of all types, when brought up to committed Roman apologists, just flow like water off a duck’s back.

It is appropriate here to formulate the law of the historical conservation of the Church [the Roman Catholic Church and especially its hierarchy], a law which also constitutes her ultimate apologetic criterion. The [Roman Catholic] Church is founded on the Word Incarnate, that is, on a divinely revealed truth. She is also given sufficient energies to conform her own life to that truth: it is a dogma of faith that virtue is always possible.

Nonetheless, the Church is only in danger of perishing if she loses the truth, not if she fails to live up to it. The pilgrim Church is, as it were, simultaneously condemned to imperfection in her activity, and to repentance: in the modern phrase, the Church is in a continual state of conversion. She is not destroyed when human weakness conflicts with her own teaching (that contradiction is inherent in the Church’s pilgrim condition); but she is destroyed when corruption reaches the level of corroding dogma, and of preaching in theory the corruptions which exist in practice.

From: Romano Amerio, “Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century”, translated from the Second Italian Edition by Rev. Fr. John P. Parsons, Kansas City, MO: Sarto House ©1996 Rev Fr. John P. Parsons, pg. 18.

It is “the teaching”, the doctrine of the Roman Church, that is all-important. This is why the corruptions of the Medieval Church were no sweat. It’s the “Alias Smith and Jones” defense: “For all the trains and banks they robbed, they never taught anyone”.

Thus, “The great eastern schism left the whole structure of the Catholic faith untouched. The Byzantines did not even directly deny the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and an act of reunion could be signed at Florence in 1439” (pg 19).

The only thing that matters to Rome is that Rome gets to be in charge. That is the “ontological reality” of the Roman Catholic Church: Christ made Peter “the first pope”; Peter was martyred in Rome, and his blood there sealed this ontological “divine institution”. Everything else can always be explained away to the satisfaction of the true Roman Catholic believer. Nothing else matters.

The heretical movements, which aimed at purging the Church of its worldly accretions, were powerless to put the Church in danger by causing it to change from one kind of thing to another. The real crisis came from Luther, who changed doctrine from top to bottom by repudiating the principle on which it rested (pg 19)

I have problems with this author’s accounting of history, but he does represent everything I dislike about the pugnacious, in-your-face Roman apologetic. Of course, “the principle on which it rested” was nothing less than the total, divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is therefore a question of seeing how Luther’s doctrine could not be included in the broad ambit of the Catholic system, and how his attack called into question the principle of the whole system, rather than this or that corollary. Inasmuch as it is a rejection of Catholic first principles, Lutheranism is theologically irrefutable. When confronted with Lutheranism, Catholic apologetic finds itself in the position neatly outlined by St. Thomas (ST 1,q.1,1,8): it can solve the opponent’s objections but not to the opponent’s satisfaction, since he rejects the principle on which the argument refuting him is based. For Luther was not merely rejecting this or that article within the body of Catholic doctrine (although he did do that as well) but rather rejecting the principle underlying them all, which is the divine authority of the Church.

Bible and tradition are only authorities for the believer because the Church possesses them; and possesses them not simply materially or philosophically, but possesses the meaning of them, which she historically unveils little by little (pgs 22-23).

Watch how the caricature, the straw man unfolds. Where have we seen this before?

Luther, on the other hand, places both the Bible and its meaning in the hands of the individual believer, rejects any mediating role for the Church, entrusts everything to the individual’s private lights and replaces the authority of an institution by an immediacy of feeling which prevails over all else.

Yes, Luther rejected “the divine authority” of the Roman Church of his day, but not “any mediating role” for what is truly a church. On the other hand, he in no way “placed both the Bible and its meaning in the hands of every individual believer”. Not even the most hearty biblicists of that day or ours believed what this Roman Apologist attributes to Protestants.

There is a line from a Keith Green song, from the perspective of the Devil: “I put a little truth in every lie to tickle itching ears”. This is most certainly what the Roman apologist needs to do in order to function.

Still, the Roman Catholic view of “the Church” itself is the constant:

… the soul of the Lutheran secession was not a question of indulgences, the Mass, the sacraments, the Papacy, priestly celibacy or the predestination and justification of the sinner: it was an intolerance that the human race carries about fixed fast in its heart and which Luther had the daring to manifest openly: the intolerance of authority. Because the [Roman Catholic] Church is the collective historical body of the God-Man, it draws its organic unity from a divine principle. In such a context, what could man be, but a part, living by unity with that principle and by obedience to it? The man who breaks that link loses the forming principle of the Christian religion (pg 25).

