167. Why Do They Cross the Tiber? Stories of Evangelical Conversions to Rome

Leonardo De Chirico’s note: I am thankful to my friend and colleague Clay Kannard for contributing with this fine article to the series of Vatican Files. Clay is a pastor sent to Rome to be a resource for the Italian evangelical church. He serves as co-pastor of the church Breccia di Roma, Communications Director of the Reformanda Initiative and is a co-host of the upcoming Reformanda Initiative podcast.

The following post comes from a paper that was delivered at the 2019 Rome Scholars & Leaders Network in Rome, Italy.


Mind, Heart, & Soul: Intellectuals and the Path to Rome by R.J. Snell and Robert P. George is a collection of sixteen stories of individuals who have converted to Roman Catholicism. The interviews are conducted by intellectuals who are Roman Catholic converts, and as the title of the book suggests, each convert interviewed is a public intellectual and notable expert and/or leader in his or her field of study. Each interview recorded in this book provides insight into the converts’ religious backgrounds, personal experiences that led to conversion, the intellectual hurdles or obstacles faced in the journey towards embracing the faith of the Roman Catholic Church, life after conversion and post-conversion struggles, and suggestions of resources for other intellectuals who might be considering the next step on their own path towards Rome.

There is no doubt that the individuals selected to provide a testimony in this book are to be considered brilliant minds, members of the elite intellectual class within Western culture. Each chapter begins with a biography of both the interviewer and interviewee. Immediately the reader is met with impressive resumes of the people offering their personal stories of conversion to Roman Catholicism. These are the conversion stories of leading theologians, a former megachurch pastor, philosophers, ethicists, a novelist and syndicated journalists for major news outlets, political analysts and theorists, historians, legal scholars, constitutional lawyers and policy creators, and even an accomplished astronomer. The majority hold post-graduate level degrees from the most prestigious universities in the West, such as Harvard, Oxford, Princeton and Cambridge where many serve as faculty members and leaders of various university programs. They are no doubt scholars of the highest caliber and undoubtedly influential intellectuals who have demonstrated a commitment to life-long learning and engaging culture in the public square.

Mind, Heart and Soul is an apologetic work. The testimonies within this book demonstrate that faith is not an enemy of reason, intellectual fervor or a threat to scientific innovation, but they do so, for the most part, without diving deeply into the details of the theological, philosophical and intellectual arguments these converts wrestled with. Regardless, these stories demonstrate that faith involves the rational mind in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.[1] What is also evident in every testimony is that these intellectuals were not left alone in their quests for spiritual truth, but were aided through the contributions of those who had come before them. The works of other intellectual Catholics served as powerful resources in capturing these converts minds, hearts and souls for the Roman Catholic faith.

Intellectuals mentioned within these testimonies have successfully convinced countless others to embrace the Roman Catholic worldview. For example, the work of John Henry Newman (1801-1890), the once Anglican priest who became a Roman Catholic priest and who will soon be canonized as a saint in the RCC, is mentioned time and time again in these conversion stories as one of the major influencers on decisions to cross the Tiber.[2] Other intellectual influencers mentioned throughout these conversion stories include the theological and philosophical works of Joseph Ratzinger and Peter Kreeft, the literary works of Flannery O’Connor and Oxford inklings such as G.K. Chesterton, Tolkien, and while not a Roman Catholic, C.S. Lewis. A reading of the Church Fathers and the intellectual tradition of Thomas Aquinas played a significant role in convincing many of the converts that the Roman Catholic Church is correct in claiming to be the one true, historic and Apostolic Church.

The richness and influence of the Roman Catholic intellectual world is undeniable in these stories, thus providing a useful list of resources for those on similar journeys. But it was not only the brilliant minds throughout history that are seen to have influenced conversions. There is also the influence of community and a sense of belonging. Many of these testimonies describe a positive experience within a community of like-minded, intellectual Roman Catholics who lived a lively faith, or participation as students in Roman Catholic university clubs. But perhaps the most attractive sense of community came from belonging to a church that claims a doctrinal unity visible under the authority of the Pope, the head of a single, historic, and seemingly unified church.

The religious backgrounds vary among the converts. The majority of the testimonies come from individuals whose religious background was a form of nominal Protestantism. Of particular interest are the testimonies given by those who either grew up in a family with an evangelical religious background, or whose initial experience in the Christian faith took place within an evangelical context. Therefore, this book serves as a useful read for evangelical leaders, scholars, and pastors in seeking to understand common themes or potential weak points that might help to understand what influenced an evangelical intellectual to cross the Tiber and embrace the Roman Catholic Church.


Ulf Ekman[3]
Former evangelical Megachurch pastor, Ulf Ekman, helpfully summarizes his attraction to Rome using four words: historicity, apostolic continuity, authority, and sacramentality. Ekman admits that in his camp there was a general lack of knowledge regarding church history and at times even an “open scorn for the long history of the church” (50). Ecclesiology was defined, not through a noted historical connection to a global and universal church sharing a common confession of faith, but through isolated independent congregational churches that held a “pragmatic look at the present and a futuristic eschatology” (Ibid).

As Ekman studied church history, he discovered a church with a much higher ecclesiology claiming apostolic continuity and unity under the Petrine authority of the pope. In the midst of liberal protestant developments, Ekman was attracted to a historical tradition of Rome that held an unwavering commitment to her traditional dogmas. He began to realize that his Protestant prejudices towards Rome stemmed from a lack of knowledge regarding the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and he ultimately rejected the Reformation doctrines stating that,

I used to believe the four “sola” tenets of the Reformation…more or less out of Protestant habit or tradition. Step-by-step I started to see how the Protestant mindset has an overriding attitude of “either-or” while the Catholic mindset, as well as the Hebrew, is more of “both-and” (56).

Yet of the aspects of Rome that attracted Ekman the most, it was the sacramental element of the Catholic Church that began to draw him into the Tiber.

Matthew Schmitz[4]
Matthew Schmitz grew up as an evangelical, believing that Catholics were probably not Christians and that the Church of Rome’s teaching was at odds with Christianity. As a child he participated in the Gothard Seminar, a program designed by evangelical Bill Gothard in which biblical morality is taught and encouraged. What Schmitz encountered was a very legalistic form of American Christianity that did not seem to demonstrate grace.

By the age of seventeen, Schmitz had rebelled against this legalistic program but not against the evangelical faith. While on a summer work assignment in Washington, DC, he began attending Capitol Hill Baptist Church. The pastor, Mark Dever, introduced Schmitz to Calvinism by gifting him a book written by J.I. Packer. Soon the young Matthew considered himself among the young, restless and Reformed, although he confesses never making it past page 70 of Calvin’s Institutes. Regardless, this newfound identity led Schmitz to begin reading anything that would be considered “both solidly “Christian” and undeniably great” (122). He began reading both post-Reformation authors as well as some older “Catholic things”, such as Augustine’s Confessions.

Augustine’s allegorical interpretation of Scripture was very appealing to Schmitz, helping him to overcome one of his biggest intellectual problems regarding the Christian faith, evolutionary theory. The literal interpretation of Scripture Schmitz had been taught did not allow for evolution, unlike the allegorical reading of Scripture used by Augustine. He began to embrace a Roman Catholic hermeneutical approach to Scripture.  Schmitz was,

…ceasing to be a Protestant, at least to be a pure kind of Protestant. I was becoming a more complicated kind of Protestant, or a more Catholic kind of Christian. I was looking for ways of reading Scripture, which, though I wouldn’t have put it this way at the time, were more traditional and ecclesial (122).

Then while studying at Princeton, Schmitz was faced with the emergence of the gay rights movement. In seeking to defend a traditional Christian understanding of sexuality, he read Roman Catholic Elizabeth Anscombe’s essay titled, “Contraception and Chastity”. What Schmitz discovered was a powerful defense for the Christian worldview on sexuality within the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. This surprised Schmitz because he had always considered the Church of Rome as having erred in so many things. The discovery of a certain truth within Catholicism led him to begin looking more seriously at the Roman Catholic faith. Schmitz states that eventually his reason was well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church and he ultimately became Catholic, “just by beginning to view things in the way Catholics viewed them. All I had to do was relinquish my opposition” (126).

Joshua Charles[5]
Charles crossing of the Tiber began with his doubting the doctrine of sola scriptura, which he ultimately rejecting it 2015. While studying Scripture, Charles came to view the recorded words of the living authorities captured in Scripture as problematic for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. He reasoned that the words of God spoken by men in the Bible (e.g. Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Peter, Paul), words that were later written down as Scripture, had to have been authoritative when spoken and therefore indicated a living authority outside of the Scriptures. Charles then found himself trying to identify which living authority should be trusted, and therefore which biblical canon was correct. Was it the Protestant canon, or the Roman Catholic canon? He asked himself, 

Who do I trust to get that canon correct? Who is the divinely ordained authority by which we may be certain that we have the correct canon? Myself? Scholars at universities? The Jesus Seminar? I concluded that my appeal must be to nothing more and nothing less than the authority we see exhibited throughout the Scripture, but particularly in Acts 15, and that is the Living, Authoritative Church that began at Pentecost (102).

It was at this point that Charles set out on a quest to read the Church Fathers. In doing so, he was “absolutely slapped across the face” by church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus of Lyons. According to Charles, these early leaders of the faith seemed to have a more Roman Catholic understanding of theology and practice than did the evangelical tradition in which he grew up—an American Evangelical/Protestant Christianity he claims seemed to be in chaos (102).

Upon reading the Church Fathers, Charles claims to have discovered strictly Roman Catholic teachings such as the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the Eucharist as sacrifice, the authority of the bishops, and apostolic succession (104). Charles even states that in reading the Church Fathers, there was an absence “of any distinctively Protestant doctrines among their writings, and the presence of a great deal of distinctively Catholic Doctrines” (106).[6]

Charles claimed to have found continuity. Namely, that while Roman Catholic doctrine has developed and been refined over time, it is fundamentally still the same, something that Charles states cannot be the said for the thousands of Protestant denominations (111). And yet, while he had recognized various problems within the Protestant tradition, Charles had never previously considered Catholicism because he never properly understood it. He states,

In short, what I thought I knew about Catholicism just wasn’t true. I realized that the Catholic intellectual tradition is extremely powerful, and I studied what the Church actually said about herself and her own dogmas rather than seeing them through an oftentimes erroneous and misunderstanding Protestant lens (117).[7]

Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP and Douglas M. Beaumont[8]
In his first years of college, Fr. Thomas Joseph White, OP began to explore metaphysical frameworks offered by different religious traditions. While reading Flannery O’Connor’s Letters to A, White encountered the name of Karl Barth. He then went to the library, located and read Barth’s Introduction to Evangelical Theology in one sitting. On that day White claims to have received the gift of faith and was soon after baptized as a Protestant, even though he had not yet determined to which church he would belong.[9] Realizing that there were many expressions of Christianity, White set out on a journey to understand his new faith by studying its history.

