Evangelicals and Catholics Together

[Michael Doyle]

For a church study through Hot Topics in the PCA, I am studying the ECT.

I have made many conclusions on this union. Here are a few as I see them.

In the introduction in this statement, it is declared over and over concerning the unity that Christ intends for His disciples Am I missing something here? Are those who hold to the doctrines of Romanism disciples of Christ? Can we then say Mormons are fellow disciples? Or JW`s?

Secondly; It is attributed that Protestants and Catholics are devoted to the same Christian mission, the gospel. Do the Catholics have the gospel? This does not sit well in my theological stomach.

These are not exact quotes but my paraphrasing, so you all understand, be sure that I am not attempting to embellish anything here, but look objectively.

Thirdly, and this is were my stomach begins to turn, in the We Affirm section, it reads thusly,
We affirm together that we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ. It would seem as though this is worded somewhat ambiguously to allow for room for an array of thought and positions to coexist. This seems awful to me. Am I wrong? Am I overlooking something here?

Fourthly Quote: Evangelicals and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ

Fifthly Quote: However imperfect our communion with one another, however deep our disagreements with one another, we recognize that there is but one church of Christ. Baloney!! Do not the catholics state those out side of "the church" let them be anathema! Yes they do.

Now, this goes on and on and on but for the sake of time, I feel this has been rightly presented in some of the more glaring statements.

Now lets look at some of the statements from the council of Trent for comparisons sake:

CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient [Page 33] grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

And...

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic Sec presiding therein,--keeping this [Page 18] always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

If this is not enough...

CHAPTER II.
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.

And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.

CHAPTER IV
On the Canon of the Mass.

And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently [Page 156] offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

And for the sake of space, I will shorten to this.


ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema. icky

CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema. Ultra super mega

CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema. Super

CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema. Mega

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

I ask, therefore and in light of these positions, how may we be unified with such an unbiblical and idolotrous sect as this. I understand the importance of unity but should we not be looking upon them evangelistically rather than unified saints? Sorry this post is so long. I look forward to your commentary.

 

[ZackF]

That document, In my humble opinion, was about unifying the Religious Right to elect Republicans. Call me cynical. I did not like ECT as a Catholic and I still do not like it.

 

[Michael Doyle]

If this is a document for the purpose of political unity it does a horrible job and muddies the waters of ecclesiology to a very hurtful degree.

Men of JI Packers stature signing this document, which by the way was drafted and signed I believe in 1994, gives a very damaging message to those who hold dearly to the confessions. That message is, in my opinion, unity before doctrine. Am I wrong in this assessment. Or perhaps more rightly stated, unity at the expense of doctrine.

All I know is it stinks and I reject it. All that said, I pray for the saints in the catholic church and wish to be unified with brothers and sisters who, in spite of membership within the sect of Romanism, belong to Christ.

 

[A.J.]

I ask, therefore and in light of these positions, how may we be unified with such an unbiblical and idolotrous sect as this. I understand the importance of unity but should we not be looking upon them evangelistically rather than unified saints? Sorry this post is so long. I look forward to your commentary.

Thanks, Michael. Though I believe that it is possible for people to be within the Roman Catholic church and be heirs of eternal life at the same time, this is due to their blessed ignorance of and/or rejection of what Roman Catholicism teaches. They are believers in spite of their religion, not because of it. So I personally see Roman Catholics as in need of the gospel. Most Roman Catholics do not know the gospel. This is true both for nominal Roman Catholics, and those who know and actually practice the Roman Catholic faith. I have met both kinds of Roman Catholics in my entire life.

It's hard to see why we should consider Roman Catholics as saints when they commit idolatry whenever they recite their most basic prayers as especially seen in their calling upon Mary and their kneeling before images. The ECT thus is essentially a rejection of the beliefs of the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

If this is a document for the purpose of political unity it does a horrible job and muddies the waters of ecclesiology to a very hurtful degree.

It isn't necessary, either. I do some pro-life work with Catholics, and this is an area we can all agree on and work for in "secular" terms without having to pretend we agree on soteriology.

