The Reality of Romanism
Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 02:45PM 
Reading Francis Beckwith's interview with David Neff in Christianity Today, reminded me of how idyllic the Roman church can seem in the minds of those who embrace it (Click here: Q&A: Francis Beckwith | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction).
But then this news report appeared today which gives a much different picture of the supposed glories of Romanism (Click here: Pope to canonize first Brazilian saint - Yahoo! News).
All discussion of justification, the authority of Scripture, and reciting the Creed aside, the Pope is heading to Brazil to canonize Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao, a Franciscan monk who is credited with 5000 miraculous healings. Over 1 million people are expected to be in attendance. The healings supposedly come as a result of swallowing rice paper pills prepared by the monk over two hundred years ago. According to the AP news report . . .
"The Vatican has officially certified the medical cases of two Brazilian women as divinely inspired miracles that justify the sainthood of Galvao. Both of these women spoke of their faith with The Associated Press, claiming that their children would not be alive today were it not for the tiny rice-paper pills that Friar Galvao handed out two centuries ago.
Although the friar died in 1822, the tradition is carried on by Brazilian nuns who toil in the Sao Paulo monastery where Galvao is buried, preparing thousands of the Tic Tac-sized pills distributed free each day to people seeking cures for all manner of ailments. Each one is inscribed with a prayer in Latin: `After birth, the Virgin remained intact. Mother of God, intercede on our behalf.'
Sandra Grossi de Almeida, 37, is one such believer. She had a uterine malformation that should have made it impossible for her to carry a child for more than four months. But in 1999, after taking the pills, she gave birth to Enzo, now 7. `I have faith," Grossi said, pointing to her son. I believe in God, and the proof is right here.'
Nearly 10 years before that, Daniela Cristina da Silva, then 4 years old, entered a coma and suffered a heart attack after liver and kidney complications from hepatitis A. `The doctors told me to pray because only a miracle could save her,' Daniela's mother Jacyra said recently. `My sister sneaked into the intensive care unit and forced my daughter to swallow Friar Galvao's pills.'"
So, if you "return home" to Rome, you get the whole ball of wax, including the beatification of saints who give out Tic-Tac size rice-paper pills which supposedly heal. And Pope Benedict XVI will be there to bless it all.
By the way, confessional Protestants affirm the historical evangelical doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, and the full authority of Scripture. And yes, we even recite the Creed every Lord's Day and we use a biblical-text based liturgy which is quite similar to that described by Justin Martyr in the second century.
Too bad Dr. Beckwith didn't consider a confessional Protestant church before embracing Romanism. Now he's stuck with Antonio de Sant'Anna Galvao and his rice-paper healing pills.
Reader Comments (50)
Yeah, I had the same reaction to Beckwith's reasons for leaving Evangleicalism for Rome. Most Evangelicals never recite the Apostle's Creed, much less know what it is. They usually avoid it because they have a faulty understanding of 'catholic.' It seems that if Dr. Beckwith had taken more time to read the Heidelberg's understanding of the Creed, he just might not have decided to go back. Oh well...
But so did a certain reformer:
God uses means and instruments which he himself sees to be expedient, that all things may serve his glory, since he is Lord and Judge of all. He feeds our bodies through bread and other foods, he illumines the world through the sun, and he warms it through heat; yet neither bread, nor sun, nor fire, is anything save in so far as he distributes his blessings to us by these instruments. In like manner, he nourishes faith spiritually through the sacraments...” Calvin
You get the idea. Your argument proves too much.
The Catholic mindset is able to see the ability of God to infuse his grace in the material world. Early gnostics had this paradigm: spirit good, body bad. If its material, it can't be used by God, if it's invisible then it's spiritual and acceptable. As someone else pointed out, bones, mud, spit, the hem of a garment, the handkerchief of an apostle, have all brought about God's purposes.
The paper pills are not magic and Catholicism condemns any magic or superstition. But we strongly believe, based on the Incarnation, that God can use anything to do anything. If he can make us out of dust, and create the world from nothing, and come into the world as a crying little lump of human flesh, a Catholic has no problem believing he could use little pieces of paper swallowed as a means of touching people.