White enrolled in a Church History course at his university and begin reading the writings of Origen and Augustine. He then read Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger, whose emphasizing the combination of philosophy and theology was very appealing to White. He began reading more modern Roman Catholic theologians such as Balthasar, Rahner, de Lubac and John Paul II, in whose writings he found a deep continuity with the Church Fathers. Then during his senior of college, White read John Henry Newman, came to view the Roman Catholic Church as the historic faith and converted to Roman Catholicism.

White began pursuing his MPhil in patristic theology at Oxford where he discovered Aquinas and was trained in Aristotelian and Thomistic thought. White describes Aquinas as a “deeply grounded philosophical realist, a deeply grounded theological realist, and a mystic; it’s a very powerful combination” (70). For White, Aquinas offered insights into the structure of reality. According to White,

St. Thomas’s philosophy of nature, metaphysics, understanding of the human person, epistemology, logic, and ethics make sense even independently of divine revelation while being deeply compatible with it. He also articulates an understanding of revelation which assimilates his realistic philosophical approach to the world (71).

For Fr. White, Aquinas’ worldview was a very powerful combination because of the fact that he was “a deeply grounded philosophical realist, a deeply grounded theological realist, and a mystic” (73) whose insights help to understand reality, and who offers a rich intellectual traditional. A complete package for understanding reality rooted in an ancient intellectual tradition is very attractive to intellectuals on a quest for spiritual truth.

This was especially true for Douglas M. Beaumont. Beaumont did not grow up in a religious environment, and although he had attended vacation Bible schools as child, it was not until college that he began his “faith life” (233). He admits to having strong sentiments against the Roman Catholic Church prior to his conversion, but without truly understanding it. The more he began to study Catholicism though, the more he began to view shared foundations with Protestantism that had really only diverged in application.[10] While studying apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Beaumont was introduced to the writings of Thomas Aquinas through Professor Geisler, who often assigned the reading of Aquinas to his students. Aquinas’ natural theology was influential in professor Norman Geisler’s classical approach to apologetics. Beaumont immediately came to appreciate Aquinas’ philosophical, careful and systemic thinking.

Beaumont continued to study Church History as part of his role as research assistant to Norman Geisler, who at the time was working on his Systematic Theology series. Beaumont was tasked with finding quotes from Church Fathers that would support Geisler’s beliefs, but he found it very difficult to identify continuity with the early Church Fathers when it came to an Evangelical ecclesiology and eschatology. The longer Beaumont studied Church History, the more he began to agree with John Newman, that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. Ultimately, Beaumont embraced the long intellectual tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, her claim to apostolic unity and continuity with the ancient Church, and a sacramental system structured around a Thomistic intellectual tradition and metaphysical understanding of nature and grace.[11] Dozens of other seminarians from Southern Evangelical Seminary have since followed in his footsteps.


Each of these converts above was attracted to one or more of the four words mentioned by Ulf Ekman: the historicity, apostolic continuity, authority, and sacramentality of the Roman Catholic Church. There is only one word missing that must be noted, intellectuality. The previous conversion stories are not isolated. Many other examples can be found elsewhere, e.g. Beaumont’s book, Evangelical Exodus: Evangelical Seminarians and Their Paths to Rome. A very helpful analysis on evangelical conversions to Rome has also been provided by Kenneth J. Stewart in his book, In Search of Ancient Roots: The Christian Past and the Evangelical Identity Crisis.[12]

What repeating themes do these evangelical conversion stories reveal that should be noted by evangelical pastors, leaders and scholars? This section does not attempt to provide an in-depth theological analysis of the arguments given by evangelical converts for their crossing of the Tiber. For an excellent psychological, theological, and sociological analysis on what has been labeled, “Convertitis”, check out the new series by the Davenant Institute titled, “Why Protestants Convert“. What we are addressing below are common themes and weak-points identified in testimonies of those who have had a case of convertitis. Our desire is to continue a conversation as to why Roman Catholicism becomes so attractive to some evangelicals and what can we do about it.

1. Weak ecclesiology with no or little historical formation or depth
Every single testimony seems to indicate a weak ecclesiological background. Converts describe evangelicalism in terms of isolated evangelical church expressions with no connection to a historic and global Christian faith. There was no mention of intentional discipleship and theological formation taking place within the context of the local church. In these testimonies, a study of Church history usually took place independently or through Evangelical Bible Schools and Seminaries. In Beaumont’s case, his seminary did not even offer a Church history course for graduate level students, not even as an elective! How is this possible? Our own research has found that many seminaries lack courses on Roman Catholicism. The result is a generation of evangelical leaders who, like majority of the converts in this book, did not really understand Roman Catholicism.

What needs to be done in our institutions to help raise awareness of church history and the evangelical connection to the historic Christian faith? More importantly though, what needs to be done in our churches? Helping evangelicals to grasp and identify with a historic and biblical faith should not be left to Bible schools and seminaries alone. Perhaps there could be a regular recitation during times of worship that include not only Scripture but historic creeds and confessions stretching from the Apostles Creed, to the reformed confessions such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Confession of Faith, etc., to even more modern global evangelical confessions such as those created by the Lausanne Movement.

2. Superficial and individualist expressions of faith
We cannot ignore the American consumeristic and individualistic cultural influence on those who attend our churches or seminaries. Unfortunately, this cultural influence can also be seen within many Evangelical church models today. Many churches have been designed to deliver an experience, having created attractional means in which the attendee can experience their faith, be entertained and consume religious content without being a contributing member or participating in the life of the church. This allows for the development of a shallow, individualistic and consumeristic expression of faith.

When one becomes aware of the superficiality of the experiential expression of faith found in many evangelical churches, a Christianity that provides a way to have an experiential faith through a mystical sacramental system rooted in an ancient, historic and global tradition that claims to be united becomes very appealing. Additionally, when one sees an apparent lack of unity resulting from isolated inwardly focused congregations, the global, ancient and seemingly unified nature of Rome becomes very attractive.

3. A Gospel-less Evangelical/Protestant church experience
Looking back to the testimony of Matthew Schmitz, it appears that his experience within a very legalistic (fundamental) evangelical context played a factor in his journey towards Rome. Others experienced a liberal form of Protestantism which also indicates a lack of the biblical Gospel.

Those growing up in a more legalistic context, like Matthew Schmitz, seem to be attracted to the Church of Rome’s commitment to its historic doctrines maintained under the authority of the Pope and the teachings of the Magisterium. This was in contrast to an apparent Protestant pick-and-choose or “have it your way” menu of churches. These converts found solace in a unified, non-democratic and traditional dogmatic system defined by the Church.

Something that is important to note in these conversion stories is that while there was much positivity regarding the unity of the Roman Catholic Church contrasted to a divided Protestantism and Evangelicalism, there was very little discussion about the divergent theological expressions within Roman Catholicism, both historically and currently at odds with one another. Some of the conservative converts who were put off by the liberalization of many Protestant denominations, often leading to splits and the creation of new denominations, seemed to lack any previous conversion knowledge of the various movements within Roman Catholicism that are at odds with one another. This is also true for the more progressive-leaning converts. For example, in chapter 6, Kirsten Powers openly shared about her post-conversion crisis of faith when she discovered a conservative/progressive divide within Catholicism that is marked with infighting (94-95).

4. Attraction to Roman Catholic intellectual tradition and a lack of biblical discernment when reading the Church Fathers, Church History, and Catholic intellectual giants
There is always a need to recognize our presuppositions on the quest for truth. For evangelicals who hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, we understand that the Bible is the starting point through which truth claims are to be examined. This equally applies when reading, or leading others through a reading of the Church Fathers, Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, Chesterton, etc. It is not sufficient to take a merely philosophical approach or a realist approach, evangelicals must take a biblical approach. When it comes to reading these ancient intellectual giants and Church Fathers, is there is a need for greater evangelical scholarly assessment of church history carried out with a greater discernment and theological alertness?

What scholarly work is still left for evangelicals to do in order to address this weak point? What scholarly and literary works have already been done using a heightened theological alertness based on the authority of Scripture to evaluate the writings of the Church Fathers, Church councils and growingly popular intellectual traditions? Has there truly been enough work to study, recognize and indicate where our earliest brothers deviate from Scripture? This kind of work always carries the risk of being labeled historical revisionists, but evangelical scholars must be willing to take that risk and boldly identify where Church Fathers influenced a decision, made a decision or wrote a statement that set a trajectory towards what would ultimately result in unbiblical theology and practice.

Another question we must ask is: How does the local church address this weak point? In Schmitz’ testimony, it is not even clear whether or not he returned from his Summer stent in Washington DC to a local church that could have or would have helped him practice discernment. Was he left to himself as he began reading Augustine and embracing a Roman Catholic hermeneutical approach to Scripture? There is no mention of anyone helping him in this process.

5. Atomistic or no understanding of Roman Catholicism
Every evangelical testimony in this book claimed to have known very little about Roman Catholicism prior to their conversions. There were at times atomistic approaches to understanding Catholicism, only seeing Rome’s teachings as isolated doctrines having minor or isolated disagreements with Protestantism. However, there seemed to be a complete lack of understanding Roman Catholicism as a complete theological system prior to conversion. It is only after crossing the Tiber that some of the intellectuals recognized the systemic nature of Catholicism, and by then they had already rejected the Reformation doctrines that would undermine such a system.

It would be interesting to conduct a poll to see how many of our Evangelical Bible schools, seminaries, and missionary training centers actually offer courses on understanding Roman Catholicism as a theological system, and if any of them do, if they would be required courses in the training of evangelical scholars, leaders, and pastors. I am afraid we already know how the results would look.

What is evident through a reading of these testimonies is that there is much work to be done. It can be unsettling for evangelicals when considering that this book is one among many. However, the crossing of the Tiber is not only unidirectional. We at the Reformanda Initiative have been encouraged time and time again by stories of Roman Catholics who convert to the evangelical/biblical faith of salvation by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in the work of Jesus Christ alone. Most recently, we were encouraged by the testimony of Onsi A. Kamel, Catholicism Made Me Protestant, recently published by First Things. Read it and be encouraged.

Our prayer is that God may provide the resources and people who would dedicate their lives to humbly work together in identifying, uniting, equipping, and resourcing evangelical leaders to understand Roman Catholic theology and practice, to educate the evangelical church, and to communicate the biblical Gospel of salvation over and against attractive yet deviating narratives. Will you pray with us?


George, Robert P., and R. J. Snell. Mind, Heart and Soul: Intellectuals and the Path to Rome. TAN Books, 2018.

[1] Kristen Powers, states in chapter six that, “One of my struggles with Christianity was that I thought it was anti-intellectual…I really thought all intellectuals were skeptics too…”, 89.

[2] Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua and The Grammar of Ascent are mentioned throughout this book as one of the most influential works that helped converts overcome intellectual challenges towards the Christian faith, and to embrace the Roman Catholic Church as the one true church.

