Monday, July 24, 2006

Who Has "The Gospel", And What Happens Without It?

In my review of the Gerry Matatics seminar, I mentioned “I couldn’t help but like Gerry, despite the fact that he denies the very Gospel I treasure.” This statement received a response in the blogback comments:

I am a Catholic convert who reads and enjoys your blog (even if I do disagree with you on many points). I am, however, troubled by this statement from your post: "despite the fact that he denies the very Gospel I treasure."Is this statement directed solely at Matatics or all Catholics? Surely, you don't believe that all Catholics are "gospel deniers." I mean, it's one thing to say that Catholics are mistaken in their interpretation of the Bible, and it's quite another to characterize that as denying the gospel. It just seems to me that with the culture rotting at its core, and Catholics and reformed protestants sharing much common ground, there ought to be a desire to use less hostile characterizations. I am not suggesting that we paper over our serious theological disagreements, but calling every Catholic a gospel denier seems a bit over the top.”

My comment was directed toward Gerry. During the seminar, Gerry repeatedly denied that justification is by faith alone. He made sure to emphasize this. I believe the Bible teaches Justification by faith alone (Romans 3-4). Thus, Gerry denies that which I treasure.

The next response:

James-I respect your position. It's one that I once held. But opposition to sola fide is not peculiar to Gerry. Indeed, all orthodox Catholics would reject that doctrine. But it's one thing to say, "Catholics reject a biblical doctrine that I believe to be at the very heart of the gospel," and quite another to call someone who disagrees with sola fide a "gospel denier." I just think we, as brothers in Christ, ought to move beyond such rhetoric. I may think that your wrong about sola fide, but I certainly don't question your love/devotion to Jesus Christ.Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to promote some sort of "warm fuzzy," let's-pretend-we-don't-have-any-theological-differences dialogue. I am just suggesting that questioning whether the other side is even Christian strikes me as unproductive.”

At the seminar, Gerry Matatics used the old analogy that if one is suspending a heavy object in the air by a chain, if one link is weak or bad, the entire object will crash to the ground. I feel similarly about Rome’s denial of the heart of the gospel- sola fide. While Rome may say some nice things about the Gospel, it denies the very heart of the Gospel. Thus, the entire Gospel “falls” in official Roman Catholic declaration. If one link in the chain is bad, the entire chain is bad and will not support what it intends to.

Right before the seminar, my wife leaned over to me and asked, “Are these people here our brothers and sisters in Christ?” I whispered back, “No…and maybe.” I said this because my opinion is that Rome denies the heart of the Gospel and so therefore does not officially teach the “Gospel.” On the other hand, I don’t deny that there are some Roman Catholics that are my brothers and sisters in Christ- but this is despite Rome’s teaching, not because of it.

I know it must seem arrogant and foolish to believe that sola fide is the heart of the Gospel. But I believe the Bible teaches it, and also teaches that finding justification in any other way is a doomed endeavor. I will attempt to present this position with as much respect as I possibly can. I realize this is a harsh opinion to Roman Catholic ears- but this does not mean I “hate” Catholics or dislike them. You won’t find me calling Rome the “Whore of Babylon” or saying that the Pope is the antichrist.

Now, Gerry Matatics and I at least seem to agree on one thing: I do believe that doctrine is important- so did Gerry Matatics. I believe doctrine has eternal consequences- so did Gerry Matatics. I think Gerry would likewise say to me, “If you are outside the church you will not be saved” or “you cannot be saved if you believe the heresy of sola fide”.

Take a look at these quotes from Gerry’s website:


Catholic Faith: no salvation outside of

“This true Catholic Faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now profess and truly hold …”

(Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 2, Profession of Faith, 1870)



Church: no salvation outside of

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic Faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity … This is the Catholic Faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

(Athanasian Creed; quoted and solemnly ratified ex cathedra by Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, session 8, November 22, 1439)

“There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice.”

(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215)

"The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church -- not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics -- cannot share in eternal life, and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgivings and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and [the Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches] that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

(Ex cathedra solemn definition of Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (Ecumenical Council), "Cantate Domino," 1441; Denzinger)

“It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members ... By divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and … this is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”

(Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, May 5, 1824; paragraph 14)

Church: only the baptized are members

"Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not unhappily withdrawn from Body-unity or for grave faults have been excluded by legitimate authority."

(Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

Faith, Catholic: Necessary for salvation

Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire he will undoubtedly be lost forever. This is what the Catholic faith teaches …

This, then, is what he who wishes to be saved must believe about the Trinity. It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ …This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved.”

(Athanasian Creed)

Jews: forfeit covenant relationship with God due to unbelief

“… If you be Christ’s then you are the seed of Abraham” (Gal 3:29). If we because of our faith in Christ are deemed children of Abraham, the Jews therefore because of their perfidy [“deliberate breach of faith; calculated violation of trust; treachery” – American Heritage Dictionary, Second edition] have ceased to be His seed.”

(St. Gregory the Great, Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, vol. 1, p. 92)

Non-Catholics: are not Christians

“Even the heretics appear to have Christ, for none of them denies the name of Christ; yet, anyone who does not confess all that pertains to Christ does in fact deny Christ.”

(St. Ambrose (+389): cited in Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 163)

“Therefore the holy martyr Cyprian, writing about schism, denied to the pseudo-bishop Novatian even the title of Christian, on the grounds that he was cut off and separated from the Church of Christ. ‘Whoever he is,’ he says, ‘and whatever sort he is, he is not a Christian who is not in the Church of Christ.’ “

(Pope Pius IX, Etsi multa, November 21, 1873, paragraph 25)

Unevangelized peoples: faithless and in bondage to Satan

“We are thankful for the success of apostolic missions in America, the Indies, and other faithless lands…They search out those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death to summon them to the light and life of the Catholic religion… At length they snatch them from the devil’s rule by the bath of regeneration and promote them to the freedom of God’s adopted sons.”

(Pope Gregory XVI, Probe Nostis, Sept. 18, 1840; paragraph 6)


Now- the times have changed, and Protestants are not normally considered “heretics” by Roman Catholic apologists anymore. We are considered “separated brethren” or something to that effect. Gerry Matatics though would conclude differently. At least Gerry and I can agree truth is vital, and both agree Catholics and Protestants believe in two different Gospels. Both of us believe the other is eternally wrong.

During the Reformation period the new Protestants were popularly considered heretics. But since Protestants are supposedly not heretics anymore- I have to wonder why there is a need for most Roman Catholic apologetics. What’s the point? Why do Catholic apologetics? Why spend so much time writing against the Reformation or Protestants? It seems time could be spent better elsewhere.

I've been in more than a few discussion with Roman Catholics. Very few wish to call me a heretic. I tried one time to appeal to Galatians 1:6-9-

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"

I've asked- Isn't Justification by faith alone considered "another gospel" to a Roman Catholic? Why not condemn me a heretic?

The answer:The only way I could be deemed a heretic was if I knew the Roman Catholic Church was the true church- and still I denied her truth. But since I remain convinced the Roman Catholic Church does not teach the truth and is a false church, i'm not a heretic, but rather, seperated brethren- due to my ignorance- even though I adhere to faith alone, and believe that it is the Gospel- and I condemn as anathema any system that would deny it.

Now apply Catholic apologist logic to the Scriptures, and church history. What happens? It's not possible to consistently apply this logic to the Scriptures and church history. It certainly doesn't seem to fit with Paul's emphatic plea in Galatians 1. It also doesn't seem to fit with what the Council of Trent declared:

Canon 9- "If Anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia grips it:

"The doctrine of justification by faith alone was considered by Luther and his followers as an incontrovertible dogma, as the foundation rock of the Reformation, as an "article by which the Church must stand or fall" (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesia), and which of itself would have been a sufficient cause for beginning the Reformation, as the Smalkaldic Articles emphatically declare. Thus we need not wonder when later on we see Lutheran theologians declaring that the Sola-Fides doctrine, as the principium materiale of Protestantism, deserves to be placed side by side with the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura ("Bible alone", with the exclusion of Tradition) as its principium formale -- two maxims in which the contrast between Protestant and Catholic teaching reaches its highest point. Since, however, neither maxim can be found in the Bible, every Catholic is forced to conclude that Protestantism from its very beginning and foundation is based on self-deception."

24 comments:

Ap said...

