Colossians
2:11-12 refers to this type of spiritual circumcision: “In him you were also
circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision
done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been
buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power
of God, who raised him from the dead.” This is the Scripture on which much of what those who practice infant baptism base their doctrine.
Those believe that only believing adults should be baptized say that this circumcision (i.e., water baptism) does not involve the
cutting of the body; it is a cutting away of our old nature. It is a spiritual
act and refers to nothing less than salvation, effected by the Holy Spirit.
Baptism, mentioned in verse 12, does not replace circumcision; it follows
circumcision—and it is clearly a spiritual circumcision that is meant. Baptism,
therefore, is a sign of inward, spiritual “circumcision.”
This passage also specifies that the new life, represented by baptism, comes
“through your faith.” This implies that the one being baptized has the ability
to exercise faith. Since infants are not capable of exercising faith, they
should not be candidates for baptism.
Someone born (physically) under the Old Covenant received the sign of that
covenant (circumcision); likewise, someone born (spiritually) under the New
Covenant (“born again,” John 3:3) receives the sign of that covenant (baptism).
A BRIEF GUIDE TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM TODAY
Alan Howe
There is in Protestant evangelical circles a commonly held
misconception concerning the Roman Catholic Church today: namely, that we are
dealing with broadly the same institution and theology with which our forebears
dealt. So, for example, one recently published and generally helpful pamphlet
speaks of the current pope, Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger),
as an ‘arch-conservative’ and mentions his ‘pre-Vatican II doctrinal rigidity’,
thus giving the unmistakable impression that little, if anything has changed in
the official stance of the church over the past fifty years or more. In order,
therefore, to come to a more accurate representation of Rome’s official stance
theologically today, we need first to understand what has happened in the past
century or so, i.e. not only in the period leading up to the convening of the
Second Vatican Council (‘Vatican II’: October 1962-December 1965), but also in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Roman Catholic Theology before Vatican II
Prior to Vatican II the official theology of the Roman
Catholic Church was ‘Neo-Thomism’, or more broadly ‘Neo-Scholasticism’, which
began to be established from about 1840 in order to rescue the church from an
increasing pluralism of ideas and theologies in the early nineteenth century.
Neo-Thomism in particular was the movement designed to recover the theology of
Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) as central to the church; it was given official
sanction in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Aeterni Patris of 1879. Thus when
Protestants think of Roman Catholicism, they may have in mind the overall
picture given by an author such as Loraine Boettner in his classic volume Roman
Catholicism (P & R, 1962), published during the Second Vatican Council, but
describing the theology which had prevailed up to that point. This was a
theology which was officially Neo-Thomist and Tridentine (i.e. also upholding
the declarations of the Council of Trent [1545-63] which condemned the
Protestant Reformation).
Not that liberal ideas in various forms did not circulate
within the church between 1879 and 1962. Pope Pius X, in his decree Lamentabili
and encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (both issued in 1907), condemned
modernism, describing it (in Pascendi) as the ‘synthesis of all heresies’.
Modernist Roman Catholic thinkers such as Baron Friedrich von Hügel
(1852-1925), Alfred Loisy (1857-1940), George Tyrrell (1861-1909) and Maurice
Blondel (1861-1949) thus became the object of official scorn and rejection.
However, modernist seeds had been sown; and in the
background stood the figure of Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-1890), an
Anglican convert to Rome (1845) who wrote what was to become for many later,
liberalising theologians at the time of Vatican II a key text: An Essay on the
Development of Christian Doctrine. This work was written by Newman as a vehicle
to justify the theological developments found in the traditional Roman
Catholicism of his day but rejected by Protestantism (e.g. Mariology).
However, as Nick Needham has argued, ‘it is to be feared
that the ultimate thrust of Newman’s philosophy of development may have been to
bolster the Hegelian evolutionary idea of God and the world which increasingly
seems to underlie much modern Roman Catholic thinking’ (essay: The Tragic
Enigma of John Henry Newman - CRN Journal, Spring 2001). In other words,
Newman’s ideas were eventually to give succor to those who sought to reject the
rigidity of Neo-Thomism and instead promote modernist thinking.
Even the papal condemnations of 1907 and the entrenchment of
Neo-Thomism as central to official theological training by the 1920s did not,
however, entirely halt the spread of modernist ideas. Theologians such as
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), Henri de Lubac (1896-1991), Karl Rahner
(1904-1984), Yves Congar (1904-95) and Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905-88) began
to grapple with the same sorts of ideas which had been condemned in the early
twentieth century. This gave rise, for example, to the broad school of thought
known as ‘Nouvelle Théologie’ (‘New Theology’) which rejected the official
theology of the church.
