food4thought

This is the second in a series of short slots attempting to understand Roman Catholicism. The intention is not to stir up division. That exists already. But to understand where and why Roman Catholicism differs from Biblical Christianity as represented in the Reformed Tradition since they stand on different sides of the post reformation divide. A few weeks ago we thought about the issue of scripture and tradition. This week we’re thinking about the significance afforded to this man. Of him official Roman Catholic teaching states,

‘The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth …. By divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth’

The New York Catechism, quoted in Lorraine Boettner’s book, ‘Roman Catholicism’, published by Presbyterian & Reformed.

That’s some claim.

Vatican 1, a collection of high ranking Roman Catholic Clergy, meeting in 1870 set out to clarify Papal authority and infallibility. They concluded two things

a. That the Pope has authority to tell us what to do

The argument runs like this

• Jesus gave Peter supreme authority over the church and the world.
• This right of authority was passed down through Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome for all time.
• The Pope therefore has ultimate authority so that he cannot be questioned.
• If any questions of faith arise then they must be defined by the judgement of the Pope.
• All churches in the world should agree with the Roman Catholic church.
• In fact it’s necessary for salvation that everyone who professes to be a Christian must be submitted to the authority of the Pope

b. That the pope has an infallible ability to be right about those things

Inherent in this authority is his infallible teaching authority over the entire church. When speaking ‘ex cathedra’, in his official capacity as Pope, he speaks without error. And so the Roman Catholic church has always been free from doctrinal error.

It’s important to be clear what this is not saying, his infallibility is

• Restricted to pronouncements made in his official capacity as the head of the church.
• Restricted to pronouncements intended for the whole church.  
• Restricted to pronouncements concerning faith and morals so we can’t ask him who’ll win the 2.30 at Kempton.

In practice however, there’s great flexibility about what features under the headings of faith and morals. It’s alleged that this teaching has always been believed by all the true church and according to Vatican I papal authority and infallibility rest on two familiar foundations: scripture and tradition. In the time we have available let’s quickly investigate the testimony of scripture and historical tradition.

1. Papal authority and infallibility is a misunderstanding of scripture

The best case for the Roman Catholic position rests on their interpretation of Matthew 16,

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

The Roman Catholic interpretation is that

a. Peter is the rock upon which Christ said he would build the church

b. Christ gives him the keys of the Kingdom of God with authority to bind or loose

c. since the keys represent authority he is said to have supreme authority over all of Christ’s church and that this authority is handed down to his successors

d. infallibility is implied in Christ’s promise that the gates of hell will not triumph against the church

If this is right then it’s a strong case. But I’m not convinced that this is the best interpretation of this passage, can I suggest instead that when Christ says that he will build his church on a rock, he is not referring to Peter personally but to Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ. And so the foundation upon which the church rests is Jesus. I’m persuaded by that for three reasons

a. Peter never understood Jesus’ words to imply that he was the rock in fact he used this terminology to apply to Christ in his letters

b. He simply regarded himself as one church leader amongst many not as having supremacy over them

c. The consistent teaching of the Bible is that rock like properties belong to Christ

The case is looking shaky from a scriptural perspective what about history?

2. Papal authority and infallibility is a misreading of history

According to Vatican I these teachings ‘have been held by the entire church through all ages’. There are two major writings of the 1st three centuries that Roman Catholic theologians enlist as historical evidence for papal authority and infallibility. The best case for papal infallibility rests on these two accounts.

The first major writing is Clement’s First Epistle written to the Corinthian church around the year 96 AD. This letter was written from Rome to the church in Corinth telling them to get their act together. But it’s far from establishing Rome’s primacy over all other churches through the ages. At the time of writing there was no single Bishop in Rome, or Pope, instead there was a multiplicity of elders. In addition others were also writing letters like this at that time and yet no supremacy for them is claimed.

The second major writing is Irenaeus’ work ‘Against Heresies’ in which he makes reference to the church at Rome. He was responding to Gnostic claims that they alone possessed the secret tradition of apostolic truth. Irenaeus used the church at Rome as an example of a group of Christians that could legitimately trace back their doctrine to the apostles since Peter and Paul had founded this church. But while he focussed his attention on Rome he does not suggest that Rome is unique because what could be said about them could be said of any other church founded by the apostles. There are additional historical inconsistencies that could be highlighted but if you’re keen for those I can give you the references.

