Posted on

84. Roman Catholic Ecumenism: Let the Italian Evangelicals Speak

July 23rd, 2014

Defining it as “historical” may be an overstatement. However, what happened on July 19 is a landmark in 150 years of Italian evangelicalism. For the first time ever, nearly 100 percent of Italian evangelical churches and bodies (85 percent of the 500.000 Italian Protestants) signed a common statement reinforcing their evangelical commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ. This statement provides biblical standards to assess the mounting ecumenical pressure coming from the Roman Catholic Church to expand its catholicity at the expense of biblical truth.

Never before have Italian evangelicals reached such a large consensus and spoken with one voice on such a crucial topic. The churches and bodies that endorsed this statement represent the near totality of evangelicals who have a conservative Protestant theology and a strong evangelistic commitment.

No Minority Report

Italy is a unique place. Vatican City is “in” Italy, exercising widespread influence. The Roman Catholic Church has been a major religious, cultural, and political force for centuries. Religious minorities have been persecuted for ages. The Italian Reformation gave to the wider church some excellent men in the 16th and 17th centuries (including Peter Martyr Vermigli, Jerome Zanchi, and Francis Turretini) but was prevented from taking root in the country. Still today the situation is unbalanced with the Roman Catholic Church having enormous privileges while other religious groups are discriminated. Italian evangelicals have many reasons to be resentful. However, this is not the point of the new statement. With this document they are sending the message that their assessment is not a result of historical frustration. They want to look at Roman Catholicism according to biblical principles. It is not a minority report. It wants to be a truly biblical report.

Italian evangelicals are increasingly puzzled by the way in which evangelicals globally relate to the Roman Catholic Church and to Pope Francis in particular. Some analysis is based on personal impressions or the seemingly evangelical language of the pope, or on truncated bits of information that fall short of taking notice of the complexity of Roman Catholicism. There is much naiveté and superficiality. The wider evangelical Protestant family needs to hear the voice of their Italian fellow-brothers and sisters who look at Roman Catholicism from inside and with long experience in dealing with its full ideological and symbolic force.

‘Italian Evangelicals on Contemporary Catholicism’

Here is the full text:

Following a round table promoted by the Italian Evangelical Alliance, the Federation of Pentecostal Churches, the Assemblies of God in Italy, the Apostolic Church, and the Pentecostal Congregations held in Aversa on 19th July 2014 at the Pentecostal College of Religious Sciences on the topic of “Roman Catholicism in Evangelical Perspective,” the above mentioned churches and bodies, being alerted by the recent ecumenical openings by national and international evangelical and Pentecostal circles with regards to the Roman Catholic Church and its present-day pontiff, without passing judgment on the faith of individual people, believe nonetheless that it is incompatible with the teaching of Scripture to have a church that operates as mediator of salvation and that presents other figures as mediators of grace since God’s grace comes to us by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8) and without the agency of other mediators (1 Timothy 2:5).

They also believe that it is incompatible with biblical teaching to have a church that took the liberty to add dogmas (such as the Marian dogmas) to the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3; Revelation 22:18).

They also believe that it is incompatible with the teaching of Scripture to have a church whose heart is a political state that is a legacy of an “imperial” church from which it has inherited titles and prerogatives. Christian churches must refrain from imitating “the princes of this world” and follow the example of Jesus who came to serve and not to be served (Mark 10:42-45).

Furthermore they also believe that what appear to be similarities with the evangelical faith and spirituality of sectors of Roman Catholicism are not in themselves reasons for hope in a true change.

All the standing theological and ethical differences considered, they cannot initiate nor advocate for ecumenical initiatives with regard to the Roman Catholic Church.

They invite all evangelicals at the national and international levels to exercise a healthy biblical discernment (1 John 4:1) without falling into unionist initiatives that are contrary to Scripture and instead renew their commitment to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world (Matthew 28:18-20).

Why “Reconciled Diversity” is Not the Way Forward

“Reconciled diversity” is a technical expression in ecumenical theology firstly used by 20th-century Lutheran theologian Oscar Culmann. More and more evangelicals think that this is the way forward. It basically means that you agree to disagree and that you accept your ecumenical partner as is.

