Misunderstanding Vatican II
When the question of the divide between Rome and evangelicals arises in contemporary discussion someone inevitably brings up either the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between Lutherans and Roman Catholics or the series of documents published jointly by a group calling itself Evangelicals and Catholics Together. These agreements, many believe, put the Reformation era controversies to rest.
The problem is that they do not. Rome has not recanted her positions with regard to Justification by faith alone, the singular norming authority of Scripture, her corruptions of the Doctrine of Grace Alone, nor her confusion with regard to the sole mediatorial work of Christ. Because these essential doctrines are clearly taught in scripture and because they have to do with the eternal salvation of souls, there can be no true unity until and unless they are embraced by all who call themselves Christians.
While we rejoice in the many theological and social agreements between evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church: Trinitarian doctrine, Christology, the sanctity of life, the autonomy of the Church with regard to the state…we cannot let our cooperation in these areas or our mutual affection obscure the significant divide with regard to the nature and essence of the Gospel. Here’s RC Sproul on the question:
There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church has changed since the sixteenth century. But the changes have not closed the gap between Rome and Protestantism. Indeed, the differences are greater now. For instance, the formally defined proclamation of the infallibility of the pope and all of the Mariology statements have come since the Reformation. Neither has Rome backed down from any of the positions it took in the sixteenth-century debate. In the updated Catechism of the Catholic Church, released in the mid-1990s, the treasury of merit, purgatory, indulgences, justification through the sacraments, and other doctrines were reaffirmed.
I think this misunderstanding has been driven primarily by confusion over the significance of Vatican Council II (1962–65). It was only the second ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church since Trent, the other being Vatican Council I (1869–70). So, these councils are rare events, and the church and the world were surprised when Pope John XXIII convened Vatican II…read more
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- The Art of the Non-Apology by Rachel Held Evans
- Jurgen Liias’s Move to Rome: A Spiritual Autobiography
- Andrew Wilson and Rob Bell on Unbelievable
- Pope Canonizes Saints, Reporter Gets the Vapors (UPDATED)
- Just A Little Flashback: William McKeachie on the Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI
- Beware the Christians
- Chesterton on the Meaning and Significance of Easter
Comments
Facebook comments are closed.
15 comments
Thanks Matt+ for bringing this to everyone’s attention. I appreciate all efforts to have a better informed church. R.C. Sproul makes some great points especially about how the RC Church has NOT changed some very basic theology about which Protestants and RCs do not agree. We need to know exactly we believe and what others believe for honest discussion. My take on all this- Anglicans and our theology is still a very viable “via media” between RC and Protestants as we like to claim to be Catholic and Reformed. Excellent. Perhaps a book to put on my Christmas list…. hmm…......
[1] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 10-31-2012 at 08:08 AM · [top]
I agree with you, Matt. I value my RC brothers and sisters very much, and treasure them as co-combatants for, and co-heirs of, the Kingdom of God, but I wish that their branch of the church had a mechanism to repair their deep theological flaws.
I also wish, frankly, that the RC church would formally accept us (evangelicals) as their Christian family, just I accept them as such. Scripture teaches that salvation is based on who you know (Jesus the Lord), not what you know (theology).
We love theology because we love the Lord, and theology opens our eyes to his word. But we should not be so dogmatic as to believe that any of us have all the answers right, in this life.
[2] Posted by Michael D on 10-31-2012 at 10:52 AM · [top]
So, how does one reconcile the joint declaration with the positions of the RC church? Is there a way to do it? Or is it just publicity flip flopping?
[3] Posted by Matthew on 10-31-2012 at 11:57 AM · [top]
Well I think my point Matthew is that there isn’t a way to do it. In the case of the Joint Declaration people tend to take semantic agreements for substantive agreements.
For example - Rome and evangelicals have always said, together, that we are justified by faith in Jesus Christ.
Saying that today costs neither side anything. If that is all Luther had said there would be no problem.
The bone of contention is that we insist that we are justified by faith “alone”. Rome has not agreed to that.
[4] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-31-2012 at 12:22 PM · [top]
Scripture doesn’t say “alone.”
[5] Posted by Cranmerian on 10-31-2012 at 12:42 PM · [top]
Nor does it say “Trinity” but the concept is clearly there.
“Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”(Rom 3:27-28)
[6] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-31-2012 at 12:59 PM · [top]
Yes, but we all know Luther hated the Epistle of James, and clearly James had something to say about righteousness and works and faith.
I also realize that having this argument with a 5 point Calvinist is a losing proposition too!
Just throwing that out there on All Hallows’ Eve.
[7] Posted by Cranmerian on 10-31-2012 at 01:35 PM · [top]
Luther went through a period where he wondered about James’ inclusion in the canon. He changed his mind later.
James did have something to say about faith and works but nothing that would contradict sola fide. I address this question here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/28013
[8] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 10-31-2012 at 02:17 PM · [top]
Odd that you should post under the name ‘Cranmerian’ yet query justification by faith alone
Cranmer in his sermon “Of the salvation of mankind”:
“But this saying, That we be justified by faith only, freely and without works, is spoken for to take away clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our justification at GODS hands, and thereby most plainly to express the weakness of man, and the goodness of GOD, the great infirmity of our selves, and the might and power of GOD, the imperfectness of our own works, and the most abundant grace of our Savior Christ, and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and his most precious blood shedding.”
http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom03.htm
[9] Posted by Steven Pascoe on 10-31-2012 at 02:32 PM · [top]
I think the undeniable point is that there are real differences between Protestant and Catholic, and that Vatican II was not at all about changing Catholic doctrine regarding those differences.
What Vatican II did change was attitude, not only to Protestants, but to those of other faiths. Instead of emphasizing that the other glass was half empty, the council fathers noted that it was also half full, and that we should at least rejoice in that. Or a quarter full or an eighth full. But the glasses are still different.
I certainly hope that this anniversary will prompt Catholics to re-visit the teaching of Vatican II. The documents, at least the major ones, can be read easily in an evening, and, from the web, at least, there seems to be so many misconceptions about what Vatican II taught, misconceptions that could easily be cleared up with nothing more than an acquantance with the documents themselves.
For Protestants, of course, the teaching of the Council has no authority, but there is may be some good in knowing precisely where the Catholic Church differs from the Churches of the Reformation.
Last year I purchased a copy of the two volume set, published by Georgetown, and edited by Norman Tanner, S.J., “The Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils,” covering all 21 councils recognized by the Catholic Church as ecumenical, and providing Greek and Latin original texts as well as the English translation. It’s a very good (if costly) resource for any wishing to put Vatican II in the context of prior councils.
[10] Posted by rick allen on 10-31-2012 at 02:35 PM · [top]
The meaning of Vatican II seems to be the subject of considerable debate within the RC church at present.
[11] Posted by MichaelA on 10-31-2012 at 05:12 PM · [top]
Matt, thank you for raising this issue. It was really quite stunning to me when I read the RC Catechism and saw the references to indulgences and the treasury of merit that remain in it. See paragraphs 1471-1479 here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm
For the the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church to have produced their “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” with this teaching of the Catechism still in place indicates they didn’t go nearly far enough in exploring the subject, or else they were imbibing some strange substances during the dialogue.
As to faith and works, John Piper has an interesting sermon which does the best job I have seen (at least in sermon form) of harmonizing Paul and James on justification: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/does-james-contradict-paul
[12] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 11-1-2012 at 01:02 AM · [top]
...the RC Catechism and saw the references to indulgences and the treasury of merit that remain in it…
I understand that the RC has no way to change these doctrines. All they can do is “spin” them as best they can. A friend of mine who teaches the catechism assures me that it all makes sense - but that seems to me to be spin.
[13] Posted by Michael D on 11-1-2012 at 06:48 PM · [top]
“the RC has no way to change these doctrines.”
Hence the attraction.
[14] Posted by rick allen on 11-1-2012 at 11:13 PM · [top]
#12 - I’m confused as to what the paragraphs you posted have to do with the joint declaration you mentioned. Indulgences and the treasury of merit have absolutely nothing to do with justification (and never have in the history of the Church). I could repeat what the Catechism says, but everone is capable of reading it for themselves.
#13 - I know many Anglicans who believe the paragraphs quoted on indulgences and the treasury of merits, including me. That being said, I don’t buy the RCC idea that official RCC church teaching can’t and has never “changed.” I call baloney on that one.
[15] Posted by Charles on 11-3-2012 at 09:12 AM · [top]
Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.
Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.