James,

Apolonio here. Nice to "meet" you. I have discussed these things elsewhere and I don't think I can do justice to comment on your post exhaustively or even comprehensively. I suggest you read Catholic theologians on these issues rather than Catholic apologists. Go read the discussions in Al Kimmel's blog since I believe they are fruitful. Now to your comment:

"Now- the times have changed, and Protestants are not normally considered “heretics” by Roman Catholic apologists anymore. We are considered “separated brethren” or something to that effect."

The difference is this. During the reformation, ther were mostly Catholics. Luther was a Catholic and so on. Now, a person who denies the Catholic faith, if he is a Christian, a Catholic, is a heretic. A person who believes that the true Church is the Catholic Church but denies dogmas are heretics. Now, a person becomes a Christian, becomes part of the Church when he is baptized. That has been a doctrine ever since. Now, a heretic is someone who is somehow united to the Church (because of his baptism) but is not in full communion (J. Maritain's book on the Church has a neat explanation of this). Schismatics or heretics are usually called the wounded members of the Church. Why do we call Protestants seperated brothers? Because they are baptized and hence, in Christ in some way. Are they heretics? Materially, yes. Formally, I don't know--it depends on the person.

As far as EENS, that's too easy. "Church" was never limited to the visible structure of the Church, even in medieval times. Aquinas, for example, speaks of the Church as the communion between God and His people. Mike Liccione and I and others have discussed this elsewhere. You also have to know that the Church has always spoken of baptism of desire and baptism of bloog. The Council of Trent is clear on this and so are the Fathers. See:

http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1100#comments

With regards to the heart of the Gospel. The heart of the Gospel is not sola fide nor is it the Catholic doctrine on justification. The heart of the Gospel is a Person, Jesus Christ--the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe in the importance of dogmas and doctrines, but they only point to Jesus Christ who is the center of history and the universe. This is what Catholics have been saying for many years (Guardini is a great example). And Barth is a great proponent of this when it comes to Protestantism. So the heart of the Gospel is not sola fide, that is, faith alone. It is not man-centered, that is, speaking of what justifies man (his faith), but Jesus Christ Himself.

Chaz said...

The following are true statements:

Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.

To have eternal salvation, one must hold to the Catholic faith.

However:

Rome doesn't know what the Catholic Church or the Catholic faith is.

It is not that church in fellowship with and that faith confessed solely by the Bishop of Rome.

It is the church established by Christ and the faith that trusts Him for eternal salvation.

There are many in the Papistic fellowship who ARE Catholic and DO hold to the faith. However, they do not exhaust the definition of Catholic.

I am, as I like to say, an Evangelical Lutheran Orthodox Roman Catholic.

I will not surrender the terms or the capital letters.

Mark said...

Jim,

Check out todays program at Issues, Etc. I haven't heard it yet. The progam is entitled ""The Journey Home Interview with a Catholic Convert from Lutheranism" and I wonder if this is what we were chatting about the other day.
http://kfuo.org/ie_main.htm

Blessings,
Mark

James Swan said...

My apologies for not yet responding to Mr. Latar and Steve Dillard. I'm a little busy with non-internet related business. I have some free time on thursday and friday night, and I will be evaluating their comments.

Thanks to Frank for his insightful comments, and to John Mark for the link.

Blessings- James

Chaz said...

Frank, the reason I call myself a Evangelical Lutheran Orthodox Roman Catholic is because I truly believe that all those words properly belong to Lutheranism.

The Papists are not Roman nor are they Catholic. They have departed from both.

Here's a couple of posts where I explain what I mean by this:

http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com/598206.html
http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com/576238.html

I am unwilling to surrender to Rome, to modern Evangelicalism, or to Orthodoxy those words which I believe rightly belong to Lutheranism.

Anonymous said...

I'm always amused by modern protestants that think that Luther just wanted to reform the Church that had allowed error to "seep in over time" A few minutes on the internet should disabuse anyone of that idea. For one example out of many, point your browser to ethiopianorthodox.org and look at their teachings. Go to the page on the Seven Sacraments for example. The writing there could just as easily be from the modern RC catechism. C'mon, protestants, are we really supposed to believe that the RC church and Ethiopian Church which broke off communion some 1100 years before Luther was even born somehow just coincidentally came up with the exact same doctrine? If you believe that, i got some ocean front.... well you know the rest.

Anonymous said...