Paul gave the criteria for the qualifications of a leader in the church: “an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

On the other hand, the Roman Apologetic feels free to dismiss these criteria completely:

Once the crisis is seen in these terms (“the intolerance of [Roman] authority”), the consideration of the moral faults of the clergy and the institutional corruption that followed from it become a secondary question, even though it remains important as the historical cause that touched off the assertion of the principle of private judgment.

There were certainly enormous abuses of the sacred on the part of the Church’s ministers: one could cite the monstrous example of [“Pope”] Alexander VI threatening his concubine with excommunication unless she returned ad vomitum [“to her old sins”]. Nonetheless, quite apart from the fact that an abuse does not justify rejecting the thing abused, there is also the fact that the reform of the Church could only happen, and in the event did happen, in an orthodox way, thanks to men who were always convinced that Catholics could not be acting rightly unless they had the seal of approval of those same churchmen whose vices they continued to castigate, even while recognizing their authority …

The reason why the corruption of shepherds caused only a dispersal of sheep, rather than a true crisis, was that malpractice was not erected into a dogmatic theory as it was by Luther. A theory is unlimited, since it contains in its universality a potential infinity of acts, whereas acts themselves are always limited.

Thus if the theoretical dogma is preserved, the health-giving principle [“the ultimate authority of the Roman church”] remains undamaged, and through it the whole of practical action is saved (pg 26).

What Is Roman Catholicism? Part 1

What is Roman Catholicism in our day? According to Leonard De Chirico, no evangelical theologian has had a good handle on answering this question in the post Vatican II years.

(Although to be fair to evangelicals, Roman Catholics don’t seem to have a handle on it either. As the AP recently quoted “Pope Francis”, “What are we waiting for? For the theologians to reach agreement? That day will never come, I assure you”).

One should note that even (maybe especially) among the core group among the Roman Catholic laity, “large chunks of Mass-going traditional Catholics don’t believe in basic doctrines of the Church” – that’s not “lapsed” Roman Catholics – it’s a group of people who attend Mass regularly and at least feign some kind of devotion to “the Church”. Maybe it has always been that way, since “Christianity” was made the “official” religion the Roman empire. Rome was careful to figure out “Rome is first”, but it kind of left the rest of “ecclesiology” an open question.

(Evidence: I’ve recently had the book “Figuring Out the Church” recommended to me. This is a work by a major Roman Catholic theologian, examining the writings of other Vatican II theologians. Whereas the Vatican II doctrine is “infallibly correct”, no one as yet can definitively figure out what it means).

Nevertheless, De Chirico tries, and Allison very much affirms what De Chirico concludes: that Roman Catholicism does have a “core” and it is identifiable.

Divergent cases of “development of doctrine”

the “living Magisterium” still has time to “reformulate”!

Over at Darryl Hart’s Old Life, there has been a long and wide-ranging discussion that’s talked about Ignatius of Antioch and his concept of the authority of bishops, how the actual doctrines of the “priesthood” and “hierarchy” have changed over time, as our historical understanding has sharpened its focus.

I’m re-publishing my comment here, with some minor modifications:

A commenter there who goes by the name Cletus van Damme said, in response to my statement, “According to Trent, you must have the full-blown thing [priesthood and a bishop-priest-deacon hierarchy] by “divine institution” and “from the hand of Christ”:

Similar language is used in Vat1. That same council affirms notions of development in the section where it cites Vincent, and Pius IX himself affirmed development as well in other statements/teaching. Saying something has “always been believed” or “always been taught” does not negate development. It’s like saying the Church has always believed/taught the Trinity. That doctrine obviously developed. All doctrine, no matter at what stage of development, was divinely given by Christ – it is part of the apostolic deposit.

Ratzinger: “for every statement advanced in one direction, the text offers one supporting the other side”

A week ago, I cited Protestant theologian David Wells describing Rome’s Divided Mind. The gist of what he was saying was this:

[Vatican II] actually endorsed two very different theologies and sometimes the differences could not be hidden. Neither side would accept ambiguity nor allow compromise. As a result, on some points the documents speak with two voices—one conservative and one progressive …

When neither side would back down and both insisted on having their views adopted, the Council searched for a reconciling statement which would be ambiguous enough to accommodate both schools of thought. When the Council was successful, both viewpoints were represented in one statement which obviously meant different things to different people …

There were times, however, when no reconciling statement could be found, and attempts to induce a surrender by one side or the other failed. In those cases, the Council would only endorse both positions with professional aplomb as if their mutual incompatibility were not longer glaringly obvious.