I humbly suggest you meditate on the Incarnation and how it "changed' the gnostic paradigm and perhaps the silly pills won't seem so silly. It's all about God's grace.
Great. Defend what you just said from Scripture and you'll have won me over.
Incidentally, the Lord worked through material means prior to Christ's incarnation...so, even within the RC position it might be better to say that the Incarnation is the ultimate manifestation of your argument (God's glory in material) rather than something that changed a gnostic (docetic) paradigm.
http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2007/05/ignatius-insight-e-letter.html
Chad Raith said...
David,
Thank you for this post. As an Protestant evangelical who is about to begin a PhD at a Catholic University in Nouvelle Theologie and ecumenism, you can imagine my interest in the developments surrounding Dr. Beckwith's move to Catholicism. What is great about this is that it brings to the surface people's true views on the Protestant evangelical-Catholic relationship. And what I'm finding is that it's much like racism in the South (where I am from) - many people who speak in general terms about integrating black and white suddenly have a problem when it's their daughter dating a black guy. We can talk in broad terms about ecumenism, but when one of your own actually makes a move, it becomes a real problem.
What is most unfortunate about the situation is that it could have been a concrete opportunity to reflect the progress we have made in the evangelical-Catholic relationship. There is nothing in ETS's statement that would exclude Catholics from participating in ETS. Here is the statement: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory." In fact, Dr. Peter Kreeft at Boston College remarked when asked if he could sign on to this statement: "Of course I affirm your statement. You Protestants affirm it only because we Catholics defined it first. Not only the canon of scripture but also the doctrine that it is inerrant and that it is the only inerrant written Word of God, were first formulated and taught, and still are, by the Catholic Church. The same goes for the Trinity" (Southern Baptist Theological Journal, 8.4 [2004]: 74-81) (you can read the article online at http://www.uu.edu/personal/rvannest/Professional/ets.htm).
Here, then, is an opportunity to reflect ecumenism if Dr. Beckwith stays with ETS; it shows that there are, in fact, many places where we agree and can work together as evangelicals (whether Protestant or Catholic). Yet, Dr. Beckwith leaves. Why? Because he is now Catholic. He does so because he realizes the controversy that will result in his remaining at ETS. Although I have some problems with the way Dr. Beckwith perceives his own situation (I will gladly expound on that if need be), it is true that many Protestant evangelicals will have serious issues with him if he stays on at ETS (as partially evidenced by all the negative comments on the blogosphere). But again, there is nothing in the ETS statement that would necessarily exclude a Catholic. So, in my opinion, the result is that once again a Protestant evangelical organization is defining itself by what it is not, rather than what it is. It is not, above anything else, Catholic. But what if they agree with everything in the statement? It doesn't matter - we're not Catholic, they are, and so they can't be a part of what we are doing. We are still protesting, but now we're protesting about a point that both Catholics and Protestants agree on (I am refering to the ETS statement). This, then, is foolish and ignorant protesting (in my opinion); this is the kind of evangelicalism that drives me to study Catholic theology, to take better stock of the Church's Tradition, to (by God's mercy and grace) help remove some of the ignorance.
David - my suggestion, or maybe my hope, is that we would not let this pass too quickly. I feel this is an opportunity to lay some cards on the table. I, in all honestly, feel it's an opportunity for Protestant evangelicals to take stock as to where they are now, where they are going, and how much of their vision of Christianity lines-up with the broader Tradition of the Church. I'm afraid in many ways it doesn't, and in many circles it isn't getting any better. But all is not lost, especially if we embrace situations like this as an opportunity to grow.
Blessings,
Chad Raith
http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2007/05/ignatius-insight-e-letter.html
Pontifications - Does the Evangelical Theological Society Need an Infallible Magisterium?
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=2282
When it comes to visible unity, it is time for us Protestants to admit that we have failed
http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-it-comes-to-visible-unity-it-is.html
An Evening with Francis Cardinal George in Chicago by Dr. John H. Armstrong and other recent articles of Dr. Armstrong
http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2007/05/evening-with-francis-cardinal-george-in.html
Is the Reformation Over?
http://ressourcement.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-reformation-over.html
(Mt. 9:20-21;22) - And behold, a woman which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment....and the woman was made whole from that hour. (It was not the garment that made this woman well but the holiness of Jesus).