This move to free the church from what was seen as the
straitjacket of Neo-Thomist orthodoxy was also met with official criticism in
the encyclical Humani generis of Pope Pius XII, issued in 1950. However, as
Reformed theologian David F. Wells narrates, this encyclical ‘was so mild in
its wording it can hardly even be seen as a rebuke. The work of the new
theologians was not imperiled and still less consigned to the graveyard of
heresy. After a further decade of study, their conclusions seemed sufficiently
safe and fruitful to be given papal approval’ (essay: Recent Roman Catholic
Theology in Tensions in Contemporary Theology - Moody Press, 1976).
So how could this be? What was the event that precipitated
the sea-change in Roman Catholicism which would finally admit the New Theology
(i.e. modernism)?
Vatican II and aggiornamento
On October 28th 1958 one Angelo Giuseppe Rocalli was elected
pope, taking the name John XXIII. Unlike his predecessor Pius XII, the new pope
- although already an old man - was open to the modernizing agenda of the New
Theology. Thus John XXIII summoned the Second Vatican Council with the specific
intention not of merely repeating what had been taught in the past, but rather
of achieving a doctrinal breakthrough. As he made clear in his address which
inaugurated the Council, his justification was that the 'substance of the
ancient doctrine of the deposit of the faith is one thing, and the way in which
it is presented is another'. For a church in second half of the twentieth
century it wasn't sufficient to stand still: it was necessary to embark upon a
radical process of aggiornamento (bringing things up to date).
The result at Vatican II was a clash of theologies and their
representatives, with the Neo-Thomist traditionalists being battled by the
newly emboldened modernizers of the New Theology. As David Wells narrates, when
the two parties came into conflict with each other, three outcomes were
possible: on rare occasions one side prevailed; sometimes, when neither side
backed down, a reconciling statement was drawn up which was ambiguous enough to
mean different things to the two parties; and sometimes no such reconciling
statement could be devised, in which case the two opposing positions were
simply recorded alongside each other.
The problem, then, that was bequeathed to the Roman Catholic
Church was a set of Council documents which could often be interpreted in
varying ways. Rather than resulting in clarity, what Vatican II often did was
to produce uncertainty. So what is the situation today, nearly half a century
later?
Rome today: three camps, not two!
Today Roman Catholics themselves are clear that in the wake
of Vatican II three broad doctrinal camps have evolved. Philip Trower, in
Turmoil and Truth (Family Publications/Ignatius Press, 2003), writes:
'Among those calling themselves Catholics today there are in
fact not two but three recognizable bodies of belief or opinion. First, there
are Catholics in the hitherto universally recognized sense; they accept all the
Church's teachings. Then come the modernists or semi-modernists dedicated to
altering some aspect of faith or morals. We can also call them innovators or
dissenters. It seems the politest name consistent with accuracy. Finally, there
are the followers of the French Archbishop, Marcel Lefebvre.' (p.37)
Re-stating and re-ordering Trower's analysis for the sake of
clarity, we can characterize the three camps as follows:
1. The Traditionalists: As Trower says, the Neo-Thomist
followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (1905-91) make up this camp. They are
basically those who have rejected Vatican II as heretical and wish to maintain
the doctrines and practices of Rome prior to the Council. Lefebvre founded the
Society of St Pius XII in 1970 and in 1988, after himself consecrating four
bishops in defiance of Pope John Paul II, was excommunicated from the Roman
Catholic Church. This group is small, although vocal.
There are also a number of (mainly) American Roman Catholic
apologists who, although working within the church, are concerned to promote
traditional Tridentine teaching. Typical examples here would be ex-Presbyterian
(PCA) Scott Hahn, or Karl Keating.
2. The Radical Liberals (i.e. Trower's modernists or
semi-modernists): These are the thinkers and theologians who wish to carry
forward the most radical interpretation of Vatican II. They too often act in
defiance of the reigning orthodoxy. A representative figure would be theologian
Hans Küng (b.1928) who was appointed a peritus, or official theological advisor
at Vatican II. Although still a priest in good standing today, he was deprived
of his mandate to teach Roman Catholic theology in 1979, mainly as a result of his
explicit rejection of papal infallibility. The representative journal of this
camp is Concilium which puts forward a more radical version of the New
Theology.
3. The Conservative Liberals (i.e. those in Trower's
analysis who accept Rome's teachings): These are the representatives today of a
more conservative interpretation of the New Theology, e.g. Joseph Ratzinger
(b.1927), the current pope. The theology of the more conservative liberals is
now the prevailing orthodoxy within Roman Catholicism. Their textbook is the
officially-sanctioned Catechism of the Catholic Church (first published in
English in 1994) and their representative journal is Communio.
