SKIRTING THE REFORMATION
So how does the new Catechism of the Catholic Church handle the issues of justification and believers’ assurance? Unfortunately, they are not legitimately addressed at all. In fact, justification is treated as something of a nonproblem, which leads me to confess a real degree of concern. The Roman Catholic reader of this catechism will learn little, if anything, of the Reformation debates over this matter or of Protestant sensitivities over Roman Catholic teaching.
While emphasizing that salvation takes place by grace, on the basis of the work of Christ rather than human effort or achievement, the catechism seems reluctant to engage with the questions raised above and does little to reassure the anxieties of any readers familiar with the sixteenth-century debates. It is clear that the agenda of the Reformation remains with us on these issues. And a cluster of other controversies are associated with these contentions of the Reformation era. Two are of remaining importance: indulgences and purgatory.
The official theology of indulgences was somewhat confused in the sixteenth century. Particularly at the popular level, an indulgence was understood to be a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins through human achievement, particularly through financial means. In 1517, Luther’s wrath was kindled by the activities of the indulgence peddler Johann Tetzel, whose marketing strategy included the following memorable slogan: “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs!”
Luther regarded this as outrageous. The doctrine of justification affirmed that forgiveness rested on the grace of God, not the payment of money! The posting of the 95 Theses on Indulgences on October 31, 1517, is widely regarded as marking the beginning of the Reformation and is still celebrated as Reformation Day in parts of Germany. Some ecumenical documents – most notably, the unsatisfactory Second Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commissions report, Salvation and the Church (1987) – seem to suggest that indulgences are no longer important. Reading the catechism makes it clear that this judgment is ill-informed and premature.
For example, the section on indulgences reveals that the Roman Catholic Church is still committed to the idea that indulgences may be obtained by the living for the faithful departed. This idea would be regarded with both skepticism and alarm by evangelicals.
This also raises the second issue that is historically linked with the doctrine of justification – purgatory. Purgatory is a sort of intermediate state in which the souls of the penitent dead are believed to remain until they have been purified of their sins. For the English Reformer John Frith and others, the doctrine of justification by faith totally undermined the concept of purgatory. Through the grace of God, our sins are totally forgiven, declared Frith, making it unnecessary for them to be purged in a subsequent state. As a result, Protestantism as a whole deemed belief in purgatory as being both unbiblical and unnecessary. The catechism defends this doctrine, partly on the basis of the practice of praying for the dead. Once more, evangelicals would be opposed to both the practice and the doctrine.
Other areas in which evangelicals will find themselves wishing to enter into Reformation-type debates will include the following:
1. The canon of Scripture. The Roman Catholic canon continues to include documents that evangelicals regard as deuterocanonical or apocryphal. It was at the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church first declared its acceptance of 78 biblical books as canonical; the catechism endorses this decision. This also reopens the much-debated question of whether Scripture is recognized as inherently authoritative (Protestantism) or received by an authoritative council (Roman Catholicism), thus making its authority derivative and dependent on the authority of the church.
2. The sufficiency of Scripture. The catechism affirms the role of an unwritten or oral tradition in addition to Scripture. Hence, in the Catholic view, Scripture alone is insufficient; the church authorities must also be looked to for direction in matters of faith and practice.
In keeping with the Lord’s command, the gospel was handed down in two ways: First, orally, by the apostles, who delivered the Christian doctrine by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they set, by the institutions they established, and by what they themselves had received – whether directly from the lips of Christ and the example of his earthly ministry or from the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And, second, in writing, by those apostles and others associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.
The Reformers regarded the Roman Catholic notion of oral tradition beyond the period of the first-century church as the basis for a number of unacceptable beliefs and practices in the medieval church, and, most significantly, they saw it as undermining the authority of Scripture. Even today, many observers feel that Catholics continue to give oral tradition priority over Scripture. There is clearly a need for ongoing debate on this point.
3. The role of Mary. The Roman Catholic veneration of Mary is of particular concern, especially the doctrine of the immaculate conception, which declares that Mary was redeemed from the moment of her conception and was thus an exception to the universal rule of the innate sinfulness of humankind. Evangelicals regard the immaculate conception as speculative, unbiblical, and as potentially undermining to the uniqueness of Christ as God incarnate and as the sole redeemer of humanity. The catechism does, however, insist that a distinction must be drawn between the devotion appropriate to Mary and the adoration that is appropriate to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
4. The number and role of the sacraments. Indeed, the considerable space devoted to a discussion of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic church in the catechism (more than 100 pages) makes it clear that they have a role and importance far exceeding anything found in evangelicalism. Evangelicalism generally tends to follow the Reformers by acknowledging only two sacraments – baptism and the Lord’s Supper – and regarding the remaining five as medieval additions to the list.
Many evangelicals also would feel, and not entirely without reason, that there appears to be an emphasis within the catechism upon rituals rather than personal faith. Let me stress that this need not be the case, in that many evangelicals, especially within Lutheranism and Anglicanism, find the sacraments to be an important aid to personal devotion and a deepened faith. Nevertheless, based on the catechism’s handling of the matter, there is obviously still a need for ongoing debate in this area.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Despite elaborate and exhaustive analyses from the evangelical vantage point, the overall position of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church can only lead one to two basic conclusions:
1. Roman Catholicism is committed to a number of doctrines with which evangelicals will enthusiastically agree.
2. Roman Catholicism is committed to a number of doctrines with which evangelicals will wish to disagree vehemently.
Yes, the extent of the disagreement will vary from one evangelical to another; that, however, is not the central issue. The clear outcome of any informed reading of the catechism is that evangelicals will find clear statements of support for the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith alongside others that they will find questionable in the light of their Reformation heritage.
This returns us to the timely and pressing question of how evangelicalism should respond to Roman Catholicism. The following broad options seem to be available to evangelicals at present:
1. Refuse to have anything to do with Roman Catholics. In light of the continuing doctrinal disagreements associated with the agenda of the Reformation and that of Catholicism, this approach has the merit of the maintenance of total doctrinal integrity. But the threats to Christian orthodoxy from mainline Protestantism, secularism, and Islam still remain, and evangelicals and Catholics indisputably have more in common with each other than with any of these movements. The question that needs to be addressed is this: Can feuds between Christians be allowed when non-Christians seem to be winning the cultural battles? A divided Christianity is simply a weakened Christianity.
2. Collaborate with Roman Catholics on a limited range of issues, while acknowledging that differences remain on others. This approach maintains doctrinal integrity by means of an explicit acknowledgment that disagreements remain, while at the same time permitting collaboration on a series of moral, social, and political issues. Here we also find a mutual defense of Christian orthodoxy against liberalism, secularism, and non-Christian religions. Yet it leaves unresolved the question of how doctrinal disagreements are to be handled. Are they simply to be ignored or understated for pragmatic reasons?
The consensus that appears to be emerging among younger evangelicals corresponds broadly to the second approach outlined above. This general outlook suggests that in a world with both dangers and opportunities for the Christian gospel, at least in the short term, there is a real need for Christians to set their differences aside and support and defend their common ideas and values. When the world is a safer place for the gospel, we can get back to sorting out some of the issues that have temporarily been set aside in this way. And we might even learn something from each other along the way.
I am somewhat uneasy about this emerging consensus, which seems to be predominantly pragmatic and plays down some big theological dilemmas. (It also raises the question of how much younger evangelicals really know and care about the importance of Reformation theology.) But I concede that it may hold the key to some very needed reconciliation and cooperation in the body of Christ for the task of addressing modern culture.
If this analysis is correct, it follows that evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism may grow closer in the years that lie ahead, while still maintaining a degree of distance between each other. And perhaps it is better that efforts toward Christian unity should occur in this way, rather than through the reckless methods of ecumenism. Ecumenism is yesterday’s idea and is widely seen as a spent force; the kind of collaboration that seems to be emerging at street level is of a very different kind. It could well be a major force in the shaping of America’s religious future in general, and evangelical future in particular. Who cares about the World Council of Churches? If Pannenberg is right and the future of Protestantism lies with evangelicalism, evangelicals can dispense with such discredited and outmoded organizations.
Whatever the differences between evangelicals and Catholics may be – and these differences should neither be denied nor underplayed – the possibility that the two groups could form a coalition working for doctrinal orthodoxy and moral renewal at every level of society is inviting. It is an attractive vision, but a vision that raises many difficult questions – not least, assessing the origins and importance of the outstanding doctrinal disagreements between the two groups. If there is any hope for a true alliance, we need to start thinking about these things now.
********************
Alister E. McGrath is research lecturer in theology at Oxford University and research professor of systematic theology at Regent College, Vancouver, British Columbia, and the author of “Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification” (Cambridge University Press).
Copyright © 1994 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
