Catholicism Then and Now No.2

Catholicism today in the 1980s. If you've gone back a century ago, certainly if you've gone back three or four centuries ago, the issues would have been very clear inasmuch as it would have been reckoned that there was a great divide between Protestants and Catholics. Those were the centuries in which quite a lot of blood was shed, often on the part, I think, of the Catholic Church.

Sometimes there was overreaction on the part of Protestants, but certainly the issues were much more plain, perhaps, in past centuries than they are today. We are confronted with the position of recent popes, and particularly this present one, who seem to be quite reasonable men. We know of various acts of mercy that the Catholic Church are engaged in.

I myself am very much in favour of, and would pay my respects to, the work, say, of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and her home for the destitutes, and so on. Now, as a result of all this, it's not too easy these days to protest and not to be found in the thinking of some ill-mannered, boorish, un-Christian, perhaps a political Protestant of Northern Ireland persuasion. Not that they all are political in their Protestantism there, but there is a certain view that has mixed evangelicalism and its political philosophy together, and I do not subscribe to that particular opinion, nor would I defend the Gospel from that standpoint.

But here we are in Worthing, and we tonight are reviewing the situation of the Catholic Church as she is now. And whatever I have to say this evening, let me right at the outset say this. I offer my remarks in love and in charity.

I believe that there are many thousands of born-again Catholic people, and I recognize that the present Pope has merited, simply because of the difficulties of his own background in particular, he has merited the respect of many thousands of people around the world. So, I want to make those just as introductory comments to what I have to say right now. Last week, we were looking at Catholicism then.

We were reviewing the situation. I gave you dates galore. I referred to papal bulls and papal letters and so on and so forth, and I'm sure I almost gave you indigestion.

And for you to be able to chew it over properly, then you would have, I think, to take our tape and to listen to the information that I shared with you again, until you have sifted it and you have properly understood the historical perspective. But what I want to do this evening, as I say, is to speak to you more about Catholicism today than Catholicism of yesteryear. And immediately we run into a problem.

What is that? Well, there are some people who tell us that Rome is semper idem, which means, your Latin may be good enough to translate it, though I didn't pronounce it very well, always the same. And yet, I would argue, and certain Protestant commentators, mercifully, would agree with me, that since Vatican Council 2, there has been, in some areas, a change in Rome. Now, let me stop, because there are some who, perhaps, this evening, don't know what Vatican 2 is all about.

Vatican 2 was one of the great councils of the Church, which came together in the mid-1960s and lasted for several years. Vatican 2 was a bringing together of cardinals and theologians. It started off under the chairmanship of Pope John XXIII.

And when you read, as I have, large extracts of Vatican 2, you will discover that what is said there is in a completely different vein to what was said in 1870, for example, when Vatican 1 was chaired and reports brought out. In the 1870s, there were certain anathemas which were directed against people like ourselves, Protestants, who did not subscribe to certain aspects, indeed, many aspects of Catholicism. Vatican 1 was almost brutal in the way that it dismissed the Protestant viewpoint, perhaps not quite as brutal as the Council of Trent, which met to cope with the problems that the Catholic Church was facing as a result of Luther, but nonetheless, it was savage enough.

But you come to Vatican 2, and things are a lot different. You find references to those who are not Catholic and yet are Christian, in terms of separated brethren. You get John XXIII suggesting that people who are not Catholic should remember that when the Church is speaking to us, it is not speaking to us in a chastising fashion, but it is inviting the prodigals to come back into the Father's house, where there is love and fellowship.

The hand of fellowship is extended, or that seems to be the case as a result of Vatican 2 to non-Catholic people like ourselves. There are other changes that followed Vatican 2. For example, let's think domestically in the Catholic scene. No longer is a mass to be gone through in all its form and liturgy in the Latin tongue.

Rather, the tongue of the vernacular in this country, obviously English, can be employed. There's a great deal of trimming of the ritual that used to attend mass, or the masses, before Vatican 2. Indeed, as a result of the statement that masses are to be said in the language of the people, there was a whiplash of white right-wing reaction in the Catholic Church of those who were very much subscribing to the viewpoint of the Council of Trent, and found it very difficult indeed to acknowledge Vatican 2. So in these areas, and there are others, there does seem to be something of a change. Perhaps another point that's interesting for us as evangelicals is the way that Roman Catholics' attitude to the Bible seems to have changed as a result of Vatican 2. What do I mean? Well, the Bible is much more of an open book.