(Mt. 9:20-21;22) - ...And besought him that they might only touch the hem of his garment: and as many as touched were made perfectly whole.
(Acts 19:11-12) - And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.
(Acts 5:15-16) - Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them (Even Peter's shadow was enough to heal those who were sick. It was not Peter that healed those in which his shadow was cast, but it was God working through Peter).
Where in the Bible does it say that God can't use paper pills to heal people?
Can you please use a Scripture that says God can't use things like this, particularly in light of the Scripture I posted?
Sorry to tie up the com box, Kim.
given with the Sacrament. We use bread and wine given that receiving these, by faith we are fed with the very Body and Blood of Christ. God's Word was written down, so we have Bibles.
To defend these rice paper pills is quite amazing, given there is no promise attached to them. Neither is there any promise attached to invocations of Mary.
Also, grace is primarily taken in Scripture to be God's undeserved; it, like justifying righteousness, is extra nos! Sigh, but Rome still sells her errant wares. Charlie
The passages where people touched Jesus garments and were healed are indicative of Jesus divine authority. The other passages in Acts are indicative of the fact that Jesus passed his authority to the Apostles for the building of the early church. You're making a rather large leap here: this authority hasn't been passed down to the rest of us. None of us today are being divinely inspired to write Scripture. The Apostles were, and they were primarily using that authority through their preaching to bring people into the kingdom. They were using it to point to Christ.
Where in Scripture does it say that you can cause rice pills to have supernatural healing power? You have the burden of proof. Do the manufacturers of said pills have apostolic authority?
It isn't about inerrancy. It is about sufficiency.
In everything Scripture chooses to reveal truth about, it is completely sufficient. Not just inerrant. It is not enough to say it is compelety true and totally right and perfectly inspired. You have to believe it is enough.
When you need extras like popes and the apocrypha and so forth, scripture is no longer sufficient. Inerrant yes, but sufficient, no.
"There is nothing in ETS's statement that would exclude Catholics from participating in ETS. Here is the statement: "The Bible alone....."
The bible ALONE???? You have to be kidding. Maybe God is bringing revival to the Catholic church, and I am happy to hear this guy say "the bible alone", but he is not typical.
"The other passages in Acts are indicative of the fact that Jesus passed his authority to the Apostles for the building of the early church. You're making a rather large leap here: this authority hasn't been passed down to the rest of us. None of us today are being divinely inspired to write Scripture."
So what things did get passed down to the rest of us and how does Walt or Tiber Jumper decide? Did the power to bind and forgive sins end there (John 21)? Did the admonition to preach the gospel to all the world end with the apostles? Were the keys of the kingdom and all the authority that were given to the Church end with Peter? Obviously not. But how can we pick and choose which things we believe are to be passed and which are not? Paul told Timothy to hold to the traditions that were passed on to him.Could this not have also included apostolic authority. Maybe yes, maybe no. Not to be argumentative Walt, but I am not convinced that you nor I have the ability to decide that Jesus's passage of authority was limited to just the first twelve.
Actually, it appears that the Dr. chose to leave Protestantism because of a lack of emphasis on virtue and penance; these things he finds in Catholicism. He also saw that Greek philosophy had its affect on early Christian theology, and he apparently didn't like that. (I'm getting all this from his CT interview, btw)
I personally find his comments about reason fascinating. I don't know how they play into his decision to re-join the RC church, but I heard this same stuff in my philosophical theology class last semester. I agree with him that the Cogito of Descartes is faulty, but I'm also not with the Post-modern anti realist who says we can't know anything at all.
McGrath's "science of god" was a great book.
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/beckwith.html
My Return to the Catholic Church
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/my_return_to_th.html
My Resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/my_resignation.html
Statement of the ETS Executive Committee on Frank Beckwith
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/statement_of_th.html
Christianity Today Q & A on My Return to the Catholic Church
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/christianity_to.html
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/05/hulk_beckwith.html
http://www.communionofsaints.com/theological-topics/intercession.html
Miracles
http://www.communionofsaints.com/miracles.html