 

[Tim]

You can't play on the same team if you don't agree on the rules.

(I am speaking theologically, not on 'secular' work agreements such as that described above by Evie).

 

[Michael Doyle]

Thank you everyone for engaging. I am looking to humbly come to a correct understand. How do the likes of Packer and Colson take what seems to be so unorthodox an approach to this document?

I pray I do not come off as elitist by any means.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 11:54:54 EST-----

Here is a link for those who are unfamiliar:

Evangelicals and Catholics Together

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 11:57:25 EST-----

Here is the PCA Position Paper on the topic as well:

PCA Position Papers: Response to "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (1995)

 

[Matthias]

There should be no unity to the Catholic Church. You nailed it when you said they were unbiblical and idolotrous. Those are good enough reasons as any to "be ye seperate"

 

[wturri78]

I remember reading in Sproul's book "Faith Alone," that the whole turning point of ECT was really on the word "Alone." It's one thing to say "We're justified by grace through faith in Christ." It's another to add alone at key points. Also complicating matters is the problem of differing definitions of "justification."

With regard to Trent, only a small handful of Catholic's I've ever talked to (and that's a lot of them) are even aware of its existence. The popular apologists often seem, to me, to be explaining away its language, almost as though the secretly wish it didn't exist because it makes their jobs much harder. It obviously affends modern sensibilities, but there's no doubt it condemns Reformed ideas of soteriology and, I think, makes a document like ECT impossible to believe.

I think we can work with Catholics on matters where there is agreement and that are not within the context of the church--pro life, pro marriage, pro-justice in society, or whatever. But there is no question that there is a fundamental disagreement as to what the gospel actually is, and therefore if one side is right, the other must necessarily be outside the true gospel.

This is where an Eastern Orthodox person would happily point out that both sides are wrong

 

[Theogenes]

Spurgeon thundered "No peace with Rome!"

 

[Ex Nihilo]

I think we can work with Catholics on matters where there is agreement and that are not within the context of the church--pro life, pro marriage, pro-justice in society, or whatever. But there is no question that there is a fundamental disagreement as to what the gospel actually is, and therefore if one side is right, the other must necessarily be outside the true gospel.

Yes, exactly. I don't purport to represent Presbyterians when I cooperate with Catholics; I agree with them on certain policies, and we do normal, non-ecclesiastical work to try to further those policies. I certainly would be uncomfortable saying that church leaders shouldn't do what I do -- that's their call. But Catholic and Protestant lawyers litigating together for the right to distribute pro-life literature outside abortion clinics does not seem to me to pose any threat to the gospel; Catholic and Protestant church leaders getting together to make statements about theology very well may.

I think maybe some people feel warmer and fuzzier about the political cooperation if we add a spiritual element to it, but that strikes me as dangerous for a lot of reasons.

 

[jaybird0827]

Colson's wife adheres to Rome. Or at least she did when he signed on to ECT.

Thank you everyone for engaging. I am looking to humbly come to a correct understand. How do the likes of Packer and Colson take what seems to be so unorthodox an approach to this document?

I pray I do not come off as elitist by any means.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 11:54:54 EST-----

Here is a link for those who are unfamiliar:

Evangelicals and Catholics Together

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 11:57:25 EST-----

Here is the PCA Position Paper on the topic as well:

PCA Position Papers: Response to "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (1995)

 

[ZackF]

I think we can work with Catholics on matters where there is agreement and that are not within the context of the church--pro life, pro marriage, pro-justice in society, or whatever. But there is no question that there is a fundamental disagreement as to what the gospel actually is, and therefore if one side is right, the other must necessarily be outside the true gospel.

This is where an Eastern Orthodox person would happily point out that both sides are wrong

Exactly. What difference does is matter if the issue is pro-life or where the county garbage is dumped when it comes to who we "work" with. There was no document needed to point out where one group agrees with another on a political end.