One finds Catholic friends studying the Bible more. This has had implications in such countries as, say, Spain or Mexico, the latter where I was relatively recently. And this rejoices our hearts.

We are glad, as Protestant evangelical people, when we see some possibility of introducing many millions more people to the teaching of the Bible so that they can read it for themselves. So I would argue, over again some early Protestant evaluations of Roman Catholicism, that there is indeed a difference between the Catholicism of then, more or less pre-Vatican 2, and the Catholicism of now. I'll perhaps be touching on this and opening up the distinctions and the contrasts a little more as I seek to bring my lecture before you.

Now one other thing, by way of introduction, I must say is this. That though the Catholic Church, it seems to me, in some areas has been changing considerably in the last decade, and perhaps even the last two decades, one is really with a problem tonight when deciding what facet of the Roman Catholic Church I am to bring to your attention. Now you may have been brought up as I was, as a Protestant, almost embarrassed because of denominationalism.

After all, we've got enough, haven't we? Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, what were Congregationalists, now United Reform, along with the Presbyterians, Pentecostals, and so forth. And one contrasts this with the monolithic structure of the Catholic Church. She seems to be one.

Wherever you go in the world, there is one church. She's not fragmented at all. One Ecclesia.

Well, if that ever was the case, which historically, actually I would doubt, it certainly isn't the case today. And that confronts me with, I say, a basic problem this evening, in speaking about Catholicism now. Do I talk to you about the Catholicism of Latin America, where you get a brand of Marxism injected into it, and very much a political platform that is adopted, maybe in some areas justifiably, by Catholic priests? Do I speak to you about the Catholicism of Spain, and contrast it with the Catholicism of the United Kingdom, and the Catholicism of the United States of America? For indeed, there are great differences between this, between those two brands.

Wherever you go, not only geographically, but also intellectually, depending upon which writers you read, which libraries you consult, you are presented with multi sides of Catholicism. Indeed, I would suggest that one of the great problems of this present Pope, Pope John Paul II, is to keep the Catholic Church together. It may seem united, but it's like cheap wallpaper that you put over many cracks, take it away, and you'll discover that there are many breakages and divisions indeed.

Well, obviously, I'm not going to engage in a geographic tour of Catholicism around the world, neither am I going to try to show you the different brands of theology in some of the orders of monks, and particular schools of biblical study. What I have elected to do this evening, is to speak to you about Catholicism in three different areas today. I want to speak to you about the traditional Catholicism that still exists, and I think is illustrated by the present Pope, and the last three or four successes.

In one sense, that will be a recap on last week, so it will help those who weren't present. Then I want to talk to you about liberal Catholicism, and the way that modernism, which has infected Protestantism and has detracted from the Bible, and the inerrancy of Scripture, is now increasingly a problem within the Catholic Church. And then finally, and perhaps more interestingly than the other aspect, I want to touch on Catholic Pentecostalism.

So, if my memory will feed me with the right information, that's the areas that I want to take you down, or those are the areas I want to take you down this evening. Why do I come back to traditional Catholicism? Because the Catholicism of then does still hold quite a large place in the understanding of many Catholics now. The superstition of Catholicism in the Middle Ages in this country is still seen out in the third world countries as, for example, in Mexico and certain other Latin American countries, as well as in India.

And I would suggest to you that this traditional Catholicism is very much the Catholicism of the most recent popes, and particularly Pope John Paul II. It's a Catholicism of the Council of Trent. It's the Catholicism of Leo XIII, who declared null and void every Anglican order, and therefore suggests that no Anglican clergyman is officially ordained in the Church of Jesus Christ.

It's a Catholicism that says that Mary was immaculately conceived and was received also supernaturally into heaven. It's a Catholicism which tells us that when we die we don't go to heaven, we go to a state called purgatory, and there we continue to be punished as a result of our sins until such time as we're moved out of purgatory into heaven. It's the Catholicism of the Mass, in which the wafer turns into the body of Christ, and the wine turns into his blood.