The outworking of Vatican II in the doctrine of soteriology
Roman Catholicism is therefore no more monolithic in its
doctrine and practice than wider Protestantism. Of course, there is an official
line as represented by the Catechism and various papal pronouncements; however,
there is usually also visible dissent at both ends of the theological spectrum,
i.e. from the traditionalists and from the radical liberals. One thing is
clear, though: if there is an official line, it is not going to be that of the
church pre-Vatican II. The official line must therefore characterized as
liberal in some measure. We can see this in the doctrine of soteriology:
The traditionalists, like orthodox evangelicals, are
exclusivists, i.e. they teach that there is no salvation outside the Christian
faith, in particular as represented by the Roman Catholic Church. This is
summarized in the Latin phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no
salvation outside the church). Pope Pius X in his encyclical Jucunda sane of
1904 explained this teaching as follows:
'It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as
the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is
ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation.'
Evangelicals have also traditionally been exclusivists,
arguing, however, that Rome is a false church. Biblical texts such as John 14:6
and Acts 4:12 provide the main arguments for Christian exclusivism.
The radical liberals, like many liberal Protestants, are
often pluralists, i.e. they teach that all religions can lead to God and
salvation. This is the position of Roman Catholic theologian Paul Knitter,
editor (with Protestant theologian of soteriological pluralism, John Hick) of
The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions
(Orbis, 1987). In this teaching Jesus Christ is no longer held to be the only
savior, thus contradicting the biblical texts mentioned above.
The conservative liberals, like many other liberal
Protestants and some liberal-leaning evangelicals such as Clark Pinnock, are
inclusivists, i.e. they teach that people of other religions can be saved by
Jesus Christ even if they do not explicitly believe in him. Karl Rahner coined
the term ‘anonymous Christians’ to describe people who are saved in this way.
Inclusivism is in fact the official position of Rome today.
This shift away from the traditionally-held exclusivism began with the
declarations of Vatican II (e.g. Lumen Gentium) and is now enshrined in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
‘Those
who have not yet received the gospel are related to the People of God in various ways’ (para.839)
‘The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant.’ (para.839)
‘The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.’ (para.841)
‘The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race...all share a common destiny, namely God...’ (para.842)
‘The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things, and wants all men to be saved.’ (para.843)
'...all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his body.' (para.846)
‘Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by his grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.' (para.847)
It is evident, therefore, the Roman Catholic Church has
dramatically shifted her position on the doctrine of salvation. In reality she
teaches today that people of any faith (or, perhaps, none) can be saved by
means of religious sincerity, because this is in effect anonymous Christianity.
Inclusivism has therefore replaced exclusivism. Ian Ker, Roman Catholic priest
and biographer of John Henry Newman, explains the current orthodoxy as follows:
'...the Council (i.e. Vatican II) reasserted the Catholic
Church's rejection of both the narrowness and exclusivity of the Evangelical
Protestantism which restricts salvation to Christian believers, as well as any
kind of Liberal protestant approach which undermines the uniqueness of Christ
as the sole mediator.' (Catholic Herald, 15th September 2000)
Of course, while describing Rome's official position today
perfectly accurately, Ker is actually re-writing the history of his own church
whose position prior to Vatican II was patently exclusivist (with the exception
of the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, which taught that the unbaptized could be
saved if they desired baptism but died before receiving it).
Knowing our opponents
This writer is convinced that one of the reasons why
evangelicals often continue to engage purely with the doctrinal controversies
of the past (giving the impression that Rome has not changed) may well be that
this is within their theological comfort-zone. However, while such engagement
is still necessary in those theological loci which divide orthodox evangelicals
from Roman Catholic traditionalists just as they did in the sixteenth century,
it is important to understand that the debate has actually been relocated and
now takes place in a quite different overall theological context. As Reformed
theologian Robert Strimple says with regard to the traditionalist Roman
Catholic apologists in the USA:
'Evangelical Protestants must recognize, however, what such
conservative Roman Catholics themselves recognize: that they form the
''orthodox minority'' (Keating) in the Catholic Church. And when orthodox
Protestants enter into debate with those who now form the majority of
professional Catholic theologians, the issues addressed must be the even more
radically fundamental ones relating to the meaning of every affirmation of the
historic faith of the Christian church...' (essay: Roman Catholic Theology
Today in Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze what Divides and
Unites us - ed. John H. Armstrong, Moody Press, 1994)
Let us, therefore, know our opponents, so to speak. The
Roman Catholic Church has changed fundamentally in the past half-century, from
a Tridentine exclusivist body (“no salvation outside the church”) to one that
embraces religious inclusivism (“all can be saved by their own sincere
religious quest”). In our engagement with Rome’s teachings, let us therefore
not merely re-fight the battles of the past, but so understand what Rome in
fact teaches that we may be equipped to fight the battles of today.
© Alan Howe. Permission is given to duplicate and distribute
this article in any format provided that the wording is not altered and no fee
is charged. Please include the following statement on copies: © Alan Howe. Used
by permission.