Chaz,

You are not the first heretic to want to keep the name Catholic without any success in doing so. Listen to Saint Augustine from his letter against Mani, "...And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called 'Catholic,' when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house"

It is still the same today. If you were to ask the average joe on the street where the Catholic Church is, where would he direct you? God has the best sense of humor.

Churchmouse said...

Although I believe that tradition can provide valuable insight in understanding Scripture, "anonymous" symbolizes to me what I believe is wrong with Rome today. Appealing to fallible men and how they determine catholicity is a jigsaw puzzle with a lot of missing pieces and some irregularities. I say this assuming that Augustine did indeed state that the seven sacraments are the marks of the church, but I don't ever remember reading anything which supports this position. Neither do I remember reading that he represented orthodoxy or that he believed his teachings to be infallible. Instead, one would do well to allow Scripture to determine orthodoxy. This I believe would be Augustine's position.

Peace,
Ray

Gavin said...

To add to Frank's comments (this is getting to be a long comment section!) the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not a Christian church, as they adhere to Christological errors. I think the one where they say Jesus had a single nature, as opposed to the dual nature. Not to mention a LOT of other weird stuff with them, such as claiming to have the Ark of the Covenant at their Cathedral. So I'd say they aren't a good example of valid churches sharing Roman doctrine.

Chaz said...

I certainly don't always call myself an Evangelical Lutheran Orthodox Roman Catholic...

The point of my occasional use of it is to point out the very fact that the anonymous commentator denies: All the words belong to Lutheranism and can be properly used by us and in the strict sense, only us.

I usually call myself a Lutheran and consider that the most clear approach. But when people say that we can't call ourselves one of those other things, I take an approach very consistent with Article X of the Formula of Concord. I use the word forcefully. It's mine. They just have to deal with that.

The Papist church departed from the true catholic faith (at the very latest) at the Council of Trent.

Ethiopia did so perhaps a lot earlier (after the Council of Chalcedon). Though I'm not quite so quick to condemn monophysitism because I think it sometimes boils down to logomachy. Some monophysites mean the same thing when they confess Christ as diphysites do... not universal, of course, but Cyril, an faithful bishop of the church, often sounds a lot more like a monophysite than he does like Leo the Great.

But I digress...

The words are mine and I won't be giving them up. But I don't use them routinely. To say I like to call myself an Evangelical Lutheran Orthodox Roman Catholic is not to say that I do it all or even most of the time.

Anonymous said...

Obviously the Ethiopian Church rejected the Apostolic teaching on the nature of Christ after Chalcedon. My point is that even after becoming heretical on the nature of Christ, they maintained, as is obvious from a simple perusal of thier website, the Apostolic teaching on the propitiary mass, the other sacraments, justification by faith and works, scripture and tradition, etc. It is really simple. You either have to believe that the copts, armenians, ethiopians, greeks, etc. all just happened to develop the same wrong doctrines or you make the obvious choice that Luther came up with a completely new heretical religion some 1500 years after Christ died. I can't see how anybody with a brain could pick the former but then again I haven't met too many protestants who are strong in the brain department.

Chaz said...

Frank,

We got our liturgy from Rome. Plain and simple. Those portions that had been added post-Gregory that were contrary to the Scriptures were removed, but in essence, we still use the Roman liturgy.

I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it IS the truth.

You don't have to agree with me. Lots of people don't. ;-)

But though the liturgy reflects what Scripture teaches, it didn't just start floating above our bibles one day. It has a history, and that history is Roman.

Churchmouse said...

Frank,

In regards to "anonymous", It seems it suffices him to look at the things which are harmonious between the East and the West, the basic four sacraments which we can only assume are more or less common with Rome. Yet, for all of their shared history, "anonymous" seems to ignore the differences between the ancient churches. The East has never held to an infallible papacy complete with the universal jurisdiction it claims. They've never held to purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, and what about the issues with the filioque? The Church Fathers weren't uniform with each other on every doctrine as well and, even some of the earliest, such as Irenaeus--who is claimed to have been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist--well, he taught that Jesus was crucified a middle-aged man. And his view of the Eucharist almost reflects the Lutheran view of consubstantiation. Again, this is a man who lived in the 2nd century who is once removed from an actual Apostle. Should we believe that John, who knelt before the crucified Christ, taught Polycarp, who then taught Irenaeus that Jesus was a middle-aged man? If Irenaeus was indeed teaching consubstantiation, judging by his proximity to John, would Roman Catholics be willing to say that this teaching may be Apostolically viable?