One kind of interpretive problem, then, which an analyst of the documents faces concerns the existence of those passages which are so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interests of both parties …

While reading Ratzinger’s work “Theological Highlights of Vatican II”, a work recently re-published touting Ratzinger as now Pope Benedict XVI, it seems as if the good Herr has confirmed the essential correctness of Wells’s analysis of Roman methodology.

Discussing “The So-Called ‘Explanatory Note’” tacked on to the end of the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, which sought to clarify the relationship of “bishops acting in conjunction with their head” with “bishops acting independently of the Pope”, Ratzinger says:

A detailed analysis of this very intricate text would take us here too far afield. The end result, which is what we are concerned with, would be the realization it did not create any substantially new situation. Without doubt the scales here were further tipped in favor of papal primacy as opposed to collegiality. But for every statement advanced in one direction the text offers one supporting the other side, and this restores the balance, leaving interpretations open in both directions. We can see the text as either “primatialist” or collegial. Thus we can speak of a certain ambivalence in the text of the “explanatory note,” reflecting the ambivalent attitude of those who worked on the text and tried to reconcile the conflicting tendencies. The consequent ambiguity is a sign that complete harmony of views was neither achieved nor even possible (Ratzinger, “Theological Highlights of Vatican II”, first published by Paulist Press, 1966, by special arrangement with Verlag J.P Bachem in Köln. English translation ©1966 by The Missionary Society of St Paul the Apostle in the State of New York; Introduction Copyright ©2009 by Thomas P. Rausch, SJ, pg s 170-171)

It should seem clear, even to the staunchest Roman Catholics now, that Wells was correct in his assessment, as it has been verified in print by Herr Ratzinger that official Roman documents “leave interpretations open in both directions”.

Now, this is a convenient state of affairs if you simultaneously (a) want to claim infallibility on a statement and (b) want to claim plausible deniability on a statement.

In the past, I have used phrases such as “what Rome gives with one fork of its tongue, it takes away with the other”

Speaking of “forked tongues” is not at all off the mark here. For in the light of Ratzinger’s statement, where, do we imagine, that Jesus’s statement fits into this official Roman methodology?

let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

“Rome’s Divided Mind”

“Both viewpoints were represented in one statement which obviously meant different things to different people...”

...Both viewpoints were represented in one statement
which obviously meant different things to
different people(click to enlarge).

The Second Vatican Council is different from the many ecumenical councils which have preceded it in at least two respects. First, it did not result from either external persecution or internal heresy. Second, for the first time in conciliar history, the documents which Vatican II developed officially embraced mutually incompatible theologies. This does not mean that councils in the past have always been unanimous in their decisions, for they have not. Nor does it mean that council decision were not sometimes compromises, for they were. And it does not mean that individuals or parties in the Church have always interpreted a council’s statement in the same way, for they have not.

What it means is that this council actually endorsed two very different theologies and sometimes the differences could not be hidden. Neither side would accept ambiguity nor allow compromise. As a result, on some points the documents speak with two voices—one conservative and one progressive. They reflect, in a fascinating and perhaps tragic way, the divided mind of modern Roman Catholicism. As a consequence, they pose a difficult problem. In attempting to analyze the mind of Rome, how are we to interpret the most important theological statement to emerge from this Church in [the twentieth] century?

The problem of interpretation will be clarified only when the unresolved confrontation between two theologies is seen clearly. The one theology was traditional, the other was not. The first was championed by the conservatives in general and the Curia in particular, while the second found its proponents among a new school of thinkers who in general represent the New Catholicism. The conservative approach largely concerned itself with representing the ideas of the Counter Reformation and the subsequent periods of high orthodoxy. By contrast, the new thinkers are considerably more flexible in their approach and, compared to draditional orthodoxy, relatively undogmatic. Their theology is rooted more in the patristic period than in the Counter Reformation, though it was mainly from the developments of the 1940s and early 1950s that they received their new direction. At issue in the Council, then, were not only matters of theology, but also questions of ideology, mentality and almost theological heritage.

When these two parties in the Council came into conflict, as they frequently did, one of three solutions was followed. Occasionally, but rarely, one of the positions emerged completely triumphant. Its ideas were written into the Council documents without modification from the other side.

A second solution was less satisfactory. When neither side would back down and both insisted on having their views adopted, the Council searched for a reconciling statement which would be ambiguous enough to accommodate both schools of thought. When the Council was successful, both viewpoints were represented in one statement which obviously meant different things to different people. …

Click to enlarge.