However, the Roman Catholic Church is not a simple denomination. It is a church-state, with a monarch, political claims, and an army. It has never renounced any unbiblical dogma of the past and has all the apparatus in place to exercise “imperial” practices. Do we really want to say that we accept to be different with such an entity? While it is true that evangelicals should point to the fact that we are united with those who trust in Christ alone for their salvation, they should still find the Catholic church as an institution to be in need of radical reformation according to the Word of God. There is no “reconciled diversity” with sin and rebellion and with “arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:5). Quite the contrary!

If evangelicals apply the “reconciled diversity” approach to the Roman Catholic Church as it stands they will stop being a prophetic voice according to the gospel, and they will become part of the present-day religious cacophony. The Bible warns God’s people to make alliances with a “splintered reed of a staff which pierces the hand of anyone who leans on it” (2 Kings 18:21). Biblically speaking, “reconciled diversity” grossly misunderstands the nature of the Roman Catholic Church and fails to be faithful to the task of maintaining unity in biblical truth and love.

Posted on

1. L’engagement du Vatican dans la Nouvelle Evangélisation ?

Rome, le 18 octobre 2010

Il n’est pas courant qu’un nouveau Conseil Pontifical soit mis en place au Vatican, étant donné le caractère conservateur de cette institution. Le pape Benoît XVI vient pourtant de rendre public le motu proprio (intitulé Ubicumque et semper, “partout et toujours”) qui établit un Conseil pontifical pour la promotion de la nouvelle évangélisation. L’une des raisons pour lesquelles cette mesure mérite que l’on y prête une attention toute particulière est qu’il s’agit d’une initiative sur du long terme. La préoccupation qui est au cœur de l’appellation du Conseil a également une importance capitale, en particulier pour des évangéliques qui se complairaient dans l’idée qu’ils ont un « monopole » sur tout ce qui touche à l’évangélisation. Nous avons là affaire à un bureau du Vatican dont l’objectif est de favoriser la nouvelle évangélisation de l’Occident. Les évangéliques devraient également prêter attention à la longue citation d’Evangelii nuntiandi, un document du Vatican relatif à la mission, datant de 1975, et que beaucoup d’observateurs ont considéré comme l’équivalent catholique romain de la Déclaration de Lausanne de 1974. La mission au sein des pays occidentaux est donc l’une des priorités du Vatican.

Le pape Ratzinger a toujours été préoccupé par le fait de chercher à se confronter aux défis de l’Occident sécularisé. De bien des manières ses premières années en tant que pape peuvent être analysées comme une tentative de faire face à ce problème. La mise en place de ce nouveau Conseil en est le versant « institutionnel ». La lettre fait référence à des thèmes qui sont chers à Benoît XVI : il souligne la diminution progressive de la pratique du christianisme dans les pays industrialisés ainsi que l’abandon continuel des valeurs chrétiennes dans les sociétés occidentales, qui conduisent au mieux à de l’indifférence, au pire à des attitudes antichrétiennes. Pour faire simple, le pape pense que la « sécularisation » est le principal ennemi spirituel de l’Eglise. Il appelle l’Eglise à se lancer dans une phase de revitalisation de sa vie intérieure pour faire face aux tendances séculières. La lettre pontificale Ubicumque et semper n’inclut pas une théologie bien définie de la nouvelle évangélisation. Cependant, il y a des pistes qui méritent peut-être que l’on s’y arrête et qui mettent en perspective cette nouvelle mesure du Vatican.

La rhétorique de la déchristianisation progressive de l’Europe est une constante dans les allocutions papales depuis la Révolution française. « Qui pèse ces choses a droit de craindre qu’une telle perversion des esprits ne soit le commencement des maux annoncés pour la fin des temps, et comme leur prise de contact avec la terre, et que véritablement “le fils de perdition” dont parle l’Apôtre (II Thess. II, 3) n’ait déjà fait son avènement parmi nous. Si grande est l’audace et si grande la rage avec lesquelles on se rue partout à l’attaque de la religion, on bat en brèche les dogmes de la foi, on tend d’un effort obstiné à anéantir tout rapport de l’homme avec la Divinité ! » Ces mots pourraient être ceux de Ratzinger, mais ils furent écrits par Pie X en 1903 dans son encyclique E supremi apostolatus (n. 5). D’une certaine manière, il n’y a rien de nouveau sous le soleil. Les Eglises se sont retrouvées à croiser le fer avec différentes formes de sécularisation depuis au moins trois siècles. La nouveauté, c’est peut-être que les Eglises institutionnelles risquent de perdre leur statut privilégié dans une société pluraliste. Il semblerait que la sécularisation actuelle ne s’accommode guère des arrangements entre l’Eglise et l’Etat antérieurs à la Révolution. Est-ce cela dont Ratzinger a le plus peur ?