Peace,
Ray

Chaz said...

Not to split hairs, but the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper is not consubstantiation.

Rather, it is that the Lord's body and blood are present and so are the bread and wine.

Consubstantiation is an Aristotelian description of how that might take place. It is NOT a teaching of Lutheranism. Lutheran theology confesses what the Scriptures say and cares not one whit about how it takes place.

We rejoice in the promise and that is that.

Churchmouse said...

Chaz states:
Not to split hairs, but the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper is not consubstantiation.

Hi Chaz,

Good to know. Guilty as charged. I guess it was dumb habit of mine, but I didn't realize I was pigeon-holing a matter of faith. You make perfect sense.

Out of curiosity, I know Frank is LCMS, are you in the same synod, Chaz?

Peace,
Ray

Chaz said...

Yes, Ray. I'm in the LCMS.

I will be beginning my fourth year of seminary study in September and God willing will receive a call into the Holy Ministry in April.

I am now in the last days of my vicarage (pastoral internship). Monday is the last day.

Chaz said...

Frank,

You have an interesting perspective on church history, but I'm not sure that it reflects the view of the Lutheran Confessions.

Chaz

Chaz said...

Frank,

I think you misunderstood me. I did not intend my previous post to be a qualitative judgment against your perspective on church history.

Rather, I was making an observation that it seems to me that what you are saying about church history comes from a different perspective than that of the confessions.

Do you have to view history the same way the confessions do? No. You don't. They are not an exhaustive treatise on everything.

What puzzles me about your approach to church history is that it seems to say that there was no real body of Christian teaching before the Book of Concord and the Council of Trent. I think that would have been very surprising to Luther and all the Western Catholics before him. I think it would have been very surprising also for the Western and Eastern Catholics in 1054 who divided from one another on differences of public confession, namely that of the 7th (I repeat SEVENTH) Ecumenical Council.

These councils made public confessions all the way from Nicaea I to Nicaea II... seven councils worth of them.

You note that these were not distinctive. Well, how about the liturgy in Luther's day. Was it not a confession of the faith? If it were not, there would have been absolutely no need for Luther to reform it.

I believe that the Confessions speak of an erring Roman Catholic Church that existed prior to the Reformation. They call that same church to repentance. When that body officially refuses to do so, they leave the Church Catholic.

Lutheranism is the Church Catholic which they left, from which they divided.

I think our disagreement is primarily on the point that an official erring body of teaching came into existence. Or maybe our misunderstanding of one another is more fundamental than that. I'm not sure.

I don't posit that only Lutherans can do church history, but I do try to approach church history in the same way that the Confessions do. Perhaps we disagree on what that approach is.

I appreciate, Frank, that you seem very committed to historic Lutheranism as it is confessed in the Book of Concord and among the later reformers. That is a wonderful thing!

I guess maybe a point where we differ a bit may be in that I believe that Lutheranism predates the birth of Luther. In fact, one of my favorite _Lutheran_ Fathers is Saint Leo the Great.

Rev. Larry Beane said...

Interestingly, the Book of Concord never uses the terms "Lutheran" and "Protestant" - though certainly those words were extant between 1530 and 1580. I don't believe this to be an accidental oversight, but rather a deliberate assertion of ecclesiology.

However, the Book of Concord repeatedly uses the word "Catholic" to describe the faith to which we cling and as an adjective to describe the Church.

Obviously, labels have evolved over time - and "Lutheran" - which was originally placed on the reform-minded Catholics by their detractors - stuck and became a label the "Lutherans" eventually accepted. Much like "Yankee" (a term of derision) becoming a label of pride to 18th century Americans and "rebel" (similarly a slur) being embraced by 19th century Americans.

Luther himself pleaded in vain for those who confess the Augsburg confession not to call themselves "Lutheran." For good or bad, the toothpaste is out of the tube on that one. However, we can, as Chaz has done, reclaim the terms of our confessional heritage, especially the word "Catholic."

