Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No, I'm Not Offended [R. Albert Mohler, Jr./Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]
The Christian Post ^ | Jul. 13 2007 | R. Albert Mohler, Jr

Posted on 07/13/2007 8:52:11 AM PDT by Alex Murphy

Aren't you offended? That is the question many Evangelicals are being asked in the wake of a recent document released by the Vatican. The document declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church – or, in words the Vatican would prefer to use, the only institutional form in which the Church of Christ subsists.

No, I am not offended. In the first place, I am not offended because this is not an an issue in which emotion should play a key role. This is a theological question, and our response should be theological, not emotional. Secondly, I am not offended because I am not surprised. No one familiar with the statements of the Roman Catholic Magisterium should be surprised by this development. This is not news in any genuine sense. It is news only in the current context of Vatican statements and ecumenical relations. Thirdly, I am not offended because this new document actually brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology, and thus it presents us with an opportunity.

The Vatican document is very brief – just a few paragraphs in fact. It's official title is "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," and it was released by the Vatican's Congregation for the Defense of the Faith on June 29 of this year. Though many media sources have identified the document as a papal statement from Pope Benedict XVI, it is actually a statement from the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith that was later approved for release by the Pope (who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, headed this Congregation prior to assuming the papacy).

The document claims a unique legitimacy for the Roman Catholic Church as the church established by Christ. The document stakes this identity on a claim to apostolic succession, centered in the papacy itself. As the document states, "This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him."

Lest anyone miss the point, the document then goes on to acknowledge that the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy also stake a claim to apostolic succession, and thus they are referred to as "Churches" by the Vatican. As for the churches born in whatever form out of the Reformation – they are not true churches at all, only "ecclesial communities."

Look at this:

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense.

Pope Benedict was already in hot water with the media because of his recent decision related to the (limited) reinstitution of the Latin mass, complete with a call for the conversion of the Jews. He was not likely to be named "Ecumenist of the Year" anyway. This latest controversy just adds to the media impression of big changes at the Vatican under the current papacy.

There have been changes for sure. Benedict is truly a doctrinal theologian, whereas his popular predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was more a philosopher by academic training. Those familiar with the current pope know of his frustration with the tendency of liberal Catholic theologians and laypersons to insist that the Second Vatican Council (known popularly as "Vatican II") represented a massive shift (to the left) in Catholic doctrine. Not so, insisted Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. Now, as Pope, Benedict is in a position to shape his argument into a universal policy for his church. Vatican II, he insists, represented only a deepening and reapplication of unchanging Catholic doctrine.

Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."

I appreciate the document's clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this – the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children, it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.

The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church – and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word – the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true Church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.

I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement – it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)

I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right – not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.

The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

The Rev. Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, responded to the press by saying that the Vatican's "exclusive claims" are "troubling." He also said, "what may have been meant to clarify has caused pain."

I will let Bishop Hanson explain his pain. I do not see this new Vatican statement as an innovation or an insult. I see it as a clarification and a helpful demarcation of the issues at stake.

I appreciate the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue, and I believe that Evangelical Christians, with equal respect and clarity, should respond in kind. This is a time to be respectfully candid – not a time to be offended.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.

________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; History
KEYWORDS: baptist; christians; commonsense; evangelicals; mohler; sbc; southernbaptist; vatican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: Alex Murphy

nice article - nail it to the door


41 posted on 07/13/2007 1:03:24 PM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greg F

Well, you’re right...if those Popes were saints...if WE were saints...then maybe we wouldn’t have gotten ourselves into this mess in the first place.

I find it thoroughly consistent to be a) critical of the Catholic hierarchy of that era for letting it get so bad, and b) critical of the Reformers for applying exactly the wrong medicine to fix it.

What was really needed was more along the lines of the Counter Reformation, which came a bit too late.


42 posted on 07/13/2007 1:03:58 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Claud

We are the saints!

: )

And from what little I know, I agree, too little, too late to avoid the schism.


43 posted on 07/13/2007 1:16:25 PM PDT by Greg F (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Thank you! The first intelligent reply I have heard in all this.

One thing that is different, aside from the intellectual level of the writer, is that he was responding to what was actually in the document, and not to the headlines that the press put out attempting to cause hysteria (and succeeding, alas).


44 posted on 07/13/2007 1:20:38 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I think of it humorously when a Protestant says we Catholics aren't Christian!!! It's so absurd, it's laughable.....and then it's kind of sad that people can say that with a straight face.

It's like Reformed Jews saying Orthodox Jews aren't really JEWISH!! And I have heard that also!

45 posted on 07/13/2007 1:24:12 PM PDT by Suzy Quzy (Hillary in '08.....Her PHONINESS is GENUINE !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Suzy Quzy
I think of it humorously when a Protestant says we Catholics aren't Christian!!! It's so absurd, it's laughable.....and then it's kind of sad that people can say that with a straight face.

I do a lot of laughing myself, you know...

The man who dared to laugh at the Pope
"I am utterly convinced that the most insulting thing one can do at an episcopal tribunal, is to bust out laughing when the inquisitor reads the charges against them...."
Consumer Reports: What Religion is the Best Religion?
"As Christians, we should learn to laugh more...."

46 posted on 07/13/2007 1:42:10 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (As heard on the Amish Radio Network! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1675029/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Of course, I am convinced that he is not right – not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.

But, otherwise....

47 posted on 07/13/2007 1:44:42 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
The official LCMS response is “So what, this is nothing new.”

Guys, this isn’t new. Many have been pretending at ecumenical meetings that all of Christendom is one group hug away from reunion, but those of the more conservative bent know it is all a PR stunt.

BXVI is basically stating that, which is IMHO a good thing. Maybe some of the gross stupidity of the past decades can be forgotten.