There were times, however, when no reconciling statement could be found, and attempts to induce a surrender by one side or the other failed. In those cases, the Council would only endorse both positions with professional aplomb as if their mutual incompatibility were not longer glaringly obvious. A case in point occurred in the Constitution on the Church which … was dramatically highlighted by Pope Paul VI’s clumsy intervention.

One kind of interpretive problem, then, which an analyst of the documents faces concerns the existence of those passages which are so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interests of both parties …

Vatican II is important because it gave the New Catholicism a legal base from which to operate. If this analysis is correct, the conservative, traditional position, partly endorsed in the conciliar documents, belongs to a dying world. The future is not in the hands of the conservatives….

David Wells, “Revolution in Rome”, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, ©1972, pgs 27-36.

On mining for support for doctrines “after the fact”, and finding “100% certainty” “under certain conditions”. Or: “Dogma-appreciation 101”

This is something that Nathan Rinne picked up on a couple of weeks ago:

Earlier in the thread [the “Visible Church” thread], in post # 221, John Thayer Jensen wrote: “… people often seem to me to make the mistake of deciding, first, what things are true – which implies some external canon – and then looking around for the body that teaches that.”

Michael Liccione, responded to that in post # 222 saying, “And that is the very essence of Protestantism. One assumes that the deposit of faith is knowable independently of ecclesial authority, and that one knows its content. Then one chooses a church whose teaching conforms with that.”

That comment by Mike prompted me to write my comment citing Beale on Adam, Eve, and Sola Scriptura, but there is another way to approach this.

In his comment “people often seem to me to make the mistake of deciding, first, what things are true … and then looking around for the body that teaches that”, John Thayer Jensen has described perfectly well what I’ve called the “Roman Catholic Hermeneutic”.

This is an almost perfect description of “how the Magisterium operates”. It, of course, has the body of doctrine for which it is responsible, “the formal proximate object of faith”, which it “infallibly” hands on, and thus you all have 100% epistemological certainty as to what is “divine revelation” contrasted with “mere human opinion”.

The Roman Catholic Church is willing to let this commenter be deceived

The Council of Trent held that “the purity itself of the Gospel [is always] preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand”.

Concerning the method of transmission, Trent was clear to state, “(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, [considers that the books of the Bible] as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

This principle, of exact dictation, conforms with the principle known as Semper Eadem, “always the same”. Owen Chadwick explained:

‘The Catholic faith’—what is it? An unchanging gospel, handed down by pen and mouth from age to age, generation to generation, mother to child, teacher to taught, pulpit to pew. An inexhaustible treasure deposited in a bank, so that all may draw from it. That which has been believed in every place, in every century, by all Christian men and women” (“From Bossuet to Newman” London: Cambridge University Press, ©1957, 1987, pg 1).

For a time, it was thought, Rome never changes. But now, in the world of Vatican II, Roman doctrine has certainly changed. Not only did Rome change in the period of time through the middle ages up until Trent (as Newman recognized), but it has changed radically in the days following Newman. And in Vatican II, seeking, in the words of “Good Pope John” (John XXIII):

The certain and unchangeable doctrine, to which we must remain ever faithful, must be examined and expounded by the methods applicable in our times. We must distinguish between the inheritance of the faith itself, or the truths which are contained in our holy doctrine, and the way in which these truths are formulated, of course with the same sense and same significance (citing from the opening speech at Vatican II, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia).

Except, in the “reformulating” of these “truths which are contained in our holy doctrine”, Vatican II used the very words of the flaming liberals, as one commenter put it. This writer contends that he and other “conservative Catholics” (whose “personal interpretation” of the Vatican II documents is perspicuously the correct one, whereas, the liberals are wrong), notes, that “belief in six-day creationism” is not merely “simplistic literalism”. Rather it is “a literal historical fact”. This commenter, is, in fact, much smarter and even more correct than Pope John Paul II, who said that “the recognition of the theory of evolution [is] more than a hypothesis”. Of course, now, “The Church's magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man”. In fact:

“Pius XII stressed this essential point: If the human body take its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God ("animas enim a Deo immediate creari catholica fides nos retinere iubei"; Humani Generis 36)”.

Fortunately, both of these evolution-friendly popes are dead, and this commenter now may continue to be the bulwark of support among Roman Catholics that “belief in six-day creationism” is “a literal historical fact”. (Any day now, Pope Benedict is going to kick the bucket; a new pope is waiting in the wings to recognize, infallibly and ex cathedra, what this commenter has been saying all along).