Conclusion

Authority and infallibility rest not in a man, the Pope but in a book. The Bible is God’s personal words to us. His word has the right to tell us what to do and his word alone is without error. Our task is to understand it aright which I suggest Roman Catholic teaching has not done at all well on this issue.

How do we react to the Popes death?

Many of us will be aware that Pope John Paul II died last night. The Sunday newspapers are awash with tributes. Yesterday the front page of the Sun declared that he was ‘In God’s Hands’. The Times provided 10 pages of comment on his likely death and its implications and then included a colour insert entitled ‘An Appreciation’. It’s an event that is likely to dominate the news cycle for the foreseeable future and probably push the announcement of the general election into the background. Our friends and colleagues at work aware of our Christian faith may ask us for a view and it would be good to have one! These are my first thoughts concerning how we ought to react and what we might say. I’m sure that there will be other things to say and that’s perhaps a topic of conversation for the pub afterwards. In particular it’s worth thinking of some short pithy observations to move the conversation to a deeper level. As a means to opening the conversation let me give you four things that I would want to think and repeat if asked how I’m responding to the death of the Pope

1. I’m responding in sadness for death is a rude intruder into human existence

Death comes to us all whether we are followers of Christ or not. For the unbeliever it’s a death with the experience of judgement and condemnation to follow. For those who have faith in Christ it’s a death transformed. In Paul’s words we need not grieve like the pagans because we have the hope of the resurrection [1 Thessalonians 4]. I would not presume to declare on the existence of saving faith in the Pope’s life. Though the signs are not encouraging none of us can discern the heart. It is God’s prerogative to judge and He will. Whatever else we may go on and say about the Pope we must recognise that any death is cause for sadness. The Pope had both friends and family and those loving relationships have been severed by his death.

2. I’m responding with gratitude for the positive influence that he had for moral good

We ought to be grateful to God for the good things that resulted from this man’s influence. He is credited with hastening the downfall of Communism and therefore bringing to an end the oppressive regimes that persecuted millions of people. We ought to admire his courage for standing up to and opposing the rapid slide of our culture into immorality. His morally conservative stance was often unpopular and brought him into sharp disagreement with the prevailing thought of western secular liberalism. Long before evangelicals were heard on the subject he was a champion of the vulnerable and those who needed our protection. Consequently he took a strongly pro-life stance on all issues from conception to death. He took a morally conservative line on abortion, stem cell research and euthanasia. It is likely therefore that there are people alive in this world today because he was brave enough to be counter cultural and endure the mockery of the liberal west.

3. I’m responding in despair for so many people are misled to pay him undue attention

According to the BBC the world contains 1.1 billion Roman Catholic adherents. For them the Pope has a significance that the Bible is not prepared to attribute to any human figure. In official Roman Catholic teaching the Pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’. In other words he is Christ’s replacement and therefore he is God’s authority on earth. It is inevitable that if such claims are made for a human figure the affection and allegiance that ought to be attributed to Christ will go to another. The Times reported that 70,000 people kept vigil overnight in St Peter’s Square. It is very sad that the devotion that ought to be given to Christ is given to a mere man. Worse than it is an awful indictment on this man’s ministry that that he encouraged a form of idolatry to persist and proliferate.

4. I’m responding with honesty for the religious system he proclaimed is a distortion of biblical truth

At some stage in our conversation we need to broach the subject of truth and how the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church compares with the teaching of the Bible. We may not feel particularly comfortable or equipped to analyse official Roman Catholic teaching. I don’t think we’ve ever had a doctrine slot on this subject. However in broad outline Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that Christ and the Bible are insufficient for salvation and the Christian life. To the teaching of scripture they add the authority of the Pope. To the work of Christ as mediator they add the mass and the ministry of Mary. That is a distortion of biblical truth and this Pope has been instrumental in deluding people. We need to be able to point that out to people so that they realise that there is a difference between the enslaving religion of Roman Catholicism and the freedom of the gospel.

Some of the things that we might say to provoke discussion are

‘I hope he was forgiven and wasn’t convinced by his own rhetoric’ is likely to move on to a discussion about how we’re forgiven for our sins.