Dans son évaluation des dangers de la sécularisation, Benoît XVI accuse cette dernière de toutes sortes de maux. Son analyse est correcte de bien des manières. Mais il manque quelque chose d’important. Il ne fait aucune mention de la responsabilité de l’Eglise dans la situation misérable de la chrétienté occidentale. L’Eglise a-t-elle vraiment travaillé d’arrache-pied pour proclamer avec intégrité l’Evangile au monde moderne qui l’observait ? L’Eglise a-t-elle été fidèle à la Parole de Dieu ? L’Eglise est-elle dans une certaine mesure responsable d’avoir au moins en partie provoqué ces inquiétantes tendances sécularistes ? L’Eglise devrait-elle examiner ses propres péchés avant de pointer du doigt le monde ? Ce document ne s’occupe pas de cela. Il n’en pose même pas la question !

L’Eglise est encouragée à promouvoir la nouvelle évangélisation et à raviver son ardeur pour la mission d’influencer la société. Ce document n’exprime pas d’espoir de conversion à l’Evangile, comme l’exprimerait la Déclaration de Lausanne. Il espère plutôt la restauration d’une société chrétienne au sein de laquelle les valeurs chrétiennes seraient honorées, mises en pratique, et l’Eglise reconnue comme influençant et défendant la société. Que vise l’évangélisation ? Veut-elle favoriser la nostalgie d’une « société chrétienne » telle qu’elle a pu exister en Europe dans le passé ? Mais ces sociétés étaient-elles chrétiennes au sens de l’Evangile ? Ne devrions-nous pas accepter le défi d’évangéliser l’Occident sans chercher à simplement revenir en arrière ?

Pour finir, un commentaire sur les outils que le pape Benoît XVI considère comme cruciaux pour réaliser cette tâche. En première ligne se trouve « l’utilisation du Catéchisme de l’Eglise catholique, comme formulation essentielle et complète du contenu de la foi ». Que le chef de l’Eglise catholique romaine fasse la promotion de l’utilisation du Catéchisme est parfaitement légitime. Cependant, le peuple de l’Evangile se serait attendu à ce que le pape encourage la lecture, l’étude et le partage de la Bible. De toute évidence, pour lui le Catéchisme contient la Bible, et non l’inverse.

Posted on

83. What Francis Really Thinks of the Reformation (and of Calvin in Particular)

June 23rd, 2014

Friendly. Appreciative. Always wanting to stress commonalities and to lay aside differences. This has been the popular image of Pope Francis in his dealings with non-Catholics thus far. Many are impressed by his easy-going style that often seeks to affirm others. This may have been the rule but now there is an exception, and a very significant one. The recent re-publication of a lecture on the history of the Jesuits that Archbishop Bergoglio gave in Argentina in 1985 indicates the kind of harsh assessment that he gave of the Protestant Reformation in general and of John Calvin in particular. The lecture was re-published in Spain in 2013 and then translated into Italian in book form (Chi sono i gesuiti, Bologna: EMI, 2014). Since there is no indication that he has changed his mind, we have to consider the contents of the book an accurate reflection of what Francis still thinks of the Protestant Reformation.

Protestantism as the Root of all Evils

In examining the history of the Jesuits Bergoglio gives special attention to their interactions with the Reformation and their role in the Latin-American missions. According to him the inevitable consequences of the Reformation are the annihilation of man in his anxiety (resulting in existential atheism), and a leap in the dark by a type of superman (as envisaged by Nietzsche). Both outcomes lead to “the death of God”, and a kind of “paganism” that manifests itself as Nazism and Marxism. All this originating from the “Lutheran position”! Bergoglio argues that the Reformation is the root of all the tragedies of the modern West, from secularization to the death of God, from totalitarian regimes to ideological suicides.

There is nothing new under the sun. This disparaging and appalling view of the Reformation has been the common reading of modern European history by scores of Counter-reformation Catholic polemists until recent decades. Bergoglio did not invent it. He rather reaffirms it as if more thorough historical research and theological and cultural analyses never took place after the Council of Trent. What can we make of his friendly tones towards Protestants if he really thinks that the “Lutheran position” is to be blamed for all the evils of Western civilization?