 

[wturri78]

Back to the earlier issue of whether Rome has the gospel, that's been debated for centuries and has been debated here many times. So long as meritorious works are considered necessary for one's salvation, I would have to say they do not have the biblical gospel.

Someone may point out that meritorious works aren't strictly necessary to be rescued from hell (although confession, etc. are basically considered as works). Christ's sacrifice and God's grace toward us (through faith) remit the "eternal punishment" due to us for our sins. The meritorious works, and growth in holiness (sanctification by any other name) are required for moving one through Purgatory and into glory. Because purgatory is wedged into the system, works are required to be justified before God, but not to be rescued from hell. Eventually it all comes back to the source for revelation and authority, and until that is settled, all other debates move pretty much in circles.

The usual attitude I find on both sides (which know nothing of theology) is "We all like God and think Jesus was pretty cool, so why can't we just get along?" Bringing up anything divisive will get you torpedoed from all sides. Those who are more conscientious Catholics will fall back onto the "separated brethren" view of Protestants to soften the divide. I think that's why so many people on both sides were freaked out a few years ago when the new pope wrote his article reaffirming that Protestant churches are not true churches. He didn't back-peddle on anything, he just stated what they've always stated--and nobody seemed to remember that they've always stated it!

 

[Scott1]

The problem some of us have with the organization is its stated purpose of spiritual communion. We cannot have that with entities that do not officially hold a biblical gospel or to the authority of scripture.

We can, and do, work together and cooperate in other ways; we even recognize that in spite of wrong doctrine, there are some believers God has chosen in their communion. God has commanded we avoid even the appearance of evil, and that includes appearing to embrace false doctrine- indeed, that which repudiates the gospel itself.

-----Added 3/19/2009 at 10:42:04 EST-----

I think we can work with Catholics on matters where there is agreement and that are not within the context of the church--pro life, pro marriage, pro-justice in society, or whatever. But there is no question that there is a fundamental disagreement as to what the gospel actually is, and therefore if one side is right, the other must necessarily be outside the true gospel.

Yes, exactly. I don't purport to represent Presbyterians when I cooperate with Catholics; I agree with them on certain policies, and we do normal, non-ecclesiastical work to try to further those policies. I certainly would be uncomfortable saying that church leaders shouldn't do what I do -- that's their call. But Catholic and Protestant lawyers litigating together for the right to distribute pro-life literature outside abortion clinics does not seem to me to pose any threat to the gospel; Catholic and Protestant church leaders getting together to make statements about theology very well may.

I think maybe some people feel warmer and fuzzier about the political cooperation if we add a spiritual element to it, but that strikes me as dangerous for a lot of reasons.

Good points.

Also, another reason not to be afraid to work with others (assuming there is no weakness or temptation as per Romans 14) in non-ecclesiastical settings on common purposes because it gives opportunity to engage and witness. Really. I had someone once say something to the effect, "Everything is right for you to be Mormon..." I used that as an entree to explain many things I do like and respect about their common outward attributes, then acknowledged there was a lot of hypocrisy seen also, and then explained some profound differences, ending with... 'that's why there is no cross at Mormon churches.'

 

[lynnie]

You really ought to read Iain Murray's Evangelicalism Divided on this. He traces the Ecumenical movement in Britain starting back with Billy Graham and the liberals and goes through Stott and Packer and the eventually shackup with Rome. Some of the last chapters on the RCC and evangelicals are excellent. For the research you are doing I'd think it is a must read book, at least the later part on the RCC.

 

[A.J.]

Thank you everyone for engaging. I am looking to humbly come to a correct understand. How do the likes of Packer and Colson take what seems to be so unorthodox an approach to this document?

It's truly hard to understand how a man like Packer could sign the ECT given his commitment to Reformed convictions. Many disappointed Christians have commented on this mistake since among the evangelicals who signed the document, he was evidently the most orthodox (as far as Reformed Theology is concerned, of course).

James White provides an assessment of the contents of the document in Whatever Happened to the Gospel?. William Webster offers his insights in The ECT Accords: A Betrayal of the Gospel in the Name of Unity.