As I mentioned, Raymond Brown, was, according to this commenter, “was a flaming liberal, who unfortunately influenced a lot of Catholic laity and clergy”. Apparently, he and “other flaming liberals” not only influenced “a lot of laity and clergy”. But they influenced popes and conciliar doctrinal statements.

In his “Introduction to New Testament Christology”, here is what Brown says:

By the 1960s official church teaching affirmed that the Gospels were not necessarily literal accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus. [Contra Trent: see above]. … Yet this change of teaching has not been successfully communicated to the Catholic public at large; and so nonscholarly conservativism still prevails … Most churchgoing Catholics are not yet aware of any other view, even though now almost all Catholic biblical scholars (see below) have accepted that the Gospels manifest a development beyond the era of Jesus and for years have taught such a development to candidates for the priesthood or theological degrees (Brown, “An Introduction to New Testament Christology”, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, ©1994 by Associated Sulpicians of the U.S., pg 9).

Sulpicians, by the way, are an order devoted to teaching “candidates for the priesthood”, and Brown was one of them.

Brown points to the Pontifical Biblical Commission's 1964 "Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels", noting that “The substance of this instruction made it into Dei Verbum 5.19”, he said.

Here is what the “Instruction” said:

IX. This primitive instruction, which was at first passed on by word of mouth and then in writing--for it soon happened that many tried "to compile a narrative of the things" which concerned the Lord Jesus--was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each (author) set for himself. From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, (still) others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches. With every (possible) means they sought that their readers might become aware of the reliability of those words by which they had been instructed. Indeed, from what they had received the sacred writers above all selected the things which were suited to the various situations of the faithful and to the purpose which they had in mind, and adapted their narration of them to the same situations and purpose. Since the meaning of a statement also depends on the sequence, the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on (their) usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context.

Now, here is what Dei Verbum 5.19 said:

19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day …  The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

There is no question that, even if our commenter rejects this 1964 “Instruction”, Vatican II certainly endorsed it. This episode, of course, falls into the category of “those passages which are so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both parties”, according to David Wells.

My point, for the sake of the commenter, is not that the Pontifical Biblical Commission today has any authority. My point is, it had very real authority for the writers of Vatican II, (wasn’t one of them named Ratzinger?), and that, this is one of several statements of “passages which are so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both parties”.

So to be sure, “flaming liberal” interests have been served well – they are on the books now, written into a Roman Catholic Council, endorsed by popes and bishops, and if our commenter thinks that the infallible Magisterium of today’s Roman Catholic Church believe in “the historical Gospel accounts and in six-day creationism” that “Church Fathers shows very clearly they believed in”, well, he can go on deceiving himself. His “Church” is certainly willing to let him continue to be deceived.

Roman Catholics unite ... against their priest

And in this case, it's that sacrament of sacraments, "the Eucharist", that's taken hostage:

http://ncronline.org/news/global/austrian-parish-listens-priest-none-receive-host

This is really a follow-up to the situation in Austria to this blog post. But what's funny is that the unity was a unity of "disobedience", so to speak. Here's the scene:

The parish church of Amras, Austria, near Innsbruck in Tyrol, was chock-a-block full for the first-Communion Mass on April 22. Shortly before Communion, the parish priest, Norbertine Fr. Patrick Busskamp, announced that only Catholics who were in a state of grace should come forward to Communion. Catholics who are divorced and remarried and Catholics who do not attend Mass every week were not worthy to receive the Eucharist, he said.

When Communion time came, not a single adult came forward. The entire congregation demonstratively remained seated. Only the children received Communion.

I don't know how long this will continue in Austria, but it illustrates, again as I mentioned here, “the splendor of unity” that Vatican II put into place when they thought they were being clever by being “so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both parties”, the Liberals and the Conservatives, with the same equivocal statements.

Why we should continue to bring up the Roman Catholic sex scandals

If you were to study the history of Vatican II, you would see that there were two primary factions present: those who might be called the “traditionalists”, and those who might be called “the progressives”. At Vatican II, Rome didn’t solve the “unity” problem between these two groups on the strength of its doctrines. It papered over the problems with what amounted to a form of equivocation.

Rome has a history of pressing the unsavory use of language to its advantage (consider the tactic of mental reservation, which is really only an institutionally-sanctioned form of lying). Many of these recent scandals we are seeing really are only the fruit of its practice.