[3] Ulf Ekman was born in Sweden where he was ordained as a Lutheran minister. In 1983 Ekman founded the charismatic evangelical church, Word of Life, which eventually grew into a Megachurch having an expansive outreach and global influence. In his thirty-plus years of ministry, Ekman founded several Bible schools and a seminary, organized and led conferences around the world, and authored over 40 books that have been translated into over thirty languages. Ekman valued the evangelical emphasis on reading and teaching the Bible, having a personal relationship with Jesus and the charismatic experience of faith.

[4] Matthew Schmitz is a senior editor of First Things and has written for the New York Times, Washington Post, Spectator and more. He holds an AB in English from Princeton.

[5] Joshua Charles is a historian, writer, and speaker. He holds an MA in government and a law degree. As a writer, he has written many articles for publications such as Fox News, The Federalist, and the Jerusalem Post and has authored and co-authored bestselling books on America’s Founders, Israel and the Bible. His testimony provides very little insight into the specifics of his previous religious experience, other than it was within a non-denominational Protestant Christian upbringing.

[6] Then on page 108, Charles gives an example, stating that “every single Church Father believed in baptismal regeneration…”.

[7] As Evangelicals, even the works of the earliest Church Fathers must be read in light of God’s Word as our ultimate authority—Sola Scriptura. In Charles’ case, he had already denied the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

[8] Fr. Thomas Joseph White is the director of the Thomistic Institute at the Angelicum in Rome, professor of theology and a convert himself. Douglas M. Beaumont holds a Ph.D. in theology from North-West University and an MA in apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. At Sothern Evangelical Seminary Beaumont served as assistant to President Norman Geisler and taught Bible and religion for many years. He is also the author of several books, including Evangelical Exodus: Evangelical Seminarians and Their Paths to Rome.

[9] More details are needed, but how is one baptized by a church without yet having decided to what church one would belong to? What was the understanding of baptism by the church who administered this ordinance? Was there any evaluation of White’s claim of faith or any attempt to catechize him?

[10] Beaumont provides examples stating, “immoral popes were no more of a problem than was St. Peter. The evil of Israel no more made it cease to be the people of God than evils committed by those in the Church made it cease to be the Church. These discoveries made me realize that often it was my inconsistent application of shared principles that made Catholicism seem as far off as I had been led to believe it was.” (226). Beaumont states that during his time at SES, Church History was not even taught for any of their graduate-level degrees, even as an elective (227).

[11] Beaumont understands very well the difference between Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism, from the systemic nature of Catholicism to recognizing that while we often use the same words (e.g. evangelize, works, grace), we have completely different understandings of them. See his concluding remarks on page 237.

[12] See chapter fifteen of his Stewart’s book, titled “Why Are Younger Evangelicals Turning to Catholicism and Orthodoxy?”, specifically the section titled “Reasons Behind the Drift”.

Christian Unity vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism: a Critique of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Dialogue

“Christian Unity vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism: a Critique of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Dialogue”, Evangelical Review of Theology 27:4 (2003) 337-352.

In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and the Berlin Congress on mission (1966), a new season in ecumenical relationships was inaugurated between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics on a world-wide scale. Two main initiatives should be remembered: the «Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission» (ERCDOM),[1] which began after the publication of the encyclical «Evangelii Nutiandi» and the Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization (1974), and the on-going discussions between the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity[2] which were prompted by the 1986 WEF document “Roman Catholicism. A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective”.[3] Apart from these international meetings, more locally-based encounters are mushrooming everywhere. Following centuries of controversy, Evangelicals and Catholics are learning the art of dialogue based on mutual respect. The new attitude to dialogue would seem to suit most Evangelicals though the most frequently heard voices come from the two opposite extremes of this broad consensus. While some are willing to go beyond mere dialogue to explore closer forms of unity with Catholics, others are reluctant to accept any form of dialogue because they deem that, in ecumenical jargon, dialogue is never mere dialogue but is based on the premise of a unity which already exists though it may be somewhat imperfect. The issue of Christian unity is at the centre of the debate while dialogue goes on at different levels. On the whole, the situation is extremely fluid and is an example of the wide variety of positions within Evangelicalism which can be seen in other areas as well. As the ecumenical issue becomes more and more important in future years, so Evangelical-Catholic relationships are bound to become a “hot potato” with external and internal repercussions. For Evangelicals, the issue of Roman Catholicism is closely linked to the issue of evangelical unity. The two issues are interwoven because the way they face the former calls into question the way they consider and experience the latter. The evaluation of the dialoguing process which started in the USA in the early Nineties is an interesting case-study in the present scenario and provides the opportunity for an evangelical reflection on Roman Catholicism.

1. “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT)

The 1994 «Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Toward a Common Mission» does not seem to be directly related to the above mentioned dialogues nor does it appear to be in any way connected to the institutions which had been involved up to that point.[4] The alleged reasons for ECT and the North-American context where it was conceived and drafted are decisive elements in discerning its theological thrust and ecumenical weight. The architects of the whole project make it clear that its immediate background is to be sought in the American socio-political scene of the Eighties. From their critical perspective, that decade witnessed a dramatic deepening of the chasm between opposing cultural forces in the American “public square”.[5] To put it simply, the fighting forces confronting each other were, on the one hand, those sections of society who wished to defend a Christian-based moral vision and social policy, and, on the other, the emerging, rampant segments who wanted to abandon the traditionally American ethos or radically rethink it in terms of postmodern, relativistic trends of thought. The range of battle fields was extremely diverse and included thorny issues like abortion, pornography, homosexuality, euthanasia, the nature and integrity of the family, education value-systems and basic social patterns. However, all these areas were thought of as being single instances of a violent “culture war” in which the basic orientation of individual and national life was threatened. In the midst of this dramatic confrontation in American society, and perhaps because of it and through it, some Evangelicals and Catholics found themselves fighting on the same side.[6] Their encounter began to take shape at grass roots level in the Seventies, especially in the pro-life movement, after centuries of mutual harsh polemics,[7] but the new element in the situation was that confessionally divided Christians were sharing religiously grounded moral convictions and wanted to engage more vigorously in the challenge of saving America from the disastrous results of relativism. The relationship between Evangelicals and Catholics which is contemplated in ECT is what Timothy George has called “an ecumenism of the trenches”[8] emerging from a common moral struggle against secular trends in American society and encouraging proclamation and implementation of Christian values at all levels.


1.1 The Issue of “Christian unity” According to ECT

ECT is of theological interest in that this kind of coalition is said to have a theological basis. ECT drafters and supporters appeal not only to a relatively similar evaluation of current social trends and to the shared core values advocated by some politically conservative Evangelicals and Catholics. They have no difficulty in claiming that the possibility, indeed the necessity, of co-operation between conservative Christians in the “public square” is primarily warranted by their theological common roots in spite of past and present confessional divisions. Sharing a political and moral agenda for society is a fruit of a “theologically rooted alliance”.[9] The connection between socio-political motives and theological justification for common action is also clearly visible in the order of the statement whereby the section “We Contend Together”, which is focused on “culture war” concerns, is preceded by the section “We Affirm Together” where a basic confession of faith is outlined, and then followed by the programmatic paragraph entitled “We Witness Together” where a qualified commitment to Christian mission is envisaged. In other words, according to ECT, contending in society is based on affirming gospel truth and is aimed at witnessing to the world. This basic theological core is the real centre around which ECT revolves, most particularly as far as its Evangelical signatories are concerned. From a post-Vatican II Catholic perspective, in fact, there is nothing exceptional in acknowledging together with other Christians, as ECT does, the existence of “common convictions about Christian faith and mission” which warrant the possibility for the dialoguing partners to consider each other as “brothers and sisters in Christ”. For Evangelicals, however, this ecumenical readiness has not been a feature of their history and practice, especially in relation to Catholics. If it is borne in mind that until the Sixties, “Protestant anti-Romanism” was a very influential staple in American Evangelicalism,[10] the committed language of togetherness, oneness, unity, co-operation which permeates ECT is much more telling than its ordinary usage in widespread ecumenical jargon. Evidently, in the case of ECT, the pervasive “We-Together” pattern is much more ecumenically significant than in other bilateral documents where it is often employed.[11]

The doctrinal basis for this evangelically discovered or catholically reaffirmed unity in the gospel is the Apostles’ Creed which both parties wholeheartedly indicate as being “an accurate statement of scriptural truth”.[12] The appreciation of this basic, albeit foundational, agreement does not eschew the frank assertion of “authentic disagreements”, “deep and long-standing differences”, “communal and ecclesial separations” which are barriers to full communion even between otherwise like-minded Evangelicals and Catholics.[13] ECT drafters also provide a non-exhaustive but substantial list of problematic areas which includes fundamental issues regarding the nature of the church and ministry, the authority of Scripture, the sacraments and devotion to Mary and the saints. According to ECT, these matters are not to be avoided or downplayed but fully debated and thoroughly researched. They are mentioned in the section “We Search Together” which is a further commitment on the part of the signatories to work and study side by side. The aim of such an informal, “disciplined and sustained conversation” is intended to be positive and constructive, that is “to strengthen between us a relationship of trust in obedience of truth”.[14] The non-confrontational line espoused by ECT is also visible in the expressed goal of nonproselytization between professing Christians and in the encouragement which the statement gives to focusing attention on the task of reaching those who are outside the broad community of faith instead of trying to convert who are already believers.

As to its significance for the present state and future development of Evangelical-Catholic theological debate, ECT is concerned with the legitimacy of the dialogue to be pursued rather than with its theological profile. As far as the latter goes, ECT does not tread any further than the mere listing of the often repeated cahiers de doléances, as if the diversity can be reduced to a more or less congruous enumeration of areas of doctrinal dispute. In fairness, it is perhaps arguable that the contingent socio-cultural motivations and preoccupations which were predominant in ECT’s background tend to allow the whole dialoguing process to be shaped by a sort of theological pragmatism and not by a willingness to come to grips with the basic issues which divide Evangelicals and Catholics.