John Calvin the Spiritual Executioner

There is more. Bergoglio makes a distinction between Martin Luther the “heretic” and John Calvin the “heretic” and “schismatic”. The Lutheran heresy is “a good idea gone foolish”, but Calvin is even worse because he also tore apart man, society, and the church. As for man, Bergoglio’s Calvin split reason from the heart, thus producing the “Calvinist squalor”. In society, Calvin pitted the bourgeoisie against the other working classes, thus becoming “the father of liberalism”. The worst schism happened in the church, however. There Calvin “beheaded the people of God from being united with the Father”. He beheaded the people of God from its patron saints. He also beheaded it from the mass, i.e. the mediation of the “really present” Christ. In summary, Calvin was an executioner that destroyed man, poisoned society, and ruined the church!

To say that Bergoglio does not like Calvin is an understatement. He has strong feelings against him. But are we sure that he understands Calvin beyond totally biased and outdated clichés? 2017 will mark the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation and will be an opportunity for Francis to go back to more recent history books and get a fairer and more accurate picture of what happened from the XVI century onwards. If he does not revise his assessment of the Reformation all “ecumenical” language will be a superficial mask hiding a real hatred for Luther and (especially) Calvin.

Posted on

82. A Mini-Assisi for the Holy Land?

June 17th, 2014

Assisi is the small town where Francis of Assisi (1181- 1226) lived most of his life and is now a destination for thousands of pilgrims every year. Assisi is also the place where in 1986 Pope John Paul II convened a prayer meeting for peace where different religious leaders came together to pray, each one in his own way and to his own G/god(s). This inter-religious prayer initiative raised some concerns within the Catholic Church as well as outside of it. Was it an endorsement of religious universalism? Was it a way to downplay the exclusive claims of the Gospel? Did it give the impression that all religions are equal? What kind of theology supported that inter-faith and multi-religious prayer? Although Pope Benedict tried to address some of these issues, this debate continues.   

Now Pope Francis has entered the debate in a most unpredictable way. During his recent visit to the Holy Land he invited the Israeli President Shimon Peres and the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to pray for peace in the region (June 8th). In a way this was a mini-Assisi type of event.

The Power of Symbols and the Inherent Confusion

The prayer took place in the Vatican, but the scene was very similar to what happened in Assisi. The Pope (dressed in his usual white robes) sat at the center of a semi-circle, with the Israeli and Palestinian delegations (all dressed in dark black suits) at his right and left hand sides. St. Peter’s cupola overshadowed them all. It was the same setting of Assisi with the Pope being recognized as the “center” of inter-faith dialogue and presiding over inter-religious prayers. In their short speeches both Peres and Abbas readily praised the strategic leadership of the Pope in bringing reconciliation. All the symbols present strongly supported the view that the Papacy is a key institution in bringing the whole of humanity together.

The main difference is that in Assisi John Paul II had invited religious leaders whereas Francis brought political leaders together to pray. No matter what one thinks of inter-faith prayer, the 1986 event was at least coherent in that it called religious leaders to take part. Now, Francis wanted presidents to pray with him instead. The significance of this can be hardly overestimated. The Pope is also head of a state (i.e. the Vatican City) and therefore wears two hats, so to speak. He is a peer of both religious and political leaders. In asking the Israeli President to pray a Jewish prayer and the Palestinian President to pray a Muslim prayer, however, he wrongly attributed to them the role of being representatives of the majority religions of their countries. He exchanged their responsibilities of representing all citizens (e.g. Israeli Christians and Palestinian Christians included) by giving them the hat of Jewish and Muslim religious leaders.

The confusion lies at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church. Because the Pope is both a religious leader and a head of state the distinction between what belongs in the realms of both religion and state is significantly blurred. Francis invited his fellow heads of state and asked them to perform a religious duty as if they were religious leaders. He projected his own dual-identity (religious and political) onto his guests. This in no way represents a healthy relationship between the two spheres.

Standing Perplexities

The 2014 mini-Assisi gathering also used similar language that was used in 1986. In his prayer Francis invoked God as “God of Abraham, God of the Prophets, God of Love” who calls us to live “as brothers and sisters”. He strongly advocated the idea that we have to “acknowledge one another as children of one Father”. “Brother” was the most frequently used word in his speech and the universal Fatherhood of God was the theological framework of the event.

