The Reality of Romanism

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.

Comments

[Theo]

Chris Sherman wrote:
"This is all fine Chad, but condemnation of Protestantism by the council of Trent still stands. If that were retracted, then possibly, reconciliation could start."

Unfortunately Chris, you've bought into a commonly repeated misunderstanding.

No Church council, Trent included, condemns Protestantism; however, it did clearly state that anyone who professed the doctrines of sola scriptura and / or justification by ONLY belief in justification itself, profess contrary to Catholic doctrine--which, I'm sure you also agree is true.

The council said such can be called "anathema."

Contrary to Chick Tract propaganda, "anathema" does not mean "condemned." It means that a teaching or a person (by profession of that teaching) contradicts Church teaching to a strong degree: such that it must be considered out of communion with orthodoxy.

Thus, if a doctrine is "anathema" it cannot be taught by any agent of the Church. If a person is "anathema," then he or she could have been excommunicated via the cannon-law formal rite of excommunication (I write "could have been" because no excommunication rite exists in current cannon. In most modern cases, the Church considers extreme heterodox practitioners to have "excommunicated themselves" by their own actions and confessions).

Thus, when speaking about a person, "anathema" was applied only to one who was at that time in full communion with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church cannot excommunicate Protestants (who are already out of full communion).

In short, Trent did not condemn Protestants or Protestantism. However, it *did* say Protestants are not fully Catholic.


Respectfully, and with humble prayers for all of our continued growth in the knowledge and peace of our only lord and savior, Jesus Christ; I remain,

Your brother in Christ,
--Theo

[David]

Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/05/lutheran_profes.html

[David]

More details about Dr. Francis Beckwith's journey back to the Catholic Church

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2007/05/more_details.html

[Alberto]

I just noticed something about Beckwith, Rome, and evangelicalism. He co-authored a book with Greg Koukl on relativism. Now I have not read it, but can safely conclude he argued against it. Is it not true that Beckwith is manifestating a relativistic way of thinking when he says he can hold to the ETS statement of faith? I know its not long, but it obviously means one thing to the founders of ETS and another to Beckwith. It meant one thing to Whitefield and Edwards on being evangelical, it means something else to Beckwith and many others today. Orthodoxy means one thing to Reformational Christians, it means something else to Roman Catholics.

[Chad]

Alberto - As far as I can tell from your post, it seems that you are attempting to impose more onto the ETS statement than is actually stated in the statement itself. It seems that you desire to appeal to "authorial intent" as the only valid option for engaging the statement as it stands, rather than having the statement function as a parameter-setting statement in which various conversations can rightfully take place. The ETS statement says nothing about, say, Tradition; it merely states that the Bible alone is the Word of God WRITTEN. That statement, along with the statement on the Trinity, can be fully affirmed by Catholics, and therefore Catholics as much as conservative, evangelical Protestants can embrace the statement. Your attempt to exclude Catholics from ETS by appealing to the "founders" goes behind the statement and attempts to bring to the statement that which is not in the statement itself. This is not relativism, for the statement itself has meaning, but its meaning must be derived from "the way the words run," rather than appealing to all sorts of interpretations of the statement. The statement does not say much; therefore, many different perspectives may fruitfully engage one another while remaining under the umbrella of the ETS. Is it so bad that evangelicals and Catholics just may agree on something? I consider this progress - we are, in fact, no longer in the heated times of 1517, and therefore much clarity has been able to be achieved...and unfortunately for some, we have all realized that we aren't so far off after all on many things. Some just refuse to accept this, and will protest when no protest is needed.

[Alberto]

Chad,

You are wrong. What I said in my post concerniing the ETS statement comes from James White at aomin.org. James recounted an incident where a question was asked concerning the ETS statement. Roger Nicole responded by saying that it was formulated in such a way so that Roman Catholics could not hold to it. By the way, when evangelicals say that the Bible alone is the word of God, do you think they include the Apocrypha? The Bible means and includes only 66 books for evangelicals, the Bible means and includes other something else to Roman Catholics. If a Roman Catholic can remain with the ETS, it is because its statement is interpreted differently. That is why they are being relativistic. I am simply interpreting the ETS statement fromt the context in which it was established. In order to understand words correctly, we need to know their context. We are not in 1517 indeed, we are in a time when people can apostasize very freely and still be considered Christian.

[Chad]

It is interesting to note, as has not been noted by Alberto, that Beckwith claims that he could sill wholeheartedly affirm the ETS statement as it stands post-conversion to Rome (yes, the same Beckwith who obviously fully understands the statement considering he was, in fact, the ETS President for some time). Moreover, Catholic theologians such as Peter Kreeft have also affirmed their ability to sign the statement. He states, "Of course I affirm your statement. You Protestants affirm it only because we Catholics defined it first." In fact, a whole article in the The Southern Baptist Theological Journal was devoted to the fact that the statement doesn't say enough to exclude certain groups from affirming the statement (and if anyone is interested, I can send the link to this article). Let me make my point again - a point unfortunately not engaged by Alberto (it's easier to just say, and let me quote, "You are wrong"): AS THE STATEMENT STANDS, there is nothing to keep Catholics from affirming the statement. Anyone claiming that they can't is attempting to make the statement say more than it does.

[Alberto]

Chad,

You have proven my point. Roman Catholics can hold to the statement (which is humorously short), but only if they interpret it differently. This is what I said in my posts. And yes, I know Beckwith does think he can hold to it; its implied in my firt post.


I won't continue, but I will end with this. Dr. Riddlebarger can affirm the ETS statement, and you are correct in saying there is nothing in the statement (by itself without any specific context) which can keep a RC from affirming it. But do you actually think that a RC will agree concerning the composition of the Bible and its authority with Dr. Riddlebarger? Do you actually think the first sentence of the statement means the same thing to Dr. Riddlebarger and a faithful RC? There might be RC's who would agree with Dr. Riddlebarger, but they are in the wrong church and unfaithful to RC teaching.

I also have to mention how interesting American ecumenism is. I am of Mexican origin, and Christians there are quite different. You won't really hear of such things as RC's being our brothers in Christ and great Christians. If more people came in contact with the Roman Catholicism practiced in Latin America, it would force them to reevaluate their view of Roman Catholicism. Do you want a good example of paganism?. Go down to Latin America and observe Roman Catholics and their worship.

[Chris Sherman]

Theo,

Here's part of what one finds when looking up the Roman Catholic definition of "anathema"

I have difficulty reading it as you defined.

From several different Catholic doctrine sites such as, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

"Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words: "Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."

[DGG]

When I had a class with Wayne Grudem back in 2001, he was president of ETS from 1998-1999, he mentioned a Catholic scholar who had sought membership, and the executive council thought, if he could sign the statement, why not? However, to make sure the executive council asked the few, living, charter members at that time why they put in the language, "the Bible alone." The univocal answer was,"To keep the Catholics out, of course." So no it is not adding more to the statement than was intended by the living authors. I believe Roger Nicole is the only still living charter-member, and so if one wonders why it was put there, one could ask him.

I will point one to Richard John Neuhaus' comments when a catholic professor was fired at Wheaton. He stated that if Catholics wanted to only have catholic professors at their seminaries then they should respect the rights of Evangelicals to have evangelicals doing evangelical theology at evangelical institutions.

On the issue of Trent...please Sola gratia, sola fidei, Sola Scriptura etc. are all declared anathema and so to say their can be any peace is dishonest to the extreme.