1.2 The Spectrum of Evangelical Reactions to ECT

ECT’s Evangelical signatories reached far across the wide spectrum of present-day American Evangelicalism, though they participated in it strictly as individuals acting from and to their denominational or parachurch constituencies but not on behalf of them. While on the Catholic side, “relatively little commotion has resulted from the conciliatory statement”,[15] the American Evangelical world does not seem to have received it with the enthusiasm its promoters hoped for. Although sundry ecumenically-minded Evangelicals have accepted ECT quite positively, the release of the statement has produced much bewilderment and disarray especially in Reformed Evangelical circles.[16] The debate following it has exposed the serious rift within Evangelicalism on fundamental theological orientations and concerns, and not just over the issue of how to relate to Catholicism.[17] In Packer’s vivid words, ECT has inevitably come “under evangelical fire”[18] with “bleak, skewed, fearful, and fear-driven things”[19] being said about it. In spite of all their diversity, such negative critical judgements share some basic common strands which can be highlighted, varying from the claim that ECT jeopardizes the gospel to the charge that it betrays the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith,[20] it blurs the meaning of the word “Christian”,[21] it confuses Christian mission with a social agenda, it undermines evangelism in Catholic countries, and so forth. The scope and tone of the criticism has been so drastic and clear-cut because for many Evangelicals “no less than Christian theological integrity is thought to be at stake”.[22] Apart from strong opposition from individual theologians, journals and church leaders, even a highly representative Evangelical institution, WEF, which is itself carrying on an official dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, thought it appropriate to issue a “commentary on ECT” expressing perplexities on the document and distancing itself from the initiative as a whole.[23] More specifically, WEF refuses to link a commendable “ecumenism of the trenches” as far as culture war is concerned to the possibility for Evangelicals and Catholics to do evangelism and mission together when “the doctrinal differences … remain unresolved”. Furthermore, WEF underlines the semantic problem together with the interpretative issue involved in joint statements such as ECT whereby “the use of common language does not mean that the meanings are the same”. In other words, the mere act of subscribing a declaration is no indication of a genuinely recovered unity if each party attributes substantially different nuances to the agreed text.

Another significant response to ECT has come from an authoritative Evangelical parachurch agencies, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE). In reacting to ECT not only in negative terms but with the desire to suggest basic guidelines for subsequent Evangelical-Catholic discussion, ACE issued seven “Resolutions for Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue”.[24] While questioning ECT’s purported creedal unity, the “Resolutions” affirm that “this catholic consensus” over the ecumenical creeds is not perceived “as a sufficent basis for declaring that agreement exists on all the essential elements of the Gospel” (1). According to ACE, this kind of confessional unity could be found only when the other essential tenet of the Gospel is included, that is “justification by faith alone” without which the “adequacy of any version of the Gospel” is deemed as falling short. As for this pivotal doctrine, “radical disagreement continues” between Evangelicals and Catholics (2). Creedal consensus as advocated by ECT, however, warrants “the making of common cause on moral and cultural issues in society” though this cooperation should not be regarded as a “common ecclesial action in fulfilling a common ecclesial mission” (4). While rejoicing in the awareness that “the Roman Catholic Church contains many .. believers”, ACE states that as an ecclesial institution, it is not “an acceptable Christian communion, let alone being the mother of all the faithful” (6). On the whole, then, ECT has stimulated much discussion and has provided an occasion for Evangelicals to reflect afresh on the issue of Roman Catholicism and on the wider stance of Evangelicalism in the present-day ecumenical scene.


2. “The Gift of Salvation” (GOS)

In the intention of the drafters, the ECT document was conceived as an initial step in the deeping of a mutual commitment to dialogue between its Evangelical and Catholic contributors. The negative appraisal of some Evangelicals on the main tenets of the statement apparently strengthened the conviction that there was a need for further conversations, especially on the weaker, problematic areas which had come under strong criticism. Further reflection ought to be aimed at a fuller exploration of the theological connotations and a more adequate articulation of this fundamental thrust of ECT. The first result of this continuing and more sharply focused debate was a shorter document released in November 1997 under the title of «The Gift of Salvation».[25] Sponsored and led by the same authors as ECT, namely Charles Colson and Richard Neuhaus, GOS stems from the continuation of the process initiated by ECT and can be thought of as being an elucidation of the controversial section “We Affirm Together” of the previous document. The filial connection with ECT is also evoked when GOS is sometimes called ECT II.


2.1 Unity and Justification by Faith in GOS

As has already been suggested in the section on ECT, the real gain of the whole ecumenical process which resulted in ECT according to its supporters was considered by some Evangelical critics to be its fatal flaw. Expressing a trenchant comment often repeated in Evangelical reactions to ECT, Sproul asks whether Evangelicals have the right to root an alleged confessional unity apart from, besides or beyond an unambiguous agreement on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Granting the decisive importance of sola fide in historic Protestantism and noting the noisy silence in ECT over it, Sproul defines it “the missing doctrine” of the statement.[26] In his view, its omission either means that ECT does not perceive justification by faith to be an essential aspect of the Christian faith or that the long controversy over it between Evangelicals and Catholics has now been resolved. It is clear that both assumptions are not feasible and this omission can only be explained in terms of ecumenical diplomacy. The train of Sproul’s argument goes as far as to say that this kind of apparent neutrality or wilful bypassing fudges the whole effort and empties the statement of any ecumenical credibility. At this point, Sproul voices a conservative evangelical quasi-consensus in holding that without coming to terms with sola fide, that is without a full acceptance of the protestant doctrine of imputed righteousness on the Catholic side, even speaking of “unity” is a sheer impossibility, given the corner-stone role of justification in protestant Evangelicalism especially in relation to or against the catholic understanding of it which was framed at Trent. In light of this opinion shared by many Evangelical critics of ECT, Christian unity cannot be attained at the expense of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone because without this doctrine there is no evangelically interpreted Christian gospel. Taking these reservations seriously into account, ECT drafters eventually decided to engage in the debate precisely over the crucial issue of sola fide. In this way, they wished to demonstrate that the kind of ecumenism favoured by the participants is an “ecumenism of conviction”, not one of “accommodation”[27] as was charged against the vagueness of ECT on various matters. Given this background, justification by faith comes to the fore as the obvious doctrine on which dialogue must concentrate if it is to go beyond socio-political concerns. The outcome of such an ecumenical endeavour is that, while restating with ECT the confession of a “common faith in Christ” and the acknowledgement of “one another as brothers and sisters in Christ”, GOS strives to deepen the theological quality of the professed unity after addressing the core soteriological issue of the Reformation. If ECT confessed unity on the basis of the Apostles’ Creed, GOS claims that it is also possible to envisage “a common understanding of salvation”, including an agreed version of sola fide. With this development, the ECT process has gained a theological merit, in its supporters’ opinion, in that the unity expressed in GOS is “not indeed unity in every aspect of the gospel, but unity in its basic dimension”[28] which bridges the confessions of faith of the undivided church and that of contemporary American conservative Christianity without ignoring the doctrinal specificity of the historic protestant tradition.

Rather boldly and with a hint of triumphalism, after outlining the content of the accord over salvation, GOS states that what has been affirmed “is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (sola fide)”. In view of such a statement, it should not be a surprise to read that, according to the signatories, “for the first time in 450 years, Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics have publicly agreed to a common understanding of salvation”.[29] Without making any reference to the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue nor to any other relevant ecumenical document on the same doctrine, these claims sound rather curious because they give the impression of a major breakthrough of historical importance achieved through an informal, unofficial and relatively short dialogue culminating in the release of a concise text. Reflecting on the ecumenical ethos of the whole initiative, it can be argued that the sort of pragmatic ecumenism resulting in ECT seems to have also operated in GOS with a certain measure of consistency. Apparently, the vaguely protestant outlook of the statement is moderated by the eloquent underestimation of the concept of imputation. The newly discovered possibility of confessing together “fundamental truths about the gift of salvation” goes hand in hand with the awareness of “some serious and persistent differences” between the Evangelical signatories and the Catholic ones on specific details or broad frameworks related to the doctrine itself which require “further and urgent exploration”. Among these “necessarily interrelated questions” there are “the meaning of baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist and sacramental grace, the historic uses of the language of justification as it relates to imputed and transformative righteousness” and “the normative status of justification in relation to all Christian doctrine”.

On the whole, then, while testifying to a further advancement along the path of an “ecumenism of conviction” than ECT was able to express, GOS is also in itself an interlocutory step. Its theological import is partially invalidated by its rather naïve approach to the controversy over sola fide which  is a highly complex matter. In Sproul’s telling words, “the ECT initiative is seriously, if not fatally, flawed since it proclaims too much way too soon”.[30] Another point underlined by some GOS Evangelical signatories is that the professed unity testified to in the statement is a bond between “some Roman Catholics and some evangelicals”, not implying at all “a unity of faith with the church of Rome”.[31] The level of brotherly recognition concerns individual believers involved in the process while no recognition of that kind is extended to Catholicism as an ecclesial institution. As Gerald Bray puts it, “one of the most painful parts of the ECT dialogue has been the need for Evangelicals to explain to the Catholics involved that we cannot regard the Roman Church in the way that a Baptist might look at Presbyterians. There is a qualitative difference between us”.[32]


2.2 Evangelical Criticism of GOS

As it might be expected, in spite of the good wishes of the promoters, GOS is facing nontheless the negative responses of the same strands of the Evangelical movement which reacted negatively to ECT. The tone of many appraisals sounds very similar to previous verdicts, including the charge of selling out the Reformation and of being a “disappointing sequel” to ECT.[33] As for the merits of the document, the main reservation advanced by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) is that GOS fails “adequately to express the essential Protestant understanding of the gospel” in that it does not grapple with the concept of imputation.[34] What GOS does is to indulge in “ambiguous expressions” which are perfectly compatible within a Roman Catholic perspective. The blatant paradox seen by ACE is that “while ECT expressed concern over the relativization of truth in our day it has led in GOS to a relativizing of the most important truth of all, namely, the Gospel itself”. The problem of ambiguity is also evoked by Sproul, for whom GOS was drawn up with a “studied ambiguity by which agreement is reached in words but not in substance, leaving each side the opportunity to maintain its original position”.[35] Moreover, given the admission found in GOS of a “serious and persistent” difference on the language of imputation (which is inseparably linked to the concept of imputation), what is presented as an agreement on justification by faith as the protestant traditions understood it, is not sola fide but, at best, a limited version of it, if not a deformation of it. In this train of evaluation, GOS only affirms “ingredients” of sola fide, not sola fide itself. Of course, this criticism is mainly addressed at Evangelical participants who have presented the common declaration in a much more positive way. As for Catholic signatories, their unwillingness to embrace sola fide wholeheartedly is thought of as being perfectly legitimate from their point of view.