It's the Catholicism that says that when you worship the host, the wafer turned into the body of Christ, you are worshiping God himself. It's the Catholicism that says the feast of Corpus Christi is still to be maintained as the body of Christ is paraded around the streets. It's the Catholicism that makes of Mary something far more than Scripture ever gives warrant for you so to do.

I was reading a fascinating book during this past week, if you want to borrow it you can, it'll take you some time to get through it, it's about 500 pages long, written by a woman called Marina Warner and it's entitled Alone of All Her Sex. The author used to be a Catholic and she has fallen foul of her original belief but she has done a masterly survey of the myth of the Virgin Mary. Some of the things that you would read in this book believed by some Catholic traditional adherents of the of the church are so amazing they are almost incredible.

But the cult of Mary is very much part and parcel of traditional Catholicism. If you were to read as I have also been informing my own mind from the present Pope's commentary on Vatican II, you will begin to understand why it is that I say that traditional Catholicism is still very much part of the scene today. Vatican Council II, with all the cosmetic changes that there seem to be, has a great position to give Mary.

In fact they gave her the the title of the mother of the church and we are told by the present Pope as he makes comment on Vatican II and its documents, Mary enters the history of the salvation of mankind as the mother of us all. He goes on, the birth of the church on the day of Pentecost, as it were, is the continuation of the mystery of the incarnation which took place in Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Since Vatican II we have also called her mother of the church.

That's the Pope before he was enthroned as the pontiff commenting on Vatican II. What basically are Catholic theologians saying about Mary? Well let me sum it up if I can and I'm sure I'm doing them an injustice but I'm not trying to be unfair or imbalanced but I am trying to simplify things so that we can all follow. What Jesus is to Adam, Mary is to Eve.

Adam sinned and Jesus came and undid the transgression of Adam. Eve also was an accomplice. Indeed she was the prime sinner, the first sinner herself.

Correspondingly as there has been a second Adam or more scripturally a last Adam, so there has been a last Eve and Mary is that Eve. We believe in our Protestant theology that our justification comes as a result of the death of Jesus at Calvary. His death was vicarious.

He paid the penalty for our sins. Traditional Catholicism as espoused by the present Pope tells us that part of the vicarious offering also was shared by Mary. A sword pierced her heart at Calvary.

And as Jesus is the one who brings redemption, so Mary is the redemptrix. As Jesus is the mediator, so Mary is the mediatrix. And so it goes on.

The very salvation that you and I and Catholic people believe that they enjoy, according to Vatican II and the commentary of the present Pope, is as a result not only of the death of Jesus and his resurrection, but the sufferings of Mary who also was a sinless woman like the Lord Jesus. One Protestant critic has gone so far as to say, and I think with some justification, that by the time you finished evaluating Vatican II and the present Pope's commentary on Vatican II, what you finish up with is not a Trinity, but a Quaternity. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and behind, on a par with the Father, is Mary, the mother of the church.

Mary who brings Christ into the world. Mary who brings the church into the world. And our salvation is very much dependent upon Mary as mediator and also as intercessor.

Now I'm not exaggerating when I say that the present Pope subscribes very much to this high doctrine of Mary. I understand that after that awful attempt to assassinate him, something which we deplore as civilized people, on his happy recovery he gave thanks to Mary as being the means of his recovery. I did hear, though it is hearsay, I cannot give you chapter and verse, I could for the last comment, that when the bullet actually pierced him, he appealed to Mary, and that would be in keeping according to Marina Warner of the whole cult of the Virgin Mary, who really comes into her own when a person is dying, and one prays, Mary, mother of Jesus, will you intercede for me? There's a very developed doctrine of Mariolatry in the belief of this present Pope.

I don't know if you have followed some of his travels. He is, of course, one of the most, in fact, the most well-traveled Pope of all time. But generally speaking, where does he go in his travels? Well, in Poland he visits a basilica in honor of Mary.

Before he goes to Ireland, he visits a shrine in honor of Mary in Loreto, in Italy. What was the latter shrine that he visited? Well, would you believe it, it's the very house where Mary brought Jesus up as a boy in Nazareth. You may find this incredible.