We are aware of the criticisms of the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” statements, which relied on equivocation of terms in order to demonstrate some form of agreement. In the case of Vatican II, (and in the “Spirit of Vatican II”), Rome used equivocation and amphiboly to paper over the differences between the “traditionalists” and the “progressives”. The Protestant theologian David Wells, in his brief 1972 book “Revolution in Rome” commented on one particular example:

One kind of interpretive problem, then, which an analyst of the (Vatican II) documents faces concerns the existence of those passages which are so brilliantly ambiguous as to be capable of serving the interest of both parties. The statement on biblical inerrancy best illustrates this problem. The council affirmed:

“since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” (Dei Verbum 11).

This statement, over which there was a considerable tussle both in private and in public, seems at first sight to affirm Rome’s traditional stance on this matter. For this reason, conservatives in the Council agreed to it, and some Protestants subsequently have been led to think that Catholicism’s historic stance on this matter is unaltered….

But is this really the case? A careful scrutiny of the Council’s statement shows that it can be interpreted in an entirely different way, one which a majority of Catholic scholars are now following. In perhaps the most lucid account of the Council’s theology, B.C. Butler, explains how. The council obviously spoke of the Bible “teaching without error”, but the significance of this phrase, he argues, depends on the view of “the truth” which Scripture is said to teach without error. ‘Here the word “truth” is qualified by a statement of the finality or purpose of inspiration; it is a question of truth relevant to God’s saving purpose summed up in Christ. The point he is making is that many truths of science and history have no part to play in our salvation. “For instance” he says, “the date of the appearance of the human species in natural history is not formally relevant to our salvation; the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection is formally relevant.”

The illustration in the first half of Butler’s sentence is so obvious that the reader is disarmed against the thrust of the second half. The council’s statement, he argues, guarantees as inerrant only those truths necessary for our salvation. The meaning of the passage, therefore, turns on the question of how much we need to know with certainty to be saved. Apparently there is room for discussion on this point. Butler has limited the inerrant statements of Scripture to those which bear on the saving actions of God which were summed up in Christ, but Gregory Baum has trimmed this core even further. To be saved, he says, we need to know exceedingly little; exceedingly little, then, is inerrantly taught in scripture (Wells, p. 29-32).

It should be said that the whole of Vatican II was pervaded by this “Spirit”. And coming out of this “Spirit” were highly liberal individuals such as, in the words of Carl Trueman, “the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter”. Roman Catholic epologists in our day automatically exclude these individuals from even being Catholic, but as Trueman says, “They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.”

Well, this faux “unity” is now coming home to roost for the Roman hierarchy.

To be sure, the doctrinal questions are at the heart of everything. And these sexual abuse scandals are something of a side show. James Swan at Beggars All has raised the question of just how useful it is to bring up the various scandals. And Luther himself said “Life is bad among us as among the papists. Hence, we do not fight and damn [the Roman Catholics] because of their bad lives …. I do not consider myself to be pious. But when it comes to whether one teaches correctly about the word of God, there I take my stand and fight. That is my calling. To contest doctrine has never happened until now. Others have fought over life; but to take on doctrine—that is to grab the goose by the neck! …” (Cited by Steven Ozment,”The Age of Reform, 1250–1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe”, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 198), pgs 315-316).

But today, Roman Catholicism is more than just the sum of its doctrines.

For many Roman Catholics, so much of it really isn’t about “the doctrines” or doctrinal arguments any more. It’s cultural. It’s an ethos. We are frequently asked, “given the doctrinal difficulties that Rome faces, what is it that allures smart people to convert to Rome?” I’m convinced that at least part of the attraction is the ethos of Rome.

Vatican II was largely about something I’ll call “the glories of the church”. Showing off “the splendor of unity”. For most Roman Catholics today, John Paul II was something like a kindly grandfather. He spent years of his life talking not about theology, but something called “marriage and family”, which, in good part, was a defense of Humanae Vitae and related issues of sexuality. And the ethos may be characterized as saying “it’s good to be Roman Catholic. I can live my life according to these rules, and feel good about myself.”

If you have ever been to a Friday fish fry, or heard your co-workers sitting around talking about “what they’re giving up for Lent”, well, that’s what “cultural” Roman Catholicism becomes in its local communities. It’s all about “good food, friends from the neighborhood, and fellowship at a place we can trust”. It is largely cultural.

Thus, this “sexual abuse scandal”, which occurred under the watch of the grandfatherly John Paul II really undermines all the good feelings that lots of people had about that time and era. There’s a real “yuck” factor with the sexual abuse scandal. But further to that, the sexual abuse stories aren’t even about the sexual abuse. They’re about the cover-up. They’re about the criminal behavior of the bishops and church administrators. And when we bring up these scandals, (and the daily newspaper makes that easy to do), the question becomes, “are these the individuals you want to trust with your soul?” A further (doctrinal) question might be, does God really promise to give special guidance to “the Church”, an organization like this one, which is simultaneously “leading the flock” and engaging in criminal behavior?