The question of how to approach Roman Catholicism is another area which has not seen any significant development. GOS, like ECT, appears to espouse an isolated, atomistic, fragmented way of conducting the conversation which seems to overlook the fact that doctrines are parts of a coherent system and that the difference between Evangelical and Catholic views of justification lies in the central core of their respective understandings of the reality of God’s saving work. In Sproul’s words, “the differences are systemic, not partial; they are radical, not slight”.[36] Applying these critical remarks to GOS, it can be said that “from an evangelical point of view, it is practically meaningless to uphold together with Catholics the doctrine of justification by faith, on the one hand, and express a sharp disagreement on «baptismal regeneration», «the Eucharist», «sacramental grace», «diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences», «Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints», etc., on the other. Unlike the Catholic one, the evangelical framework cannot tolerate such diversity and calls for a choice”.[37] In other words, an appreciation of the sharp edges of the evangelical doctrinal system should go together with an awareness of the open-ended and rounded shape of the Catholic one. The latter can subsume the former, provided that it renounces its sharpness, while the former cannot blunt itself to be a part of the latter, lest it lose its distinct adherence to the exclusivenness of the gospel. The acknowledgement of this basic contrast between the respective doctrinal systems should inform all theological discussions with Roman Catholics. GOS lacks a theologically “integrated approach” in dealing with the doctrine of justification by faith because it severs it from the whole of the biblical message and does not show a satisfactory degree of acquaintance with the Catholic synthesis which is unpalatable for Evangelicals. If this is the case, GOS achieves far less than is claimed by its proponents. Furthermore, because of its basic methodological and theological weakness, as a model for ecumenical dialogue with Catholics it is bound to be ambiguous and, in the end, unfruitful. The kind of dialogue Evangelicals should aspire to needs to be more historically conscious, theologically careful and ecumenically alert than their contributions to both ECT or GOS have been.


3. “The Gospel of  Jesus Christ” (GJC)

The process which has led from ECT to GOS has shown that while confronting Roman Catholicism, Evangelicals reflect and act upon their own identity. The question of how to deal with Roman Catholics can be answered only after one has tackled what does it mean to be an Evangelical. Differences in the area of ecumenism generally reflect divergences in understanding of what is constitutive for the evangelical faith. It should not be surprising therefore that after having ventured in conversations with Catholics and received some negative reactions from within the movement, the Evangelical promoters and their critics have come back to the issue of evangelical doctrinal identity, and inevitably so. This pause in evangelical reflection on the ecumenical process has given birth to «The Gospel of Jesus Christ. An Evangelical Celebration»[38] which is a basic statement on the evangel nurtured by strong evangelical convictions and aimed at a broad evangelical consensus, beyond past and present contrasts on ecumenical initiatives.


3.1 The Evangel as the Basis of Unity

GJC is meant to be a “celebration” of the gospel, a brief dogmatic outline of the content of the biblical message expressed in a rather doxological vein. A part from this general thrust, the main emphasis of the document revolves around the doctrine of justification by faith, its place within the evangelical confession of the gospel and its theological articulation vis-à-vis recent disputes within Evangelicalism itself. If GOS pointed the way to a possible convergence between Evangelicals and Catholics on justification which was criticised by some Evangelicals, GJC spells out the basic and shared evangelical understanding of the same doctrine. The paramount desire is to stress the forensic view of justification and this is achieved by the insertion in the text of a list of synonymous verbs or nouns when the meaning of justification is sketched out. So, it is said that “God «justifies the wicked» (ungodly: Rom 4:5) by imputing (reckoning, crediting, counting, accounting) righteousness to them”. Later GJC speaks of “the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us” (12) and of Christ’s righteousness which is “counted, reckoned, or imputed to us by the forensic (that is, legal) declaration of God” (13). All the semantic tree of the forensic language of justification is employed to focus on the declarative dimension of the act of justification. Another related concern is the willingness to underline what happens in justification in terms of a “decisive transition, here and now” and “transaction”. Of course, though unmentioned, the distinct protestant perspective on justification with its anti-Roman Catholic overtone is clearly in the background of such statements. Other aspects of the evangel are not as emphasised as justification by faith alone[39] but, in light of the history and purposes of GJC, the insistence on “sola fide” should not be taken as un underestimation of necessarily related truths concerning God’s saving work. Since every text has its context, GJC has its own in the debate over justification which ECT and GOS gave rise to.

It is too early to evaluate the reception that GJC will receive in Evangelical circles, in particular whether or not it will fuction as an adequate basis for drawing together Evangelicals who have different ecumenical sensitivities. It is certainly true that the only hope for Evangelicals to strive for unity is to appreciate the core of their faith. In the light of internal disputes over ecumenical issues, the message of GJC seems to be: back to square one, back to the evangel.


3.2 The Affirmation/Denial Pattern

After the introductory preamble, two paragraphs on “the Gospel” and “Unity in the Gospel” and before the final section on “Our Commitment”, the rest of GJC is construed using a composite pattern whereby affirmations concerning various constitutive elements of the evangel are followed by denials of possible misunderstandings or incompatible statements with the previously asserted truths. The rationale behind such a procedure seems to imply that the act of affirming something is only one side of the task related to the spelling out of the evangelical doctrinal identity. The other unavoidable aspect has to do with denying what is perceived as being contrary to what is positively affirmed. The gospel can be witnessed to propositionally by way of positive assertions and negative derivations. In contemporary history of confessional declarations, this pattern has noble precedents in the Barmen Declaration (1934) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). The model reflects the evangelical logic of theologizing, in which affirming something implies negating what is not in line with what has been affirmed. What is even more important is that the wise combination of “yes” and “no” is particularly vital for Evangelicals as they confront the ecumenical movement in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. This procedure is very far from the ecumenical (or catholic!) pattern in which two or more parties can uphold something together but are not costrained to work through the implications of what they have affirmed in an evangelically coherent way. Moreover, as will indicated later, the Catholic epistemological framework is characterised by a comprehensive et-et (both-and) pattern which enables it to hold together things which are different. The introduction of the “denial” element in GJC contrasts with this Catholic sensitivity towards the catholicity of doctrine. A Catholic theologian would perhaps subscribe to the “affirmation” sections of GJC but would feel extremely uncomfortable, if not totally uneasy, with the “denial” parts, especially nn. 1, 12, 13, 14 on issues like the authority of the church, justification as infusion of righteousness, the role of works and human cooperation with grace. Unlike ECT and GOS, GJC goes in the right direction in stressing the essential link between the “yes” and the “no” of the gospel evangelically interpreted. The misunderstanding caused by the previous documents should teach an important lesson in this respect, that is the need for Evangelicals to relearn to say their evangelical “no” (together with the “yes”, of course!) in ecumenical encounters when the truth of the gospel is under scrutiny. “No” is part of  their theological identity just as much as “yes” and makes it possible to avoid dangerous ambiguities. The hope is that the content, the pattern and the ethos of GJC will prove to be an useful reference point for future evangelical endeavors in the ecumenical scene.


4. Roman Catholicism, Evangelical diversity and witness

The ECT process, which has culminated thus far in GJC, indicates that Evangelicals, if they need to refine their interpretative categories in dealing with Roman Catholicism and to reassess their stance towards it, also need to reflect on their own identity. What is urgent then is an appreciation of what is fundamentally at stake between Evangelicalism and Catholicism as systems of thought, beyond mere polemical attitudes, historically entrenched suspicions, psychological bitterness or theological caricatures.[40]


4.1 The Catholic System is Eclectic by Definition

Although there is considerable diversity in its forms and expressions, Roman Catholicism is also a basically unitary reality because its underlying tenets hold together a magnificient cathedral of thought and life. While the thomistic motif of nature and grace is the basic feature of its worldview, the Roman Church, considered as the continuation of the incarnation of Christ, is its institutional centre. It is vital to bear in mind the fact that Catholicism is a multifaceted system where worldview and institution coinhere and foster its vision. If this is forgotten, it is easy to misrepresent its essence, goals and means. Any analysis of Roman Catholicism which does not take into account this systemic approach will easily fall prey to a superficial and fragmented understanding.

As a consequence of its system, Roman Catholicism appears to have no sense of the tragedy of sin, tends to encourage an optimistic view of man’s abilities, sees salvation as a gradual process in which nature is made more perfect, justifies the Church’s role as a mediator between man and God and enhances her prerogatives to achieve an ever increasing catholicity of doctrine and practice. Because it coordinates nature and grace without a tragic doctrine of sin, the Catholic system is characterised by an attitude of overall openness. It is inherently dynamic and comprehensive, capable of embracing doctrines, ideas and practices that in the Evangelical tradition are thought of as being mutually exclusive. By way of its inclusive et-et (both-and) epistemology, in a Catholic system two apparently contradicting elements can be reconciled into a synthesis which entails both and which safeguards the institutional unity.[41] In principle, the system is wide enough to welcome everything and everyone, not always appreciating the fact that biblical truth is also exclusive and demands integrity. From a Catholic point of view then, affirming something does not necessarily mean denying something else but simply enlarging one’s own perspective on the whole (i.e. Roman Catholic) truth. In this respect, what is perceived as being important is the integration of the part into the catholic whole by way of relating what is newly affirmed with the already existing body of truths. The essential criterion is not that of Evangelical purity or Christian authenticity but that of a progressive inclusion, that is the insertion of the particular into a broader perspective which eliminates its specificity by dissolving it in the service of universality. This means, for instance, that, in catholic eyes, a rather generic protestant view of the doctrine of justification is perfectly compatible with the traditionally catholic synergistic view of salvation; the use of terms such as “grace”, “faith”, “assurance” is always strictly correlated (though not always explicitely stated) to the Catholic sacramental system so that the word “sin” is used in the context of a more optimistic anthropology, etc. Examples of the way in which catholic presuppositions govern the understanding of biblical and theological language could be easily multiplied. In this respect, what is expressed in GOS is fully acceptable to Catholics without altering the catholic system in any significant way. It is a further addition to it but it does not question it. It is a contribution to it but it does not detract anything from it. This is possible because the catholic system allows, indeed demands, “aggiornamento”, that is integration without structural reformation.


4.2 The Catholic Ecumenical Strategy is Unequivocably Inclusive

The overall openness is not indiscriminate syncretism or relativism. From the Second Vatican Council onward, the Catholic Church has been undertaking an impressive process of redefining what used to be its merely polemical stance towards non-catholic confessions into a more dialoguing attitude. This paramount shift has been legitimated by the theological recognition of the existence of “sister churches” and “separated brethren” as well as finalised to their integration into the fully catholic communion. Since then, the promotion of several ecumenical initiatives on different levels has been a dominant feature of the catholic agenda. In all its extraordinary activism, Rome has attempted to expand its catholicity which has vast borders but a definite centre, multiple objectives but a distinct project. The Holy Year of 2000 is seen as a “providential” opportunity to enhance further this kind of ecumenical trend which will present the Catholic church as the only institution which, on the eve of the third millennium, can claim historical continuity, structural unity, sacramental fullness and ever increasing universality. As already noted, in the Roman Catholic understanding catholicity has to do simultaneously with unity and totality. The basic premise is that multiplicity should be brought into a unity and the Roman Church is seen as an expression, a guarantor and a promoter of the true unity of all mankind. As long as the institutional structure which preserves unity remains intact and is recognised for what it is supposed to be, everything can and must find its home somewhere within the kingdom of Catholicism. The distance from the centre is not so important as the acknowledgement that it is the centre.

In light of these remarks, Catholic efforts in ecumenism ought to be taken as stemming from this catholic vision of bringing together the whole of humanity around the institutional centre of the Roman Church. This is another aspect which Evangelicals should bear in mind while dialoguing with Catholics. Roman Catholic unity is never institutionally (i.e. Roman Church) free but aspires at increasing the catholicity of that institution without changing its fundamental features in an evangelical sense.