‘I think it’s sad that so many people give him so much attention’ is likely to move onto a discussion about idolatry.

‘You could be forgiven for thinking that he’d invented the Christian faith and not Jesus Christ’ is likely to move on to a discussion about authority.

‘It’s easy to forget that he was just a man doing a job’ is likely to move onto a discussion about sinful humanity.

Over the next few weeks we’re going to consider Roman Catholic teaching on some of the key points of disagreement with a Reformed or Protestant understanding of the Bible. The intent is not to stoke up controversy but to understand the real disagreement that exists. It’s important to clarify that the critique of Roman Catholicism is a critique of the official position of the Roman Catholic church as represented in their official documents. It’s not necessarily the case that all Roman Catholics agree with the content of those documents.

I understand that for many of us this is a current issue as we talk to friends, perhaps consider our own Catholic heritage or seek to work out whether the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism really matter. In a short doctrine slot we’ll only be able to summarise some of the issues and we may wish to delve deeper. There are books that I would be happy to recommend and I may get round to putting fuller versions of the slots on the web site.

The subject we’ll consider briefly this evening is: Scripture & Tradition

There are three key areas where official RC teaching differs from a reformed understanding of the Bible.

1. Their canon of scripture is bigger than ours

In addition to the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament the Roman Catholic Church gave canonical status to about a dozen extra books when at the Council of Trent in the mid-16th Century the Roman Catholic Church defined their Canon. These are known as the Apocryphal Books of the Inter-Testamental period. Books like Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Baruch and Maccabees were then included. These books were written between the Second Century BC and the birth of Christ. As a result of the Council of Trent they’re regarded as equally inspired and authoritative as the others books of the scriptural Canon. This is significant because a number of the distinctive doctrines that find their support in these books. But 

• There’s no evidence that Christ or His apostles ever quoted from these works nor made reference to them 
• The First Century Jews did not include these works in their Hebrew OT canon
• The Early Church Fathers did not include these works in their lists of canonical books so theologians like Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius and Jerome all rejected them  

In short, the official Roman Catholic position is that these books should supplement the Bible but in truth they shouldn’t be there. They’re interesting but they’re not God’s authoritative word to us.

2. Their method of inclusion is more confident than ours

The Early Church was faced with the decision of which books were to be included and which were to be excluded in what we now call the Bible. This was a long and careful process that took place in the first four centuries after Christ’s death. From a Reformed perspective the process of compilation of these books did not require the church to create the Bible. It was called upon simply to recognise, receive and submit to books that were already apostolic in their content and were universal in their distribution. We don’t think mistakes were made but we don’t discount that as a possibility because humans are fallible. The Reformed Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. From a Roman Catholic perspective the Church cannot err, it doesn’t make mistakes and in fact the Church conferred on those books the status of infallibility. What they describe as their canon is therefore an infallible collection of infallible books. Therefore the Apocryphal books became authoritative because the church said so. It’s neat but wrong.

3. Their source of revelation is additional to ours

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that tradition as well as the Bible constitutes the revealed will of God. They hold that God speaks authoritatively through the written words of the apostles preserved for us in the Bible but also through the spoken words of the apostles preserved for us in the church through the Bishops. The Roman Catholic Church has in theory a high view of scripture since the official position is that the Bible and Tradition share equal authority and complement each other on the grounds that they’re both from God. However, in practice when there appears to be a conflict between the two since the church provides the right interpretation the ultimate authority ends up being Roman Catholic tradition. This is important since purgatory, the priesthood, the mass, transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of Mary, the use of images in worship, holy water, rosary beads, celibacy of priests and nuns, the papacy and numerous others are founded solely on tradition. There is no scriptural support for them but they continue to feature in Roman Catholic Church life because the Church Authorities teach them.

Conclusion

If we’re new to these things it can often seem like unnecessary nit picking and unattractive church in fighting. I can understand why we might think that. But we must realise that there is a massive gulf between biblical and Roman Catholic Christianity at this point. And it cannot be bridged unless one side changes its mind. It all comes down to authority. Do we believe and behave as the Bible instructs us as or do we believe and behave as the church directs us?