Historically, Rome has showed itself off to the world as an unyielding edifice, a shelter against the storms. The problem with that, is that only “The name of the LORD is a fortified tower” (Proverbs 18:10). Even the mighty Vatican is going to crumble some day.

And Jesus was right: we can discern a tree from its fruit. And so now, in pointing to the feminist nuns who are now in battle with the Bishops, [who are what they are “in the Spirit of Vatican II”] to the huge percentage of priests and bishops (estimates range from 20% to 50%) who are said to be gay, we may legitimately say, “Here is your infallible Church in action”.

There is rampant sexual scandal in the Roman Church, all through Church history. At a minimum, bringing all this up will give us the opportunity to ask Roman Catholics (as I have done) to articulate again the specific doctrines which say, yes, “even though these are the most wicked people in the world, Christ still promises to protect them from erring doctrinally”. That is a very lame argument, when you look at it, and I don’t think many people have the stomach for it.

The Internet and the speed of modern communications is genuinely shining a light on the difficulties that Rome’s ancient method of manipulation. Words really do mean things. Rome’s “we are the masters of the word” attitude has come into clear view, with bishops, who after all created “the Spirit of Vatican II”, now chastising the feminist nuns that their own practice of equivocation initially fostered. It is coming home, full circle.

In reality, Rome’s Vatican II solution was a cowardly solution. It was a failure to stand on principle, and these sex abuse cover-ups and this situation with the nuns that is the fruit of that flight from principle.

Rome’s epologists love to talk trash about “scholarship”. Pay no attention to the truth, or to the facts. What Rome has always said is really what it has always been”. Bringing up these modern-day failures of Rome’s ancient method is an exceptional way of undermining the veracity of what Rome has to say.

No, it’s not a primary “argument”. But it is a cultural factor that strips away some of the shine of the “cultural” reasons for becoming, or remaining, Roman Catholic. 

Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture. But Vatican II Rome puts itself there.

There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church thinks highly of itself. But lots of folks think that the Roman Catholic Church “softened up” itself and its image at Vatican II. That is not the case. Just to show a small example of why the Roman Catholic Church, post Vatican II, is a more ravenous wolf than its predecessor of just 100 years earlier, consider what Bavinck, writing about 1900, says:

The Catholic Church has not yet progressed to the point where it dares to equate ecclesiastical interpretation with divine truth. A twofold distinction still remains. In the first place, the church receives no new revelations. The pope possesses only interpretive power; he can and may proclaim as dogma only that which was, at all times, materially implicit in Scripture and tradition. And in the second place, in proclaiming the church’s dogmas the pope is not, like the prophets and apostles, the recipient of the inspiration but only the special assistance of the Holy Spirit (Vol 1, pgs 118-119).

On the other hand, as I’ve noted in the blog post below, Rome at Vatican II places its own “tradition” on the same level as Scripture. In “Dei Verbum”), it speaks of both “sources” “flowing from the same divine wellspring,” “merging into a unity” and “to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence”:

there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.

While Bavinck is clear, “Nothing may be put on a level with Scripture” (pg 86), and was fairly certain that the Roman Church of his day had not crossed that line, Vatican II Rome had the audacity to do just that. 

Whatever else the “definition of the word church” contains, it must be purged of Roman conceptions of Rome

For as long as I’ve been involved in Roman Catholic vs Protestant discussions (both those within myself at various points in my life, and with others, in person, and more recently, online), I’ve been trying to understand and characterize the struggle. To put it into words. To boil it down into understandable terms.

And many of you who have been involved in these discussions will have found out, the question always (or often) seems to hinge on one question: “what is the definition of the word ‘church’?”

In the history of the Christian church – the 2000 or so years since the time when Christ said, “I will build my church”, the answer to that question has taken many forms. There have been literally thousands of clerics or scholars or theologians and even “church bodies” who have tried to say precisely what that means. I don’t doubt that most of them have been sincere. But huge numbers of them, too, have been quite wrong-headed about it.

I have become convinced that the Roman Catholic Church today is the largest and the most wrong-headed about the whole understanding of what “the church” is. But beyond that, its mission is defined as perpetuating its own wrong-headedness, and sucking the whole world into its vortex.