4.3 Evangelical Diversity with Respect to Roman Catholicism

In a recent comparison of  GOS and the Catholic Catechism on justification, Daryl Charles has stated: “Like Hodge and Spurgeon, contemporary Evangelicals face a similar dilemma: recognition that current Roman Catholic dogma acknowledges the same saving realities as Protestants affirm, even when they conceptualize and speak of them differently”.[42] Leaving aside the (im)plausibility of the reference to Hodge and Spurgeon as sharing the present-day need for evangelical discernement on Roman Catholicism,[43] the sentence well captures the common ecumenical idea that what is at stake between Evangelicals and Catholics is a matter of divergence in patterns of conceptualization or uses of language granted that the soteriological substance is the “same”. Against this well established view in ecumenical circles, the systemic analysis of Roman Catholicism would urge Evangelicals to rethink the “qualitative difference” in terms of a fundamental cleavage between the two systems. Although there are many differences between the Roman Catholic and the Evangelical faith at various levels, they are all inter-connected and, in the last analysis, stem from a radically different basic orientation which informs all their expressions. It is a difference which cannot simply be explained in psychological, historical or cultural terms, nor does it derive from different doctrinal emphases which could somehow be complementary in the catholic synthesis. The difference is at the level of presuppositions, that is in the basic apprehension of the way in which grace sustains and redeems creation. This is not a matter of nuances or details but of doctrinal substance and broader structures of thought. There can be, as there are, many differences in terms of language, concepts, practices, etc. but these are all dimensions not roots or causes of the fundamental difference. It is important not to confuse the phenomenology with the aetiology of the differentiation. Given the systemic chasm, the difference is noticeable in any point.

Even the doctrinal agreement between Catholics and Evangelicals, which is expressed in a common adherence to the Creeds and Councils of the first five centuries, is not an adequate basis on which to say that there is an agreement concerning the essentials of the gospel. Moreover, developments within the Catholic Church during the following centuries give rise to the suspicion that this adherence may be more formal than substantial. The same should be true as for the agreements between Evangelicals and Catholics when it comes to ethical and social issues. There is a similarity of perspective which has its roots in “common grace” and the influence on culture which Christianity has generally exercised in the course of history. Since theology and ethics cannot be separated, however, it is not possible to say that there is a common ethical understanding in that the underlying theologies are essentially different. As there is no basic agreement concerning the foundations of the gospel, even in ethical questions there may be affinities though these appear more formal than substantial.

So what is the fundamental difference? By way of introduction and preliminary consideration, it can be said that is has to do with the way in which nature and grace are related. The biblical teaching re-discovered during the 16th Century Reformation regarding the “sola, solus” of the gospel is a crux which sheds light on this fundamental contrast. Scripture alone, Christ alone, Grace alone, Faith alone, to God alone be glory, these together constitute not only the essential theological profile of the Evangelical faith but also examples of the basic divergence with respect to Roman Catholicism. The “sola, solus” point to the way in which the fallen creation of God receives the saving grace of God in Christ through the Spirit. While through the “sola, solus” Evangelicals affirm the sovereignty of God in creation, providence and redemption in contrast with man’s hopeless in sin, Catholicism continues to think of nature as essentially capable of receiving and cooperating with grace. This is evident in that Roman Catholicism adds to Scripture the authority of tradition and magisterial teaching; to Christ it has added the Church as an extension of the Incarnation; to grace it has added the necessity of the benefits which come through the sacramental office of the church; to faith it has added the necessity of good works for salvation; to the worship of God it has added the veneration of a host of other figures which detract from the worship of the only true God. This is true of tridentine Catholicism as well as of post-Vatican II Catholicism because that basic nature-grace motif is inherent to the Roman Catholic system. In this respect, the exclusiveness of the Evangelical faith concerning the essential elements of the Gospel must be seen as an alternative to the all encompassing synthesis  proposed by Catholicism.

Of course, what is true of the Catholic Church as a doctrinal and institutional reality is not necessarily true of individual Catholics and Evangelicals should be always ready to make that distinction. God’s grace is indeed at work in men and women who, although they may consider themselves Catholics, trust in God alone for their life and salvation. These brothers and sisters in the Lord must be nonetheless encouraged to examine critically residual Catholic elements in their thinking and life in the light of God’s Word alone.


4.4 Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Witness

In the fulfilment of the cultural mandate there may be co-operation and united action between Evangelicals and Catholics, as in fact may be possible between Evangelicals and people with other religious orientations and ideologies. Where common values are at stake in ethical, social, cultural and political issues, forms of co-belligerence are to be encouraged anywhere and at anytime. These necessary and inevitable forms of co-operation, however, must not be perceived as ecumenical initiatives, nor must they be deemed as implying the recovery of a doctrinal consensus which is not the case. It is one thing is to argue for co-belligerance in terms of “common grace” and on the basis of the influence of Christian values in different groupings around the world, it is an altogether different thing to warrant that co-operation in terms of “Christian unity” which presupposes unity in the gospel. Moreover, the fulfilment of the missionary mandate demands instead that its missionaries come from the community of believers who are united in a common confession of faith regarding all the fundamental aspects of the gospel, especially the crucial points which concern the five “sola, solus” of the Reformation. In this sense, all evangelistic activity in which there is a co-operation between Catholics and Evangelicals must be seriously questioned and re-examined. In this respect, Francis Schaeffer’s wise distinction between being “cobelligerents” and “allies” is fully applicable to the Evangelical-Catholic relationship in the XXI century as it was for the church at the end of the XX century.

Roman Catholicism is a reality which must be grappled with, today even more seriously than ever. The basic difference between Catholicism and the Evangelical faith is no reason for Evangelicals to ignore the internal developments within Catholicism, or to cultivate an arrogant attitude, or to be exclusively polemical. As much as is possible an open and constructive interaction with Catholicism should be sought, especially when it concerns the basic orientation of the respective systems of doctrine and life. In the present ecumenical scene, Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism are the two religious constituencies within Christendom which, more than others, are showing signs of activism and renewal. Willy-nilly, Roman Catholicism is a reality so pervasive and comprehensive that can neither be ignored nor by-passed. Mutual indifference is not a viable option whereas unity is not feasible nor is it foreseeable because of the persistent “qualitative difference”. Co-operation in the public arena is possible given the proper theological framework and especially in those countries where traditionally Christian values are subjected to a heavy assault. Dialogue, frank dialogue, ought to be pursued: a sort of dialogue without ecumenical overtones which simply expresses the evangelical desire to love one’s neighbour, Roman Catholics included, and to witness to the saving grace of Christ alone in today’s world.


[1] B. Meeking, J. Stott (eds.), The Evangelical-Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission 1977-1984. A Report, Exeter, Paternoster 1986.

[2] The proceedings of the two meetings can be found in ERT 21:2 (1997) and 23:1 (1999).

[3] ERT 10:4 (1986) and 11:1 (1987).

[4] Colson and Neuhaus explicitly say that the talks leading to ECT were “independent of the official conversations between the Roman Catholic and various evangelical Protestants bodies”; C. Colson, R. Neuhaus (eds.), Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Toward a Common Mission, Dallas, Word 1995, xiii.

[5] This kind of approach can be found, for instance, in R. Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans 1984; C. Colson, Kingdoms in Conflict, Dallas, Word 1987; K. Fournier, A House United? Evangelicals and Catholics Together, Colorado Springs, NavPress 1994.

[6] The different stages of the history of ECT are summarized in C. Colson, R. Neuhaus (eds.), cit., x-xiii.

[7] Cf. M. Noll, “The History of the Encounter: Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals” in C. Colson, R. Neuhaus (eds.), cit., 81-114. Cf. also R. Nash, “Evangelical and Catholic Cooperation in the Public Arena” in J. Armstrong (ed.), Roman Catholicism. Evangelical Protestants Analyze what Divides and Unites us, Chicago, Moody 1994, 181-197.

[8] T. George, “Catholics and Evangelicals in the Trenches”, Christianity Today (May 16, 1994) 16-17.

[9] Colson, “The Common Cultural Task” in C. Colson, R. Neuhaus (eds.), cit., 3.

[10] Noll, cit.

[11] Sproul reports that, according to Richard Neuhaus, this affirmation is “at the core of the entire document”, R.C. Sproul, By Faith Alone. The Doctrine that Divides, London, Hodder & Stoughton 1996, 15.

[12] ECT, Colson-Neuhaus (1995) xix.

[13] Idem, xx-xxii.

[14] C. Colson, R. Neuhaus (eds.), cit., xxi.

[15] D. Charles, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: one year later”, ProEcclesia V:1 (1996) 73.

[16] Cf., for instance, J. MacArthur, Reckless Faith, Wheaton, Crossway Books 1994; J. Ankerberg, J. Weldon, Protestants and Catholics. Do they now agree?, Eugene, Harvest 1995; R. Zins, Romanism, Huntsville, White Horse Publ. 1995; J. McCarthy, Conversations with Catholics, Eugene, Harvest 1997.

[17] For a survey of Evangelical reactions, cf. N. Geisler, R. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Grand Rapids, Baker 1995, 491-502 and D. Charles, cit.

[18] J. Packer, “Crosscurrents among Evangelicals” in C. Colson, R. Neuhaus (eds.), cit., 149. In this paper, Packer assesses and responds to the evangelical criticism of ECT. On Packer’s involvement in the ECT process, cf. A. McGrath, To Know and to Serve God. A Biography of J.I. Packer, London, Hodder & Stoughton 1997, 264-275.

[19] J. Packer, “Why I signed it”, Christianity Today (Dec 12, 1994) 34.

[20] R.C. Sproul, By Faith Alone, cit., 10-30 and 152-155; P. Eveson, The Great Exchange. Justification by Faith Alone in the Light of Recent Thought, Bromley, Day One Publ. 1996, 89-96.

[21] I. Murray, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: A movement of watershed significance?”, The Banner of Truth, 393 (1996) 12.

[22] D. Charles, cit., 74.

[23] J. Vencer, “Commentary on ECT” in H. Fuller, People of the Mandate. The story of WEF, Carlisle-Grand Rapids, Paternoster-Baker 1996, 191-193. The next two quotations are taken from the same article.

[24] Modern Reformation (July 1994) 28-29. It is perhaps worth noticing that Jim Packer signed both ECT and these Resolutions.

[25] The GOS text was originally published in Christianity Today (Dec 8, 1997) 34.

[26] R.C. Sproul, By Faith Alone, cit., 22-24.

[27] These expressions are employed by T. George, T. Oden, J. Packer, “An Open Letter about The Gift of Salvation”, Christianity Today (April 27, 1998) 9.

[28] Ibidem.

[29] As reported by R. Frame, Christianity Today (Jan 12, 1998) 61.