If so, I compliment you, I find it incredible too. But that house was lifted by the angels, dropped down in Turkey, and then later on transferred to Loreto. And if you went there, you would find that the tiles of the floor are almost worn away by the knees of the faithful who have paid obeisance to Mary in the sanctuary there.

When he comes to Ireland, he goes to Knock. Why does he go to Knock? Well, there was an apparition of Mary. She appeared on the wall of the church there.

When he was in Mexico, he went to the shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Why did he go there? Well, again, because Mary appeared, a remarkable picture of Mary, which is still enshrined in a portrait there that you can see to this day, supposed to have miraculous powers and so on. I have watched people on their knees, old ladies come down the main high street in front of that cathedral shrine on their knees, pushing their way along on their bones, believing that as a result of paying obeisance to Mary, they will have grace and time in purgatory will be shortened, and so forth.

Now, I mention all these things. For what reason? Well, because traditional Catholicism is very much present today. It's the Catholicism of then, and it is still with us now.

It's a more genial Catholicism as far as its attitude towards ourselves is concerned in this country, not necessarily in every country incidentally, but it still exists. The old-fashioned, historic, bigoted Catholicism, which does not detract from Scripture, but adds to Scripture, and as a result twists Scripture from its obvious meaning. Well, I could say more about that, but I see that time is going.

So, let me move on for a moment and bring to you something about liberal Catholicism. Now, what do I mean by this? Well, you know something about liberal theology. I made reference to this a few moments ago.

Liberal theology, well, it first came around last century, as far as Protestants are concerned, in the 1850s in Germany, in some of the theological universities and schools on the continent. There arose a body of criticism which came to the Bible and dissected it, and agreed with this bit and not with the other bit, and so on and so forth, and ere long you finished up with an emasculated version of the Word of God. Now, by and large, Rome was able to bypass this.

The Pope at the time, if memory's serving me right, Leo XIII, issued an encyclical, the Syllabus of Errors, and in 1870-odd or thereabouts, he denied the validity of the theological schools in Germany, and brought pressure to bear on the priests and Catholic teachers to reject the modernism that was beginning to infect the Protestant churches. In Vatican I, following the position of the Council of Trent in the 16th century, reference was made to a doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, which would have satisfied the most right-wing fundamentalist in the United States of America today. But that has begun to change.

There is an erosion within certain segments of the Catholic Church. No longer do they subscribe to the inerrancy of Scripture, as has been the case down the centuries. Now in one sense, John XXIII was to blame.

He was the man who called Vatican II. He was known as the Ecumenical Pope, and he made a statement right at the beginning of Vatican II, which enchanted the liberals and almost paralyzed the Jesuits. He suggested that some of the traditional teaching of the church was up for fresh consideration, that one perhaps could take from the Council of Trent certain of its principles and apply them differently.

It seemed to be a suggestion that the door was opening to a liberal approach to Scripture, and some of the more radical Catholic theologians who were in the wings were quick to see that there was a possibility of change. I wonder if the name of Teilhard de Chardin means anything to you. A Catholic theologian, evolutionist, a man who brought a very powerful mind, but a very liberal mind to Catholic theology, and began to embarrass the traditionalists.

Maybe you have heard of a Dutch theologian by the name of Hans Kung. Hans Kung, again, is a very radical man. I said a Dutch, he's German.

He was professor of the faculty of theology of Tübingen University, and Kung for some while had been suspect as not perhaps being a card-carrying Catholic, in the sense of the traditionalists. Now, as soon as Vatican II was through, what does Kung do? Well, he goes and writes a book entitled Infallibility, An Inquiry. And if you read that book, you would discover that not only does he question the infallibility of Scripture, but also the infallibility of the Pope.

Indeed, he rejects the latter completely. And there are some evangelicals who believe that Kung is a sort of new Luther, who has found the truth. But they ought to read him a little more carefully.

What Kung is, is a modernist, who applies, admittedly, a brilliant mind to Scripture, and he rejects certain aspects of the miracles. I'm not even too sure how clear he is on the resurrection. And so you get this man becoming very, very radical, and daring to issue a book questioning the infallibility of the Pope.

