Friday Review: Is the Reformation Over? Chapter 4

At long last I have finished chapter 4 of Mark Noll's book, Is the Reformation Over? By the way, Noll and Nystrom give their answer to the title question in this chapter: "On the basis of the ecumenical dialogues, can it be said that the Reformation is over? Probably not. But a once-yawning chasm has certainly narrowed" (114).

This chapter, "Ecumenical Dialogues," catalogs the dialogs between Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, Disciples of Christ, Methodists, Anglicans, Reformed, and Pentecostals over the years since Vatican 2. The results are increased understanding, even significant movement on the Catholic side, while of course each of these groups at the same time has retained its unique identity. No surprise there.

This is a long chapter and one not set out in a way that works well for me. Let me reformulate it for you.

Smaller Disagreements
Despite theological agreements and disagreements, we all know that division is often more a matter of little things that loom disproportionately large on the street.

Mary
Mary remains a point of contention between Protestant and Catholic. At the same time, Catholics have clarified these years that Mary is not a co-redeemer alongside Christ. She is not on a level with the three persons of the Trinity. She herself needed to be redeemed (although such redemption for them did not involve the forgiveness of sins--immaculate conception and all).

To me this is a small thing, no larger than my disagreement with Baptists over eternal security. I find RC (Roman Catholic) views here a historical eccentricity, but nothing to hate over or rail against.

Other Points of Disagreement
RC don't use birth control. They don't ordain women. Priests must remain celibate. Divorce is much more strictly regulated, as is marriage within Catholicism. They pray to saints to help them (they do not worship saints). On all these issues I disagree with the RCC along with most Protestants.

However, only the issue of women's ordination seems a point of serious difficulty to me. Because I believe the RCC is part of God's Church, I believe they will eventually ordain women, as will all other denominations eventually. These differences seem no greater than differences between various Protestant groups.

Significant Disagreements
Authority of the Pope
The authority of the Pope remains perhaps the most significant point of disagreement between Protestant and Catholic, in my view. On the one hand, the RCC has clarified that the Pope is not always authoritative. It is only when he speaks ex cathedra ("from the chair") in relation to matters of salvation. If I remember correctly, the previous Pope never spoke in this manner during his entire papacy. In other words, the RCC does not consider anything said or enacted by the previous Pope to be infallible.

Interestingly, the Anglican-Catholic dialog aimed at complete reunification, which of course did not take place. Issues like women in ministry, birth control, and divorce sunk the discussion. Interestingly enough, however, the Anglican Church was willing to say the following on the authority of the Pope:

"a primacy of the bishop of Rome is not contrary to the New Testament and is part of God's purpose regarding the Church's unity and catholicity, while admitting that the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for this ... We nevertheless agree that a universal primacy will be needed in a reunited Church and should appropriately be the primacy of the bishop of Rome" (quoted in Noll and Nystrom, 88).

The Role of the Bible
I have long gone on record in saying that the "emperor is wearing no clothes" when it comes to the issue of sola scriptura. John Piper clearly follows his own "magisterium" when it comes to interpreting the Bible--one that involves the Council of Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards.

The issue of the role of the Bible is thus not what so many Protestants beat their chests over. The issue is in reality two fold: 1) who decides what the authoritative interpretation of the Bible is and 2) to what degree do we allow for development of doctrine and practice beyond the Bible?

The RCC thus accepts the authority of the Bible just as sola scriptura Protestants do (which is not all Protestants--prima scriptura would be a better description of my own tradition). Where they differ is 1) where they locate the "magisterium" of interpretation and 2) the room they make for certain developments beyond the New Testament.

Agreement and Disagreement
Not all Protestant groups agree with one another. We thus find that on various issues some Protestants agree more with the RCC than others.

Justification
The single most significant document to be produced from the ecumenical discussions of the last forty years is the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification," signed October 31, 1999 between the RCC and the Lutherans. In it, Lutherans and Catholics agree on the doctrine of justification by faith! In other words, we can seriously ask whether the Protestant Reformation would have even happened if the RCC had been willing to accept this document 500 years ago!

Both sides agree:

"By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit ... Faith itself is God's gift ... Our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit it in any way" (quoted on 109).

For any Wesleyans reading, it is noteworthy that on the points of tension that remained, our tradition sides more with the Catholics than with the Lutherans on the place of works in the life of a believer. We also disagree with both sides on the role of sin in the life of a believer, since we are more optimistic than even the Catholics about God's power in this area (and way more optimistic than the Lutherans).

Some (Anthony Lane, for example, in a CT article) have noted the absence of discussion of issues like indulgences, penance, and purgatory from the Catholic-Lutheran discussion, ongoing points of disagreement between most Protestants and Catholics.

Priesthood of Believers
Perhaps surprisingly, the RCC was willing to say this:

"All Christians are called to serve ... The goal of the ordained ministry is to serve this priesthood of all the faithful" (quoted on 88).

In other words, the RCC was willing to affirm the priesthood of all believers without denying the role of ordained ministry. Only the most low church Protestant denominations deny ordination as an appropriate practice for ministers, and on that topic they would disagree with the major players of Protestantism.

Certainly ordination is a sacrament for the RCC in a way that it is not in Protestant churches. Some groups also are more concerned about apostolic succession than others. Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed, and Methodists might claim it if they wanted to (although Methodists cheated a little--Wesley wasn't a bishop when he ordained the first bishops in America). By contrast, groups like the Baptists, Disciples of Christ, etc... create their ministers ex nihilo, in no historic connection to the apostles.

Yet the RCC was willing to admit that this succession was initially geographical and only later chronological: "The intention of the apostolic community in establishing ministries in other places was initially to establish collaborators rather than to choose successors: what began as an expansion of communion over distance became later on an expansion over time" (quoted on 87).

Sacraments
Most Protestants recognize two of the RC seven sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist. Of course, many Protestants would consider them ordinances rather than sacraments, memorials with no particular spiritual power. Many Protestant traditions strongly reject rebaptism, as the RCC does. In short, we find greater diversity among Protestants on this issue than at some points between Protestants and Catholics.

The doctrine of transubstantiation was of course a main concern. The RCC of course strongly maintains this doctrine. However, some of the concessions made, in my mind, amount to drawing no difference between them and Luther's consubstantial view, which in my mind is perfectly acceptable for Protestants.

Thus for RCs, transubstantiation does not imply a change of the material of bread and wine (in other words, you won't find physical flesh and blood in your stomach). It is rather a "sacramental presence in which God uses realities of this world to convey the realities of new creation." In my opinion, our scientific understanding of matter has morphed the RC view to where it is hardly any different from that of many Protestants.

Catholics also do not believe that baptism is essential for salvation, as most Protestants. They consider us "separated brethren" who will be saved, despite the fact that we are not with them as we ideally would be.

Burying the Historical Hatchet
A good deal of what is transpired these last forty years is the hitting of the reset button on the past sins of both sides. The RCC and the Lutherans both eliminated the anathemas and stark pronouncements against each other from the past. In short, forgiveness has been the name of the game. In addition to the Lutherans, some of the most intensive forgiveness has involved Pentecostals in Latin America.

Certainly there is a wide variety of perspectives within the RCC, including the ones that Protestants have traditionally railed against. Similarly, the old Protestant hatred of Catholics can still be found in many quarters, just as virulent as the Scots and English who burned Catholics at the stake.

In my view, if your heart is as my heart, then put your hand in mine. My tradition in many respects is closer to the Catholic tradition than it is to many Protestant groups.