And it's really not all that outragious. Most Christians, from Anglicans to Presbyterians and Methodists use the word "Catholic" when citing the creeds. Even the Roman Catholic Church no longer considers Lutherans and other Nicene Christians who are outside of the pope's authority to be heretics.

In fact, those Roman Catholics who would claim we Lutherans are heretics are acting ironically in rebellion against the Vatican conciliar and papal authority. We are now considered "separated brethren." Our baptisms are recognized, and interestingly, the Roman theologians of the Catholic-Lutheran dialogues (which included the late Blessed Rev. A.C. Piepkorn) who were discussing Eucharist and ministry unanimously recommended that Lutheran ministerial orders and Masses be considered valid!

Pope Benedict himself urged Rome to embrace the Augsburg Confession as a "Catholic document."

The history of Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism is still being written. We don't know how the book will end.

Ap said...

James,

When you do respond please contact me so I can see what you wrote.

James Swan said...

Apolonio here. Nice to "meet" you.

I don’t think we've met- though I recall seeing you at the Rutland/White debate. Rich Pierce pointed you out to me as we were breaking down the PA system. Note that I link to your blog in my sidebar- it’s been there for quite a while.

I have discussed these things elsewhere and I don't think I can do justice to comment on your post exhaustively or even comprehensively. I suggest you read Catholic theologians on these issues rather than Catholic apologists. Go read the discussions in Al Kimmel's blog since I believe they are fruitful.

I haven’t read Kimmel’s blog, but I will check it out.

The difference is this. During the reformation, ther were mostly Catholics. Luther was a Catholic and so on. Now, a person who denies the Catholic faith, if he is a Christian, a Catholic, is a heretic. A person who believes that the true Church is the Catholic Church but denies dogmas are heretics. Now, a person becomes a Christian, becomes part of the Church when he is baptized. That has been a doctrine ever since. Now, a heretic is someone who is somehow united to the Church (because of his baptism) but is not in full communion (J. Maritain's book on the Church has a neat explanation of this). Schismatics or heretics are usually called the wounded members of the Church. Why do we call Protestants seperated brothers? Because they are baptized and hence, in Christ in some way. Are they heretics? Materially, yes. Formally, I don't know--it depends on the person.

My question would be, does this explanation cover the understanding of all those quotes from Gerry Matatics I posted? In other words, would those people who said very clearly that there is no salvation for anyone not united to the Catholic Church give me a similar explanation? Gerry Matatics would probably say no. He’d say your explanation is a novum, and a deviation from the “true” Catholic faith.

As far as EENS, that's too easy. "Church" was never limited to the visible structure of the Church, even in medieval times. Aquinas, for example, speaks of the Church as the communion between God and His people.

I sat through about an hour of the Matatics seminar, and quite clearly did not limit the church to a “visible” structure, and yet concluded that one needs to be united in baptism and doctrine to her. If you get a chance, read my blog entry on the seminar:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/07/gerry-matatics-catholic-apologist-for.html

With regards to the heart of the Gospel. The heart of the Gospel is not sola fide nor is it the Catholic doctrine on justification. The heart of the Gospel is a Person, Jesus Christ--the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We both know my comments were in regard to a “doctrine” and the understanding of that doctrine. Christ is the heart of every aspect of the Christian faith- this should go without saying.

On the other hand, the gospel message is about “salvation”- and protestants and Catholics do differ on the content of that message. The heart of the Gospel message is that Christ’s righteousness becomes mine by faith alone. It is the only righteousness that is acceptable for salvation by a Holy God.

James

Chaz said...

When used of the church, Roman does not refer to the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire...

It refers to the city and the bishop of said city. From the beginning of the New Testament Church there has been a bishop in Rome who has been one of the most important leaders of the church.

At the time of Luther, the Roman bishop was largely in control of the whole western church. That is why it was a Roman church. And we are heirs of that Western, Roman, tradition.

Thus I stand by the fact that the description Roman belongs to us.

Ap said...

James,

Thanks for the response. I didn't know you were at the Rutland/White debate. We could've chatted. And Rich was a nice guy.

"In other words, would those people who said very clearly that there is no salvation for anyone not united to the Catholic Church give me a similar explanation?"

Well, I don't know what Matatics believe anymore and I lost interest in his work so I can't say if we agree or not. But to the question above, the answer is, there is no salvation for anyone not united to the Church. The question is, how is someone united to the Church? One is baptism. All the baptized are united to the Church in some way. Some also have a valid episcopate. In Catholic theology, they are called "particular churches." They are united to the Church because of their apostolic succession and the sacraments although if they do not believe in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, they are not in *full* communion. With regards to Protestant communities, they are called ecclesial communities because of their valid baptism but they are not called "churches" because they do not have a valid episcopate. Now, when a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox "convert," it is not that they disbelieve everything they believed. They just come in *full* communion with the Catholic Church and receive the fullness of the faith which they had an only a partial of when they were not Catholic. I hope that clears up a bit. Vatican 2 came along and said that through no fault of one's own, if he does what is good and follows the truth as much as he can, he *can* be saved, that is, it is possible for him to be saved. This is not new teaching. This is the teaching also of Pius XII in the encyclical Mystical Body of Christ as well as Trent. When one, through no fault of his own, follows the truth, he is in some way united to the Church because Christ is the truth. This is called "implicit faith" (Aquinas). And this is also taught by Trent, that there is such a thing as baptism of desire. Aquinas says that baptism of desire has the same effect as that of water baptism. He also speaks of invincible ignorance which means that one is not held responsible for something that he does not know about. When one tries to follow the truth, and since he is some way united to the Church, he is in some way Catholic. He is a "spiritual Catholic" (Garrigou-Lagrange. Also see Charles Cardinal Journet's Theology of the Church). That neatly clears up the language in the Council of Florence, that yes, a "Jew" or a "pagan" cannot be saved. But when one is a Jew who through no fault of his own follows the truth, he is considered to have implicit faith and in some sense Catholic. Gregory Nazianzus says:

For just as many of ours are not with us, whose life makes them other from our body (the Church), so many of those outside belong to us,who by their way of life anticipate the faith, and need (only) the name,having the reality (ergon). (Oration 18. 6. PG 35)

That is why the distinction between material and formal heretic is neat. Materially, one can be a heretic but not formally so (maybe because of his invincible ignorance).

As for heart of the Gospel, I guess I misunderstood you.

You said,

"On the other hand, the gospel message is about “salvation”- and protestants and Catholics do differ on the content of that message. The heart of the Gospel message is that Christ’s righteousness becomes mine by faith alone."

Well, we both know we disagree on justification so I don't need to restate anything on that. As for the gospel message being about salvation, I agree though there are a few refinements I would add, which I think you would not disagree with. When Paul uses the word "gospel," he usually means the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The gospel to him is an event, the resurrection, that Jesus is Lord. His view was more eschatological than simply the state of an individual, whether he is justified or not, although this does not mean that he does not speak or care about one's state. Paul and the first century Christians believed that Jesus Christ has redeemed Israel and the whole cosmos. The relationship between God and man is not simply a "contract," but now a communion, that is, one can actually partake in the nature of God. It is christological as well as ecclesiological. For more, check my post:

http://apolonio.blogspot.com/2006/05/musings-on-justification-not-epistemic.html

Again, I don't think you would disagree with that. Of course that doesn't mean we agree on the nature of justification.

Again, thanks for the response.

Anonymous said...

IM SORRY TO TELL YOU NO ROMAN CATHOLIC WHO REMAINS A ROMAN CATHOLIC GETS IT.
TO SAY THAT TELLS ME, YOU DONT KNOW THE BIBLE OR YOU DONT KNOW ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
WHICH IS IT.
YOU CANT BE IN A PLACE (IT IS NOT A CHURCH) THAT GOES AGAINST GODS WORDS BY ADDING WORKS TO THE GOSPEL AND GET IT SIR.
LEARN FIRST THE WORD, THEN DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND STUDY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
IF YOU CAN DISCERN CORRECTLY, YOU WILL FIND NO ONE CAN REMAIN A ROMAN CATHOLIC AND BE SAVED.
ITS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
YOU CANT SERVE TWO MASTERS.
THE LORD AND A CHURCH WHO SAYS, ITS OK TO GET TO THE FATHER, THRU MARY, COMMUNION , WATER BAPTISM, PURGATORY AND THE LIKE.
AGAIN, DO YOUR HOMEWORK, BEFORE YOU CHOSE TO SPEAK SO FOOLISHLY.
THANK YOU
BEV