48 posted on 07/13/2007 3:36:07 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
One thing that is different, aside from the intellectual level of the writer, is that he was responding to what was actually in the document, and not to the headlines that the press put out attempting to cause hysteria (and succeeding, alas).

Well yeah, but having a green beanie weenie fit is a lot more fun.

49 posted on 07/13/2007 3:37:26 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Why are they offended by Mormons, then? These people with open minds and hearts.


50 posted on 07/13/2007 3:40:22 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (Romney Rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

No one is offended by Mormons. We just completely disagree with them. Like Mohler said, it is not an emotional issue.


51 posted on 07/13/2007 3:56:39 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

There is one particular religious group that offends me. It is those weasily dodgers known as the Emergent Church. They offend me because they are not straight talkers. It’s insulting to all intelligence.


52 posted on 07/13/2007 4:04:43 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

“No one is offended by Mormons.”

Oh, my Goodness, I wish that were true.


53 posted on 07/13/2007 4:06:29 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy (Romney Rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Don't confuse disagreement with being offended. Maybe you are offended that some think Mormonism is a cult. Would you rather they lie? Don't you want Mormons to have the right to stand up for what they believe against people who disagree?

Two things are offensive. First, the pressure to disregard core beliefs in exchange for some kind of emotional unity as though we merely think each other into heaven or hell. Second, the shifty dishonesty of some who are merely trying to tear down true belief, hiding behind a phony faith that changes form about every other minute (the Emergents).

54 posted on 07/13/2007 4:16:37 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Excellent article, on the whole. However, I can't reconcile these two statements:

Lest anyone miss the point, the document then goes on to acknowledge that the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy also stake a claim to apostolic succession, and thus they are referred to as "Churches" by the Vatican.

The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."

55 posted on 07/13/2007 4:20:25 PM PDT by armydoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

fyi, I guess weasily isn’t a word. I mean they are weasels. But hey, why not make up a word about them and just define it myself (sly, dishonest, sneaky, deceptive, misleading, shifty..). They make up words all the time. When they don’t do that they just take existing words and redefine them. I hate that deceptive practice.


56 posted on 07/13/2007 4:31:11 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: armydoc
I can't reconcile these two statements:

That's because Mohler was just a tad off on the second one. The document (which you should read if you haven't) states that the "ecclesial Communities" are not churches "in the proper sense" because they lack a claim to apostolic succession and thus a valid sacramental life.

57 posted on 07/13/2007 4:58:20 PM PDT by GCC Catholic (Sour grapes make terrible whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

As an Orthodox Christian, I do not find the CDF’s pronouncement to be offensive at all. It is consistent with the CDF’s earlier “Dominus Iesus,” which pretty much reflects the teaching of Vatican II. I see the Russian Orthdox Church’s reaction to the document as far more sensible than that of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarch (whom I’m not even sure read the document).

Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church’s view of the Eastern Orthodox Church is generally more charitable than the Orthodox view of the Roman Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church at least calls Orthodoxy “a true church” with real sacraments and a real priesthood, and real apostolic succession. OTOH, the Orthodox view of Roman Catholicism has not always been as consistent or positive. There are opinions within Orthodoxy that view Roman Catholicism as not having any validity as a church or with any real Holy Mysteries. There are also opinions within Orthodoxy that view the Roman Catholics in a way that is analogous to the way the Roman Catholic Church views Orthodoxy. So, from an Orthodox POV, I take no offence whatsoever.

I find it remarkable that certain Protestants and Evangelicals would be offended. Rome’s position is not different than it was 40 years ago. If anything, it’s friendlier towards Protestantism and Evangelicalism now than it was before Vatican II. At least the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges elements of truth and sanctity within those communities. The main issue is regarding the name “church.” However, given the notion that a bishop with the presbytery, the diaconate and laity, celebrating a true Eucharist at the altar is essential for the church, it should be no small wonder that the name “church” is not applied by the Roman Catholic Church to the Protestants and also the Evangelicals. The Reformation fundamentally disagreed with Rome on the nature of the priesthood and the sacrifice of the Mass and the change of the bread and wine. The Reformers called the Catholic Mass an “abomination” and “idolatry” (Jack Chick still does!), and the Roman Catholics, in turn, denied that the Protestants had a true Eucharist and priesthood. With this in mind, I am struggling to understand why anyone would be in an uproar over the Roman Catholic Church expressing a view fairly consistent with its historical teaching—albeit now with more positive reckognition of good within Protestantism and the newer Evangelicals, which came from Protestantism.

Certainly Rome’s view towards especially Evangelicalism is, in generally, far more charitable than Evangelicalism’s view towards Rome. I have had many discussions with Fundies and heard their strong denunciations of “Romanism” and “Popery” and affirm confidently that Roman Catholics are hellbound. Jack Chick is not a minority within Evangelicalism WRT how Roman Catholics (and probably by similarity—Eastern Orthodox) are viewed.

Thus, I find any offence at the CDF’s pronouncement to be somewhat irrational.


58 posted on 07/13/2007 5:50:06 PM PDT by gbmtmas (gbmtmas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GCC Catholic; Claud; Alex Murphy
It's a position that lets us finally start talking intelligently, instead of trying to appease each other with meaningless theological mush.

Cool! Let's go knock each other's heads off, or burn each other at the stake (joke, yes, really).

At least we should all fight over important things. Maybe the "eccumenapause" disgrace of the modern church is finally passing...it will not be missed.

59 posted on 07/13/2007 6:02:45 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gbmtmas

Welcome to FreeRepublic!


60 posted on 07/13/2007 6:13:27 PM PDT by GCC Catholic (Sour grapes make terrible whine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson