The forthcoming Vatican Council has brought into sharp focus the whole problem of the disagreements between Roman Catholics and Protestants on theological and ecclesiastical issues; the ecumenical fervor which has arisen in both camps has made necessary a fresh look at these long-standing controversies. To the extent that this ecumenical zeal brings all parties to the controversies back to the basic theological issues involved, the results of such conversations as are envisaged by both Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders can be very beneficial to all concerned.
The fact that great differences in theology do exist cannot, and should not, be denied by the most ardent ecumenists on either side, but neither should their existence blind those opposed to the ecumenical movement to the fact that there are broad areas of agreement between the Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant churches. The very intensity of the controversy between the Reformers and Rome tended to blind partisans on both sides to the fact that there is a body of theological truth derived from the Scriptures on which there was either whole or partial agreement and that this agreement centered in biblical truths which are the very essence of the Gospel message, and not peripheral to it.
Areas Of Agreement
At this point it is necessary to insist that there is a much broader area of theological agreement between evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholic theology as it emerged from the Council of Trent than there is between evangelical Protestantism and modern liberalism. Acknowledging this does not minimize the deep cleavages which existed between Rome and Wittenberg, or Rome and Geneva, and which continue to divide Rome and the evangelical descendants of Luther and Calvin. These cleavages continue to be very deep and very real, and constitute an impassable gulf between the Roman Church and evangelicals. But, great as they are, they are not as great as those which separate evangelicals from all forms of contemporary liberalism, whether of a neoorthodox or an existentialist mode.
The Council of Trent (1545–1563), in giving to the Roman Catholic Church its first systematic theology in a creedal form, based its work on the great affirmations of faith which were produced by the ecumenical councils of the early Church, particularly those pronouncements of the first four ecumenical councils of Nicaea (A.D. 325), Constantinople (A.D. 381), Ephesus (A.D. 431), and Chalcedon (A.D. 451). It was the task of each one of these councils to pronounce against a definite heresy which was threatening the purity and the life of the Church at that particular time, and to give an evangelical or biblical reply to it. These ecumenical creeds and pronouncements supplied the basis of the decrees of the Council of Trent, and lay at the very heart of the doctrinal formulations of both the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches; they also supplied the doctrinal basis of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. Thus, both the Lutheran and the Calvinistic reformations embodied articles of faith which were held in common with the Roman Catholic Church.
The pronouncements of the first four councils were largely concerned with heresies regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the relationship of the divine and human in Christ. Thus, the decisions of these councils, and the creeds which they either formulated or accepted as authoritative statements of the Christian faith, were of profound importance in the development of Christian doctrine from that time on. Not only were heresies specifically condemned, but the truths of the Scriptures were proclaimed to keep the faith of the Church biblically pure. At a very early date these creeds were accepted by the Western church and found there a wider reception and a more devoted following than they were often accorded in the East, which had been the home of the councils which sanctioned them.
The Councils of 325 and 381 gave to the Church formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity which have stood the test of time and have ever been regarded as the anchor of orthodoxy for both Rome and Protestantism. This doctrine is not the private possession of either Rome or Protestantism; it belongs to every believer in whatever camp he may be found. These affirmations of 325 and 381 speak today with as much force to evangelical Protestantism as they do to the Vatican. Both parties owe a very great debt to those devoted souls who first worked out and then sanctioned the creed of 381, erroneously ascribed to the Council of Constantinople. This presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity in its biblical grandeur and significance has passed into the mainstream of orthodox theology, and lies at the very heart of both Roman Catholic and Protestant theology. In the same way, the solution of the problem of the two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, offered by the Council of Chalcedon, is as truly Protestant as it is truly Roman Catholic.
It must also be noted that the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches have a common legacy in the writings of the early Fathers. St. Augustine inspired the Reformers just as much as he inspired St. Thomas Aquinas. Calvin, and to a lesser extent, Luther, was as much at home in Jerome, Ambrose, Basil, and Anselm as St. Thomas was; Calvin was also well-versed in St. Thomas himself. It is quite true that Calvin and Luther did not always use, or interpret, these writings of the early scholars in the same manner as did Thomas Aquinas. Disagreements were frequent, but Calvin did not always reject St. Thomas either. Even the Council of Trent, in its fury and eagerness to create an unbridgeable chasm between Roman Catholic orthodoxy and Protestant heresy, could not delete all areas of agreement, and at one point, to a degree at least, it created a bond of union when it asserted the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures.
Areas Of Disagreement
If history and theological accuracy demand that we recognize the biblical elements which these two branches of Christendom hold in common, they also demand that we present those divergencies in theological and ecclesiastical concepts which were at the very center of the controversy which the Reformers had with Rome in their own day and which constitute a barrier to any real spirit of unity with Rome today—and which also make any attempt at organic union with the Roman Church impossible for those who hold the purity of the faith as the dearest of possessions.
It was the aim and purpose of the Council of Trent so to define Roman Catholic orthodoxy that any attempt at a union with Protestantism would be impossible; in this the council was eminently successful. Without denying that legacy which it received from the early Church, this council remolded Roman Catholic doctrine into such a form that it openly denied the evangelical position at every major point. And, in so doing, it subordinated its biblical legacy from the early Church to Scholastic and Aristotelian accretions to such a degree that the strength of the Gospel message was nearly dispelled by the Tridentine philosophical superstructure; no major part of the biblical plan of redemption retained its evangelical purity. The result was a tragic perversion of the whole of Scripture. Rome purchased its distinctive differences from Wittenberg and Geneva at a fearful cost.
The members of the hierarchy assembled at Trent, in the very first decree which they issued, prepared the way for the great doctrinal errors which were to come: they declared that the Bible rests upon the authority of the Church, and that tradition, as it comes down through the ages in the Roman Catholic Church, has an equal validity with the Scriptures themselves. The authority and inspiration of the Scriptures were not denied, but the uniqueness of the Bible as God’s special revelation to man was greatly weakened by this appeal to tradition. The door was thus opened for the entrance of errors of many kinds into the fabric of Roman doctrine. The rejection of the scriptura sola of Luther and Calvin set the tone for the rest of the work of this council. The wedge they introduced between themselves and the Reformers by this initial statement was driven deeper by the decree on original sin which followed. The definition of this doctrine tested the ingenuity of the council as few others did. In essence the problem was this: if the Augustinian view should prevail, there would be no need for the sacramental system as it had developed in the church, and the foundations of the hierarchy would be weakened accordingly. Neither would there be any real differences between Trent and the Reformers at this point. On the other hand, if this doctrine were denied in toto, then there would be no need of salvation, sacramental or otherwise, and the power of the clergy would be shaken to its foundations. Between these two extremes a compromise was needed, and Trent was equal to the task. It adopted a Thomistic conception of original sin, which insisted that it was truly an offense against God by which man fell from that state in which he had been created, and that through Adam the effects of that first transgression were visited upon all his posterity. But there is in the Roman system no admission of total depravity as it is found in the great creeds of the Reformation and the evangelical churches. In the Fall, Adam lost that holiness and justice with which he had been endowed at creation, the super additum, but he did not lose a residual power to seek God and to gain a certain kind of merit by his natural powers whereby he might cooperate in the attainment of salvation. Thus there is in Roman Catholic theology no great affirmation that salvation is by grace alone through faith. There is grace, to be sure, but that grace, to a degree, is merited by a residual righteousness in the very nature of man which survived the Fall. There is certain residual power in both the mind and will of man which, if rightly used and aided by grace, constitutes a kind of merit which prepares the way for the reception of grace.
The growing chasm between Roman and Protestant thought is even more clearly brought out in the decree of Trent in regard to justification. In Roman Catholic theology, justification is not a forensic act on the part of God, not a judicial decision. Rather, it is viewed as a continuing process, and the Roman Church identifies it with sanctification. Thus one error brings many others in its wake: namely, the doctrine that man must continually strive to achieve his redemption rather than look upon it as an accomplished fact in Jesus Christ, the logical result of which is that no believer can have the certainty of redemption in this life, but only a pious hope. The uncertainty of the believer was not only recognized by the council, but in Chapter X of this decree it went so far as to say that “no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.” Uncertainty and fear, then, become the logical characteristics of the Roman Catholic. The lack of certainty as the necessary lot of the Christian is further spelled out in the chapters on perseverance of the saints in which it is declared that no one can know with certainty whether he be of the elect.
This uncertainty, although inherent in the Roman view of justification, finds its real source in the attempt of the Council of Trent to deal with the Augustinian and Reformation doctrine of election in a way that will not commit the church to a Pelagian view of human nature and redemption on the one hand, and yet which will leave the necessity of the sacramental system and the sacerdotal clergy untouched. The doctrine of unconditional election held by Calvin, Luther, and the other Reformers was denounced as an anathema, and a position was chosen which was not too different from that which later became known as Arminianism in Protestant circles. It insisted on the necessity of redeeming grace in redemption, but at the same time it allowed human merit an efficacy totally unknown to both the Scriptures and the Reformers.
The Roman Catholic definitions of original sin, election, justification, and sanctification are the necessary foundations for the doctrine of the sacraments which was affirmed by the Council of Trent. Not only did this council decree the sacraments to be seven in number, but it also affirmed that they were necessary for salvation, for it regarded them as the completion of justification. The efficacy of these sacraments in Roman Catholic theology lies in the fact that they are believed actually to confer grace upon all who receive them unless obstacles are placed in the way of their effective operation. Baptism brings actual regeneration and cleansing from the guilt and corruption of original sin for all recipients, although concupiscence remains. Other sacraments (confirmation, the Eucharist, penance and extreme unction) play an equally vital role in freeing the faithful from the effects of post-baptismal sins.
The tremendous importance which Roman Catholic theology attaches to the sacraments finds its explanation in the fact that they, in turn, lie at the very heart of the conception of a sacerdotal clergy. The doctrine of the sacerdotal clergy assigns to the Roman Catholic priesthood a role much like that of the priesthood of all believers on the basis of the finished work of Jesus Christ. There is an intimate relationship between the Roman Catholic denial of this finished work of Christ upon the Cross and the rise of this sacerdotal conception of the clergy, which in turn is the necessary foundation for the papal hierarchy with its vast claims to both spiritual and temporal supremacy.
It is at this point that another and very vital difference between Romanism and Protestantism comes into view. The Papacy is a patent denial of the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. This hierarchical form of government is an almost inevitable consequence of this denial. The ramifications are many in the life of the church and the spiritual development of the people. The hierarchy replaces the Scriptures as the practical and immediate source of religious knowledge, and as the everyday guide in Christian living. This hierarchy intrudes itself not only between the people and the Bible, but also between them and their Lord.
This difference in government is the logical consequence of the vital differences in doctrine existing between the Roman Church and evangelical Protestantism. It is not an accidental or peripheral disagreement on which concession and compromise are possible and desirable. But rather does it emerge out of the fundamental disagreements in theology which affect every aspect of the life of the Church and of individual believers. Yet it should also be noted that the Papacy is a very necessary part of the whole Roman Church, for without its presence the semi-Pelagian tendencies inherent in the theology of the Council of Trent (and later Jesuit accretions) would be able to run their course without hindrance. Roman Catholic theology then would be able to degenerate even further in the direction of an unadulterated Pelagianism. In a very curious way the Papacy is an almost necessary safeguard against the inherent weaknesses and dangers of a theology to which it looks for support for its own claims to powers.
It is thus evident that at nearly every point contemporary evangelical theology and Rome are at variance, in spite of the fact that they have a common biblical origin and also look to the great ecumenical creeds of the first four centuries for the starting point of their respective theological systems. For evangelical Protestants these creeds became the foundation for a growth in biblical insight which came with the Reformation, a means for developing to their great fullness the very doctrines which they enunciated. On the other hand, for the Roman Church these creeds have served as guides for all later theological development in the sense that their affirmations were not to be denied, but their many silences could be used for developing a theological system which, at many points, would blunt the evangelical keenness of these early affirmations.
One question then remains to be answered: Why do liberals in Protestantism so ardently seek a reunion with Rome? The very liberalism which they profess would, at first glance, seem to raise an insurmountable barrier between themselves and the absolutism of Rome. And yet this is obviously not the case, for it is the liberals who are in the vanguard of the movement seeking reunion with Rome. Is this not a paradox? When considered from the point of view of the outward government of the Church it would seem to be such. But when considered from a theological context, there is much consistency in their position. Liberal Protestant theology suffers from the same weakness which characterizes that of Rome—an inner drive toward Pelagianism and humanism—which if left unchecked would soon deprive liberal Protestantism of the last vestige of any right to be called a theology. Thus it would seem that liberals are willing to come to terms with Rome simply because they either have, or are willing to accept, the same safeguards in their liberal churches which Rome has already erected.
Protestant ecumenical leaders have, in many cases, looked to a revival of high liturgy as a center of worship rather than to the preaching of the Bible. This liturgical renaissance in many Protestant groups is an attempt to retain a religious character and value in worship without a submission to what God has said in the Scriptures. As these leaders have sought to retain a religious character and influence in the life of the congregations by these techniques, so have they acquiesced in the erection of hierarchies in those denominations in which they have significant control. For without a hierarchy the theological deterioration in liberal Protestantism would soon deprive these denominations of the last vestiges of the right to claim to be a Christian church.
END