Well, Pope John II, he was not quite as reluctant to deal with Kung as the previous Pope, Pope Paul. You remember John Paul I only lasted for just a few days, so he doesn't really come into our reckoning. John Paul II brought Kung to Rome, and he sacked him.

He withdrew his credentials as a theologian of the Catholic Church. A similar sort of thing has happened to another Dutch theologian, who went back to Holland, and he had very much his tail between his legs after being chastised by the Pope. And as a result, the Dutch Catholic Church, which tends to be a very radical church, a very liberal church, is disenchanted with this Pope.

In fact, there are many of the liberals who are looking at this Pope with horror. Why is this? Well, you see, because the Pope is identifying himself with the traditional viewpoint that Rome has always espoused. He's against abortion, and with that we would agree.

He is against contraception. He is very, very traditional indeed, and not only does he take this line regarding Mary that I've outlined, but he's very concerned to ensure that all the priests and the bishops and the cardinals, they adhere to the Council of Trent's position in regard to the Mass. There's going to be no change in this sort of approach to the basic problem that Catholicism confronts Protestants with, this whole business of the body and the blood of the Lord Jesus somehow reappearing in the sacraments.

So, you see, traditional Rome is one major wing in the church today. So also is liberal Rome. And what's going to happen between those two, I don't know.

There are some who are suggesting that there must be another Vatican Council called, and perhaps this decade, to be able to clear up some of the aftermath left by Vatican Council 2. I could speak a little more about that. I find it quite fascinating. But again, time is at a premium this evening.

Let me move on to the third aspect of Catholicism which strikes me as being fascinating, and that is Catholic Pentecostalism. Now, this is a most extraordinary development that as far as I can find, traces itself back to the mid-1960s or thereabouts. In other words, around the time of Vatican II.

Now, it so happens that Pope John XXIII prayed God's blessing upon Vatican II, and he asked that there might be a rediscovery of the sort of power that there was in the acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Pentecostals are saying, well here we are, the answer to Pope John XXIII's prayer. Possibly you could trace Catholic Pentecostalism back to a university in Pittsburgh in the United States of America. Certain people found a liberty, a blessing in the Holy Spirit that completely transformed their personality and their attitude to the liturgy, their attitude to the whole of worship as they'd understood it previously.

You will be able, if you are interested, to read about the development of this extraordinary movement in a little volume entitled Catholic Pentecostals by Kevin and Dorothy Ranigan. Now, what were the Pentecostals? Well, as the name indicates, they were people who felt that they had found a reality with the Holy Spirit that they had not previously encountered before. Is it surprising that one would find Catholic Pentecostalism evolving within the Roman Church? Well, before I answer that question, let me bring to your attention the fact that the Catholic Church has always had a place for mysticism.

It's always had a place for the miraculous. I've only to mention the name of Lourdes to you, and possibly you have seen the sights of hundreds of people making their way to Lourdes, hoping that they will be touched in their body and healed. The history of Catholicism brings to our mind many instances of apparitions, and particularly the manifestation of the Virgin.

One thinks of the emphasis that's placed upon relics, or if you please, if this does not sound too indelicate to you, the breast milk of the Virgin Mary, which can be found in various parts of the world today, treasured up in little files. I believe they've got one at Walsingham here in England. So, Catholicism has always had its place for the mystical, for the extraordinary, and it's been able to embrace it, provided it has not questioned the basic tenets of historic Catholicism.

Now, the Pentecostal movement within the Catholic Church certainly at first was a very loyal movement. You will, interestingly enough, discover that it's not often these days in publications referred to as Catholic Pentecostalism. I think they became a little embarrassed about the traditional Pentecostalism in the States, and the belief of Pentecostals towards the Pope, referring to the Roman Church as being the Scarlet Woman of Revelation.

So the word Pentecostal tended to be dropped. The word Charismatic Renewal was then adopted as being perhaps more favorable. And today, if as I was a few days back, you go to the Cathedral in London and see the billboard there, you will discover certain meetings that are being held by branches of the Renewal in the United Kingdom.

Well, what do we make of the Catholic Renewal movement? What do we make about speaking in tongues, and various other phenomena? And how do we relate this to the Charismatic movement within Protestantism? And indeed, what do we have to say about both within the more conservative circles of the FIEC? Well, my evaluation tends to split under two heads. Firstly, there is that within Catholicism, Charismatic Catholicism, that seems to cling to the traditionalism of Rome. You get reference in this book, or it may be another I've got here, the Charismatic Renewal and the Irish Experience.

You get reference to some Catholics, who having come into an experience of the Spirit, say how much this has encouraged them in their worship of Mary. Speaking in tongues as they move over the rosary, the beads of the rosary, and so forth. You will find that Catholic, the Catholic Charismatic movement has been made very respectable in Belgium, because the Cardinal there espouses it.

You'll find that Pope Paul, the last Pope Paul, was very complimentary towards the Catholic Charismatic movement, because of its loyalty and the position that it seemed to cling to, of traditional Catholicism. So, is that enough for me to suggest that we wash the whole thing overboard, as being satanic, psychological, or at least questionable in some area? Well, I wish it was as easy as that in many ways, but I don't think it is. Why do I say this? Well, because of personal experience of some Catholics, who have been obviously, radically rejuvenated as a result of this experience.

That doesn't mean to say that all of them, who claim to be Catholic Charismatics, have suddenly moved out of the church, or are even thinking of moving out of the church. But before some of us conservative evangelicals toss the whole thing on one side, then we ought to listen to someone like Herbert Carson, telling us a little about what is happening in some circles in the Catholic Charismatic movement in Ireland, where there is a gradual moving away from traditional Catholicism, with all its superstition and unbiblical practice, and the desire to implement and practice simple biblical doctrines, and what have you. So, within Catholic, the Catholic Charismatic movement, we have not only a very large expression of Catholicism today, we have a very interesting development for us as Protestants to watch.

I believe that if a man or a woman is genuinely filled with the Holy Spirit, sooner or later they are bound to come to an understanding of the truth as it is in Jesus, of justification by faith. And to the end that that is happening within the Catholic Church, in some circles, I am pleased and I'm glad to acknowledge the genuineness of the experience of these people. So, let me try and gather everything together this evening.

What have I tried to say in dwelling so much from memory? Simply that there are three major facets to Catholicism today. The big one is traditional Catholicism, which has a legacy from the Catholicism of the past, and which I find little justification biblically for. Then there is the Catholicism of the liberal and the modernist, and that fills me with horror, and not with a great deal of optimism.

And then there is the Catholicism of some of the more Pentecostally inclined, and with that issue, I would prefer to reserve my opinion in certain areas and applaud in some degree what is going on in the lives of certain people in specific parts of the world. But where does that all get us to? In respect of the Pope coming to this country at the end of this month, assuming the visit isn't canceled. Well, we must be looking for an opportunity to speak to our Catholic friends about the gospel as we understand it.

One can respect Pope John Paul II for who he is and for what he has gone through. You can respect a man as an individual without respecting necessarily what he espouses, what he teaches. I believe that the Catholic Church, as traditionally expressed historically, is still in error, is still apostate.

I say that with no relish, and alas, I believe that the Pope illustrates this position. There is no question of justification by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. It's Jesus plus the Church.

It's Jesus plus Mary. It's Jesus plus Purgatory. It's Jesus and the Mass.

It's the melee. It's the stew of truth and error, which gives you a half-truth, which is more dangerous than the lie. And alas, I believe, and I try and say this with humility and certainly with sorrow in my heart, that that is the position of the present Pope and of a large section of the Catholic community.

Now is a time for evangelical, Bible-believing people to express humbly and lovingly what we know of the grace of God through Jesus Christ, and to affirm the experience that we have of assurance of salvation, which assurance Catholic people never have had and never will have, until the trappings are dismantled and drop away and they pin their faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, recognizing all that he has done and turning from mother church and faith in her, to a wholehearted commitment to Jesus Christ. Having read, re-read, and re-re-read during this last month, gallons of, if I can mix my verbs, my metaphors, gallons of Catholic theology, I remain still grateful to God for the biblical, historic position of evangelicalism with its sola scriptura, trusting in Jesus alone, through faith in him alone, by the grace of God alone, for my salvation. Amen.