Must We Accpet Roman Catholic Excommunications as Well?

[RamistThomist]

I am sure that most of you know the thesis of the Wilson/White debate. If we grant Wilson's thesis--Roman Catholics are our Brothers by virtue of Trinitarian Baptism--must we grant the validity of Romanist Excommunications as well? Assuming that to be so, should we not be on our knees begging forgiveness?

I am not a Romanist. I think they are riddled with errors. I will never, never forsake, by the grace of God, Reformed Orthodoxy, yet this is something I struggle with.

I would appeciate your interaction.

 

[Ianterrell]

Jacob I'm at a lost as to how you would infer such a thing. If I allow that an Independant Baptist church is filled to the brim with bretheren, and they excommunicate me because of my views on Calvinism and Covenant Theology, does that their covenantal connectedness that their excommunication is automatically justified?

 

[SmokingFlax]

I know zero about the debate that you mentioned...but my first question was, what if someone is excommunicated by Rome because they oppose the papacy?

Also, as an aside, do they still even excommunicate?

I mean, I guess it's ok to be a homo-pedophile priest, a communistic Liberation theology activist, or a communicant who essentially ignores most of the pope's teaching on morals and faith (like the majority of RCs I've ever met) and can still partake of the Lord's table.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I am sure that most of you know the thesis of the Wilson/White debate. If we grant Wilson's thesis--Roman Catholics are our Brothers by virtue of Trinitarian Baptism--must we grant the validity of Romanist Excommunications as well? Assuming that to be so, should we not be on our knees begging forgiveness?

I am not a Romanist. I think they are riddled with errors. I will never, never forsake, by the grace of God, Reformed Orthodoxy, yet this is something I struggle with.

I would appeciate your interaction.

Easy answer: don't grant Wilson's thesis.

More Wilson-ish answer: don't grant his thesis while insulting your opponents with pop-culture references and as much bile as possible.

 

[RamistThomist]

Ian, that is part of the problem. I don't know fully what my thoughts are on this one. I am still working it out

 

[Ianterrell]

Jacob, could you critique my analogy? Why would allowing the sign of baptism administered by a Catholic priest, necessarily mean that their priests had the authority to excommunicate you from not just Catholic fellowship but Evangelical fellowship as well? Do you see what I'm saying Jake? They can excommunicate me all day long. But I dont lose salvation as a result, and I can actually be joined to a real gospel loving fellowship without a drop of sweat expended. Please note that I'm not arguing for Wilson's thesis, though I'm sympathetic to it.

 

[Peter]

1st, Im uncertain whether or not popish baptism is valid. But even granting it is, that only makes romanists members of the universal visible church, it doesnt mean the church of Rome is a true church possessing the key of discipline. Plus, Id submit that romanists have apostatized by not maintaining a profession.

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by Peter
1st, Im uncertain whether or not popish baptism is valid. But even granting it is, that only makes romanists members of the universal visible church, it doesnt mean the church of Rome is a true church possessing the key of discipline. Plus, Id submit that romanists have apostatized by not maintaining a profession.

 

[Peter]

Also, against the idea romish baptism is valid, Im not sure if this is donatism, but for the sacrament to be valid doesnt it have to be administered by some who has the key of doctrine, ie, Christ's own officers (Mat 16; Mat 28). But if the Romish Church isnt a true church then her priests are not true officers (elders) and therefore her baptism isnt true baptism.

 

[RamistThomist]

I see what you're saying, Ian. I guess I had been erroneously assuming that papal authority was tied into Catholic Baptism.

 

[Irishcat922]

If you grant the validity of R.C. excommunications doesn't that destroy Reformed Theology. Luther,Calvin, Huss, Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Ditto Sean! What a privilege to stand in the company of Hus, Wycliffe, Luther, and the many reformers who lost their lives to gain them.

Galatians 1:6-10 If anyone preaches a different gospel. Let him be accursed. (Not those who keep preaching the correct gospel.)

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by Irishcat922
If you grant the validity of R.C. excommunications doesn't that destroy Reformed Theology. Luther,Calvin, Huss, Tyndale, Wycliffe, etc.

It destroys the entire foundation of the Protestant Church, if it were true. But God is the ultimate judge. When people are excommunicated unjustly, their sentence is not binding in heaven because the judge is rebelling against God with the sentence, calling good evil or evil good. Rome forfeited her judicial authority when she abandoned Christ and His gospel. They are they schismatics not us.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Granting the legitimacy of their administration of a sacrament does not mean you must grant the legitimacy of all the RCC's actions (not that I necessarily advocate granting the first). Excommunication is not a sacrament, and therefore it is in a different category of action.

[Edited on 19-12-2004 by Ex Nihilo]

 

[RamistThomist]

By way of clarification I never hinted that we ought to grant their excommunications. Yea, I even watched Luther tonight. This was something that a Romanist would bring up, I thought. If I were to accept Wilson's thesis, would I have this as a logical corrollary? I think not now that I reflect on it.

Yes, Rome preaches a false gospel. I never doubted that. Thanks Ian and Evie for your remarks.

It is my belief that Rome damned itself at the Council of Trent (which were never revoked).