[30] R.C. Sproul, “What ECTII Ignores. The inseparable link between imputation and the gospel”, Modern Reformation (Sept/Oct 1998). In the same respect, Neuhaus writes that “the Lutheran formula of simul iustus et peccator, which was Rome’s chief objection to JD (Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration), is no part of «The Gift of Salvation»”, First Things 86 (Oct 1998) 82. Neuhaus too recognises that the central issue of the Protestant-Catholic divergence on the doctrine was untouched by GOS.

[31] T. George, T. Oden, J. Packer, cit. – italics in the original.

[32] G. Bray, “Editorial”, Churchman 113 (1999) 197.

[33] Zins, cit., 255.

[34] “An Appeal to Fellow Evangelicals. The Alliance Response to the second ECT document The Gift of Salvation” (1998).

[35] R.C. Sproul, “What ECTII Ignores”, cit.

[36] R.C. Sproul, Getting the Gospel Right. The Tie that Binds Evangelicals Together, Grand Rapids, Baker 1999, 86.

[37] “The Gift of Salvation. A Reflection by IFED”, unpublished paper (1999). Part IV of this article is also indebted to it.

[38] The GJC text was published on Christianity Today (Jun 14, 1999) 51-56. R.C. Sproul provides an useful, article by article, commentary in Getting the Gospel Right, cit.

[39] In a brief letter Cornelius Plantinga, John Stackouse and Nicholas Wolterstorff, amongst others, have expressed reservations on the fact that GJC seems to refer to justification at the expense of sanctification, thus failing to represent a real evangelical consensus; cf. Christianity Today (Oct 4, 1999) 15.

[40] The following paragraphs are based on a statement issued by IFED and endorsed by the Italian Evangelical Alliance, “Orientamenti evangelici per pensare il cattolicesimo”, Ideaitalia III:5 (1999) 7-8.

[41] Classical protestant (read: neo-orthodox) works that deal with these aspects of Catholicism are those by Vittorio Subilia, Il problema del cattolicesimo (E.T. The Problem of Catholicism, London, SCM 1965) and La nuova cattolicità del cattolicesimo, Torino, Claudiana 1967.

[42] Daryl Charles, “Assessing Recent Pronouncements on Justification: Evidence from “The Gift of Salvation” and the Catholic Catechism”, Pro Ecclesia (1999).

[43] Hodge and Spurgeon do not seem to share the same dilemma if their positions on Catholicism are considered more fully. Hodge’s critique is epitomized in his 1869 “Letter to pope Pius IX”, The Banner of Truth 415 (1998) 22-25 written on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the USA. As for Spurgeon, cf. the anthology edited by T.F. Kauffman, Geese in Their Hoods. C.H. Spurgeon’s Writings on Roman Catholicism, Huntsville, White Horse Publ. 1997.


Il papa visita i pentecostali, l’Alleanza Evangelica: “persistono le divisioni”


Intervista rilasciata dal vice-presidente dell’Alleanza Evangelica Italiana, Leonardo De Chirico

Il clamore destato è davvero ecumenico e interreligioso. Almeno quello. Papa Francesco ha incontrato oggi a Caserta, presso la Chiesa della Riconciliazione, il pastore evangelico Giovanni Traettino, suo vecchio amico. Ma di curioso c’è, soprattutto, la tempistica. L’incontro, che Bergoglio ha voluto mantenere privato, è avvenuto infatti a poco più di una settimana dalla tavola rotonda “Il cattolicesimo contemporaneo: una prospettiva evangelica”, organizzata ad Aversa. Allora, diverse realtà interne alla confessione protestante, tra cui l’Alleanza evangelica italiana, la Federazione delle chiese pentecostali e le Assemblee di Dio in Italia, avevano ribadito l’inconciliabilità della visione evangelica con l’istituzione cattolica.

“È cambiato l’atteggiamento della chiesa romana, non la sostanza – spiega Leonardo De Chirico, vicepresidente dell’AEI, pastore e promotore della tavola rotonda – La chiesa cattolica non è intervenuta in nessuno degli ambiti che, cinque secolo or sono, hanno portato alla Riforma protestante: sola Scrittura, solo Cristo, sola grazia. Va bene l’amicizia, va bene la collaborazione ove possibile, ma bisogna fare attenzione”.

Il passo da Aversa a Caserta è breve, una ventina di chilometri e poco più. Una distanza infinitesimale, se rapportata a quella espressa dal documento pubblicato dall’Alleanza evangelica dopo la tavola rotonda. “Ma l’obiettivo non era questo incontro – prosegue il pastore De Chirico – Sappiamo che in passato Giovanni Traettino aveva avuto contatti, talvolta dagli sviluppi teatrali, con alcuni movimenti della chiesa cattolica. Poi la dichiarazione ‘Dominus Iesus’, firmata dall’allora cardinale Ratzinger nel 2000 e che ribadiva che la chiesa era una sola, quella cattolica, congelò i rapporti. L’elezione di papa Francesco ha ripristinato questo flirt, facilitato dalla loro frequentazione in America latina”.

Il documento redatto dall’AEI dopo la tavola rotonda parla di “insegnamenti incompatibili”, come quello di una “chiesa che si sente mediatrice di salvezza e che presenta altre figure come mediatrici di grazia”, che ha aggiunto “dogmi (come quelli mariani) alla fede una volta e per sempre trasmessa ai santi” e che “ha il suo cuore in uno stato politico, retaggio di una chiesa imperiale da cui ha assunto titoli e prerogative”. “Non è un antagonismo pregiudiziale, né una chiusura al dialogo – aggiunge ancora De Chirico – L’unità e l’ecumenismo sono obiettivi da perseguire, così come insegna la Bibbia, attraverso verità e carità. Non una senza l’altra. L’unità può avere come unico collante la Parola di Dio. La chiesa cattolica parla di grazia ma poi la mischia alle opere e ai sacramenti, si fa chiamare chiesa di Cristo ma ha un background imperiale, dice di valorizzare la Bibbia ma poi la subordina alla tradizione. E non ultimo si assume la responsabilità di riconoscere nel vicario di Cristo la persona che oggi ha incontrato il pastore Traettino”.

Non di meno, anche negli ambienti evangelici risulta crescente un sentimento di apertura e apprezzamento, in particolare dall’elezione di papa Bergoglio. “Quello che registriamo è un cambiamento nell’atteggiamento – prosegue ancora il vice presidente dell’Alleanza – La chiesa romana, che per anni ci ha perseguitati, oggi ci abbraccia. È quello che Francesco fa anche nei confronti degli atei, degli ebrei e dei musulmani. Tutti uniti in un sentimento di comune umanità. Ecco, questo tipo di unione è quello che stigmatizziamo. Non più di qualche giorno fa, durante il saluto per la fine del Ramadan, il Vaticano si è rivolto ai musulmani come ‘fratelli e sorelle’, distorcendo il significato della fratellanza, che è proprio della Bibbia. La chiesa cattolica ha perseguito in passato le sue mire imperialiste attraverso scomuniche e azioni militari. Quello che noi avvertiamo, è che oggi abbia intrapreso la strada degli abbracci e dei sorrisi”.

Nonostante quella che appare una chiusura piuttosto netta – rimarcata tra l’altro dal comunicato, all’interno del quale non si ritiene “di poter dare inizio e corso a qualsiasi iniziativa o apertura ecumenica nei confronti della Chiesa Cattolica Romana invitando tutti gli evangelici a livello nazionale ed internazionale ad esercitare un sano discernimento biblico” – sta di fatto che la massima autorità cattolica è stata ricevuta da un pastore pentecostale ed ha pranzato con 350 membri della chiesa. Segno che le divisioni persistono, ma anche all’interno della sola realtà evangelica. “Il 19 luglio (giorno della tavola rotonda, ndr) abbiamo avuto adesioni importanti come quella delle ADI e della Chiesa Apostolica e delle Congregazioni pentecostali. È stato, in un certo senso, un momento di ecumenismo interno. Abbiamo riflettuto insieme sulle sfide che ci attendono e soprattutto sul recente atteggiamento della chiesa cattolica nei nostri confronti. Non si tratta di un antagonismo legato all’ideologia o a un passato in cui siamo stati perseguitati, sebbene non lo dimentichiamo e non ne siamo schiavi – conclude De Chirico – Per l’unità, però, c’è bisogno di condivisione sui fondamenti del vangelo”. Che ancora non c’è.

Fonte: www.buonanotizia.org

Alleanza Evangelica Italiana
Vicolo S. Agata 20
00153 Roma

Lumen Fidei. La prima enciclica di Papa Francesco

8 luglio 2013

Come supreme autorità della Chiesa Cattolica Romana, i Papi scrivono encicliche per esporre gli aspetti della fede cristiana che ritengono particolarmente rilevanti o importanti per il loro tempo. Le encicliche segnano il profilo teologico di un dato pontificato e ne forniscono un griglia interpretativa. E’, quindi, interessante leggere la prima enciclica di Papa Francesco che si intitola Lumen Fidei (LF), la luce della fede. E’ il primo lavoro teologicamente articolato di Bergoglio da quando è diventato Papa Francesco.

Il primo elemento degno di nota è che in realtà si tratta di un lavoro che viene da Benedetto XVI, ora Papa emerito. Ratzinger aveva pianificato una trilogia di encicliche sulle virtù teologali: amore, speranza e fede (in questo ordine). A questo proposito ha scritto Deus caritas est (2005) e Spe Salvi (2007) ed era in procinto di pubblicare quella finale sulla fede, avendo già completato la prima bozza. Le sue dimissioni inaspettate nel febbraio 2013 hanno di fatto congelato il progetto. Evidentemente, però, Ratzinger ha passato il manoscritto a Francesco che ha pensato di firmarlo come parte del suo insegnamento e dopo l’aggiunta di “un paio di contributi” da parte sua (7). Siamo quindi di fronte ad una enciclica firmata da Francesco, ma in gran parte frutto del pensiero di Benedetto XVI.

Il contributo di Ratzinger è evidente in tutto il testo. Quasi tutte le citazioni provengono dalla tradizione tedesca (ad esempio F. Nietzsche, 2; M. Buber, 13; R. Guardini, 22; L. Wittgenstein, 27; H. Schlier, 30) o dalla grande cultura europea (Dante, 4; J.-J. Rousseau, 14; F. Dostoevskij, 16; J.H. Newman, 48; T.S. Eliot, 75). E’ chiaro che uno studioso come Ratzinger stia dietro queste discussioni. L’amato Agostino è di gran lunga il più citato Padre della chiesa (ad esempio 10, 15, 19, 23, 31, 33, 43, 48). E’ stata la teologia di Agostino ad essere oggetto della ricerca di dottorato di Ratzinger. I temi e il tono del pensiero di Ratzinger sono anche fortemente riflessi nel modo in questa Enciclica si occupa della questione della verità e del relativismo (ad esempio 25), o della modernità e del suo “totalitarismo” che esclude la fede (ad esempio 54).

Apparentemente Francesco è a proprio agio con tutto questo e quindi non ha operato cambiamenti o modifiche. LF ricorda “il dono della successione apostolica” attraverso la quale alla memoria della Chiesa è data continuità (49) e l’enciclica stessa testimonia la successione ininterrotta del Papato, anche per quanto riguarda la dottrina.

LF è una lunga riflessione sulla fede, divisa in quattro parti. Si inizia con il personaggio biblico di Abramo e la successiva storia del popolo di Israele. Il linguaggio è biblico (per esempio, la fede è l’opposto dell’idolatria, 13) e il tono è evangelico (ad esempio, la fede è un “incontro personale”, 13). A un certo punto il testo si spinge fino a dire che “crediamo in Gesù quando lo accogliamo personalmente nella nostra vita e ci affidiamo a Lui” (18). Fermandosi qui, si potrebbe pensare che questo sia un documento evangelico che sottolinea il linguaggio personale della fede. Questa non la storia intera, tuttavia.

Continuando a leggere si trova una sezione intitolata “La salvezza per fede”. Si noti l’assenza dell’avverbio “sola”, che è ovviamente fondamentale per la comprensione evangelica della salvezza. La Riforma protestante del XVI secolo ha insistito sul fatto che la salvezza è “per sola fede”, ma dal Concilio di Trento in poi, la Chiesa cattolica non ha accettato la dottrina della salvezza per sola grazia mediante la sola fede. Infatti, Francesco scrive che “L’inizio della salvezza è l’apertura a qualcosa che precede” (19). La fede, suggerisce il Papa, è solo l’inizio del processo, ma il cammino del credente richiede la fede più le opere, la fede attraverso i sacramenti, e la fede con la Chiesa che impartisce i sacramenti. In altre parole, la fede della LF è la fede che il Concilio di Trento ha definito nei suoi decreti e canoni. Parte del linguaggio è diventato evangelico, ma al suo centro la sostanza teologica è rimasta tridentina.

La terza parte della LF spiega nel dettaglio come ciò avvenga. Qui Francesco (e Benedetto) vuole sottolineare il fatto che la Chiesa è “la madre della nostra fede” (37-38). La nostra fede non è mai nata in noi stessi come individui, ma ci precede e ci segue. E’ attraverso “la Tradizione apostolica conservata nella Chiesa” che la fede nasce e si nutre. Citando il Concilio Vaticano II, Francesco scrive che la Chiesa “racchiude tutto quello che serve per vivere la vita santa e per accrescere la fede del Popolo di Dio, e così nella sua dottrina, nella sua vita e nel suo culto la Chiesa perpetua e trasmette a tutte le generazioni tutto ciò che essa è, tutto ciò che essa crede” (40). Non è più la Parola di Dio che apre la strada, ma la Chiesa. Il modo in cui lo fa è attraverso i sacramenti. In un passaggio rivelatore, LF dice che “la fede stessa ha una struttura sacramentale” (40). Secondo LF, la fede è un incontro personale, ma la fede è anche ricevuta attraverso i sacramenti. Queste sono le due facce della stessa medaglia. Quello che segue è una breve spiegazione della dottrina cattolica romana della rigenerazione battesimale (41-43) e dell’Eucaristia (44-45), che sono la porta della fede e la sua espressione più alta. Il Papa continua a dire che questa dottrina è una ed integra, vale a dire che le dimensioni personali e sacramentali della fede sono indivise (47-49).

Come in tutte le encicliche, anche LF termina con una invocazione a Maria, “Madre della Chiesa, Madre della nostra fede” (58-60). Mentre i discepoli chiesero a Gesù di aumentare la loro fede (Luca 17,5), LF si conclude con una preghiera a Maria: “Aiuta, o Madre, la nostra fede”.
Lumen Fidei ben raffigura l’impiego attuale del linguaggio evangelico in importanti settori della Chiesa cattolica romana. Esso è iniziato con la parola “evangelizzazione” e ora prosegue con la fede come “incontro personale”. L’uso di tale espressione, tuttavia, deve essere messo nel contesto della tradizionale dottrina cattolica romana che è tridentina, sacramentale e mariana.

61. Lumen Fidei, primera Encíclica del papa Francisco

La fe de la LF es la fe que el Concilio de Trento definió en sus decretos y cánones. Parte del lenguaje llega a ser evangélico, pero su núcleo teológico es católico romano.

14 DE JULIO DE 2013

Como maestros supremos de la Iglesia Católico Romana (ICR), los Papas escriben encíclicas para exponer los aspectos de la fe cristiana católica que consideran que pueden ser particularmente relevantes o importantes para la gente de su tiempo.

Las encíclicas marcan el perfil teológico de un pontificado determinado y proporcionan un útil enrejado interpretativo del mismo. Por consiguiente, es interesante leer la primera encíclica del Papa Francisco que fue presentada oficialmente el 5 de Julio de 2013 y se titula:  Lumen Fidei  (LF), (La Luz de la Fe).

Es la primera obra articulada teológicamente desde que se convirtió en el Papa Francisco.

El primer elemento que cabe destacar es que realmente es un trabajo que procede de Benedicto XVI, ahora Papa emérito.

Ratzinger había planeado una trilogía de encíclicas sobre las virtudes teológicas del Amor, la Esperanza y la Fe (en este orden). A este respecto escribió  Deus Caritas Est  (Dios es Amor, 2005) y  Spe Salvi  (Salvados por la Esperanza, 2007) y estaba a punto de publicar la última sobre la Fe, habiendo ya completado el primer borrador.
Su inesperada dimisión trajo consigo una interrupción de la misma. Como es de suponer pasó el manuscrito a Francisco quien pensó que sería una buena idea publicarlo como una parte de su misma enseñanza y posteriormente añadir “algunas contribuciones” de su propia cosecha (7).

Nos enfrentamos, por lo tanto, a una encíclica firmada por Francisco, pero conformada en gran medida por Benedicto XVI.

La contribución de Ratzinger es evidente a través de todo el texto. Casi todas las citas proceden o bien de la tradición alemana (p.e. F. Nietzsche, 2; M. Buber, 13; R. Guardini, 22; L. Wittgenstein, 27; H. Schlier, 30) o de la mayor cultura europea (Dante, 4; J.-J. Rousseau, 14; F. Dostoevsky, 16; J.H. Newman, 48; T.S. Eliot, 75).

Queda claro que un erudito como Ratzinger está detrás de estas discusiones. El muy amado Agustín es, con diferencia, el Padre de la Iglesia más citado (p.e. 10, 15, 19, 23, 31, 33, 43, 48). La teología de Agustín fue el sujeto del doctorado de Ratzinger. Los temas y el matiz del pensamiento de Ratzinger también están fuertemente reflejados en la forma en que sus encíclicas tratan los asuntos de la verdad y el relativismo (p.e. 25) o la modernidad y su “totalitarismo” que excluye la fe (p.e. 54).

Aparentemente Francisco encuentra satisfactorio todo esto y, por lo tanto, no hace cambios ni modificaciones.

LF recuerda “el don de la sucesión apostólica” a través de la cual la memoria de “la” Iglesia tiene garantizada la continuidad (49) y la encíclica en sí misma testifica la sucesión ininterrumpida del Papado incluso en lo que se refiere a la doctrina.

LF es una larga reflexión sobre la fe, dividida en cuatro partes. Empieza con el carácter bíblico de Abraham y la subsiguiente historia del pueblo de Israel. El lenguaje es bíblico (p.e. la fe se aparta de la idolatría, 13) y el tono es evangélico (p.e. la fe es un “encuentro personal”, 13). Hay un punto en que el texto va tan lejos como para decir que “Creemos en Jesús cuando lo acogemos personalmente en nuestras vidas y viajamos hacia él, aferrándonos a él en el amor y siguiendo sus pasos a lo largo del camino” (18).

Quedándose aquí se puede pensar que éste es un documento evangélico que acentúa el lenguaje personal de la fe. Pero, no es toda la historia. Si se sigue leyendo se encuentra una sección titulada “La salvación por la fe”. Se observa la ausencia del adverbio “sola”, la cual es desde luego fundamental para una comprensión evangélica de la salvación.

La Reforma Protestante del siglo XVI insistía en que la salvación es “por la fe sola”, pero desde el Concilio de Trento, la Iglesia Católico Romana no ha aceptado la doctrina de la salvación por la gracia sola a través de la fe sola.

En realidad, Francisco escribe que “el principio de la salvación es la apertura a algo más importante que nosotros mismos” (19).

La fe, indica el Papa, es únicamente el comienzo del proceso, pero el viaje del creyente requiere la fe más las obras, la fe mediante los sacramentos y la fe con la Iglesia que imparte los sacramentos. En otras palabras, la fe de la LF es la fe que el Concilio de Trento definió en sus decretos y cánones. Parte del lenguaje ha llegado a ser evangélico, pero en su núcleo la sustancia teológica es católico romana.

La tercera parte de la LF se explica con más detalle. En ésta Francisco (y Benedicto) quieren subrayar el hecho de que la Iglesia es “la madre de nuestra fe”(37-38).

Nuestra fe nunca surge en nosotros como individuos, sino que nos precede y nos sigue. Es mediante “la Tradición apostólica preservada por la Iglesia” que la fe nace y es alimentada. Citando al Vaticano II, Francisco escribe que “la Iglesia, en su doctrina, su vida y su culto, perpetúa y transmite a cada generación todo lo que ella misma es, todo lo que cree” (40).

Ya no es la Palabra de Dios la que guía el camino, sino “la” Iglesia. La forma en que lo hace es a través de los sacramentos. En un revelador pasaje, LF dice que “la fe en sí misma posee una estructura sacramental” (40). Según LF, la fe es un encuentro personal, pero la fe también se recibe mediante los sacramentos. Son las dos caras de la misma moneda. Lo que sigue es una breve explicación de la doctrina católico romana de la regeneración bautismal (41-43) y de la Eucaristía (44-45), las cuales son la puerta de entrada a la fe y a su más alta expresión. El Papa continúa diciendo que esta doctrina es una y la misma, es decir, las dimensiones sacramentales y personales de la fe son indivisibles (47-49).

Como es común en las encíclicas, LF también termina con una invocación a María, “Madre de la Iglesia, Madre de nuestra fe”(58-60). Mientras los discípulos pidieron al Señor que les aumentara su fe (Lucas 17:5), LF acaba con una oración a María: “¡Madre, ayuda a nuestra fe!”.

Lumen Fidei representa la apropiación actual del lenguaje evangélico por parte de importantes sectores de la Iglesia Católico Romana. Empezó con la “evangelización” y ahora continúa con la fe como “un encuentro personal”.

El Papa Francisco parece estar liderando el camino en este proceso. Esta apropiación, no obstante, debe ponerse en el contexto de la doctrina católico romana tradicional que es tridentina, sacramental y mariana.