* * *

Before I get into more of Campenhausen’s account of “where apostolic succession comes from”, I want to make a clarification. One friend commented:

The word “visible” seems to me to be problematic. I would say that the Church is visible in the sense that it is made up of many local congregations which have a visible presence in the communities in which they are found. It is invisible, of course, in the sense that we cannot know in this life, ultimately and for certain, who the elect are. It is my view, however, that it was NOT Christ’s intention to found a religious/political INSTITUTION called the Church.

That says some things pretty well. Of course we can “see” “the church” at various times and places. The WCF and the LCBF make these clarifying statements:

WCF — Chapter XXV: Of the Church:
1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ; the house and family of God, through which men are ordinarily saved and union with which is essential to their best growth and service.

LBCF — Chapter XXVI: Of the Church:
1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

(I knew this comparative chart existed but I wasn’t aware until just now that it resided at James Anderson’s site .)

And yes, I believe, with both of these confessions, that “the Pope of Rome cannot in any sense be head thereof” in that he “exalteth himself in the Church against Christ”. You can turn to the pope, or you can turn to Christ. I’m sure Roman Catholics would argue, “you turn to Christ through the pope” or maybe to soften that, “the pope helps you to get to Christ”. But in either case, the pope is an obstacle. We are able to get to Christ without a pope. For we Christians are promised, “we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16). If you, as a Christian may go directly to “the throne of grace”, why ever is there a reason to submit yourself to the slavish system that Rome has concocted over the centuries?

That, of course, is the big question.

* * *

And the answer that is most frequently given to that big question is, “The constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that Christ founded a visible Church with an essentially unified visible hierarchy.” In more “official” terms, that statement officially works out this way:

Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element. For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature [see the definition of Chalcedon] inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”. 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 communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

The phrase “subsists in” is a definite change from the word “is” from earlier Roman dogmas about the church. The earlier dogmas are unequivocal:

“This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, is the [Roman] Catholic Church”

The Vatican II characterization leaves some room for discussion:

“This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church”

As a cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger is on record as saying, essentially, “there is no difference between the two statements”. Dulles puts it this way:

Some have interpreted it as an admission that the Church of Christ is found in many denominational churches, none of which can claim to be the one true Church [though the Roman Catholic church sees itself to be the “gravitas” or the larger portion of it]. Ratzinger asserts the opposite. For him, “subsists” implies integral existence as a complete, self-contained subject. Thus the Catholic Church truly is the Church of Christ. But the term “subsists” is not exclusive; it allows for the possibility of ecclesial entities that are institutionally separate from the one Church. This dividedness, however, is not a desirable mutual complementarity of incomplete realizations but a deficiency that calls for healing.

* * *

In fact, in the Roman Catholic conception of “church”, all Protestants really are really just Roman Catholics who have become “separated” (as in “separated brethren”) – still under the visible headship of the pope and visible hierarchy [which is an integral, ontological part of the one body of Christ], yet “institutionally separate from the one Church”.

Yes, note especially that there is an ontological element implicit in this statement: For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation … governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him …. The doctrine of the papacy is wrapped up in the Roman definition of “church” and under the “successor of Peter”, we’re all just one big “living organ of salvation”.

That’s why Rome can never give up. It’s own conception of itself is just too important in the scheme of things. Rome has defined itself in as the most important element in the body of Christ. This is why I say, Rome is all about aggrandizing Rome.


* * *

This is what the Reformation is up against. This, I believe, is the greatest danger that the Reformation faces. Among all the other problems that the one church of Christ faces, this is the greatest one, even today. This is what lies “in, with, and under” every Roman Catholic overture of “peace and safety”, from every smiling Roman Catholic cleric. “We are all, after all, citizens of the Roman Empire”.

Even committed Protestants seem unaware of this dimension of, this danger from, the Roman Catholic Church. Those who look for “lines of continuity” between Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism especially risk being swallowed up in it.

So when the pope makes a seemingly sensible and ecumenical statement, even one that sensible Protestants like Paul McCain feel compelled to pass along without comment, we must always keep in mind what’s lying behind that apparent “good will”. Even “The Gospel Coalition”, in inviting the not-quite-converted Chris Castaldo to be a part of its blogging team, seems to miss this dogmatically defined danger from Rome.

Very few modern evangelicals realize the insidious nature of the way that Vatican II Roman Catholicism has positioned itself – the devouring and all-embracing nature of what Roman Catholicism is at its very heart.

However else Protestants want to understand the word “church”, the one thing that we must not allow ourselves to do is to become swallowed up by the behemoth of Rome. We must resist it with all our hearts. This is why I do what I do.