Now this whole language is ambiguous at best. It can be used to indicate the need for peoples of different backgrounds and religions to live together in peace as if they were brothers and sisters. Or it can mean that they are already brothers and sisters, children of the same Father, no matter what their religious convictions are. The stress on the “same God” idea strongly suggests that the latter interpretation is what Francis really meant. The fact that a Christian prayer (with a final invocation to Mary, “the daughter of the Holy Land and our Mother”), a Jewish prayer, and a Muslim prayer were offered one after the other, all containing references to the “same God-same humanity”, points to the idea that all religions are in the end good in themselves, provided that they restore and maintain peace. This is actually what most people took from the mini-Assisi of Pope Francis. After the cautious reservations of Pope Benedict, the “spirit of Assisi” still breathes in the Vatican.

Posted on

83. Lo que Francisco piensa realmente de la Reforma (y de Calvino en particular)

28 DE JUNIO DE 2014

Cordial y elogioso. Deseando siempre subrayar los aspectos comunes y dejar de lado las diferencias. Esta ha sido la imagen popular del Papa Francisco en sus relaciones con los no católicos, hasta ahora.

Muchos están impresionados por su estilo complaciente que con frecuencia busca influir en los demás. Esta puede que haya sido la norma, pero ahora hay una excepción y muy significativa. La reciente reedición de una conferencia perteneciente a la historia de los jesuitas, que el Arzobispo Bergoglio dio en Argentina en 1985, indica la clase de severa evaluación que dio de la Reforma Protestante en general y de Juan Calvino en particular. Esta conferencia se publicó de nuevo en España en 2013 y después se tradujo al italiano en forma de libro ( Chi sono i gesuiti  [Quienes son los jesuitas], Bologna: EMI, 2014). Puesto que no hay ninguna indicación de que haya cambiado su mentalidad, tenemos que considerar el contenido del libro una exacta reflexión de lo que Francisco todavía piensa de la Reforma Protestante.

El protestantismo es la raíz de todos los males

Al examinar la historia de los jesuitas Bergoglio presta una atención especial a sus interacciones con la Reforma y a su papel en las misiones latinoamericanas. Según él, las consecuencias inevitables de la Reforma son la aniquilación del hombre en su ansiedad (dando como resultado el ateismo existencial) y un salto en la oscuridad por una especie de superman (conforme a lo previsto por Nietzsche). Ambos resultados conducen a “la muerte de Dios” y a una clase de “paganismo” que se manifiesta como el nazismo y el marxismo. ¡Todo esto surge a partir de la “posición de Lutero”! Bergoglio argumenta que la Reforma es la raíz de todas las tragedias del Occidente moderno, desde la secularización a la muerte de Dios, desde los regímenes totalitarios a los suicidios ideológicos.

Nada hay nuevo bajo el sol. Este punto de vista despectivo y atroz de la Reforma ha sido la lectura común de la historia moderna europea debido a las puntuaciones dadas por los polemistas católicos de la Contrarreforma hasta décadas recientes. Bergoglio no lo ha inventado. Más bien lo reafirma como si una más exhaustiva investigación histórica y análisis culturales y teológicos no hubieran nunca tenido lugar después del Concilio de Trento. ¿Qué podemos hacer con sus tonos amistosos hacia los protestantes si él realmente cree que tiene que culparse a la “posición Luterana” por todos los males de la civilización occidental?

Juan Calvino el ejecutor espiritual

Todavía hay más. Bergoglio hace una distinción entre Martín Lutero el “hereje” y Juan Calvino el “hereje” y “cismático”. La herejía Luterana es “una buena idea nacida insensata”, pero Calvino es todavía peor porque desgarró al hombre, a la sociedad y a la iglesia; puesto que para el hombre, el Calvino de Bergoglio escindió la razón del corazón, produciendo así la “miseria calvinista”. En la sociedad, Calvino enfrentó la burguesía contra las otras clases trabajadores, convirtiéndose de esta forma en “el padre del liberalismo”. No obstante, el peor cisma sucedió en la iglesia. Allí Calvino “descabezó al pueblo de Dios de su unión con el Padre”. Dejó al pueblo de Dios sin sus santos patrones. También lo descabezó de la misa, es decir, la mediación de Cristo “realmente presente”. En resumen, ¡Calvino fue un ejecutor que destruyó al hombre, envenenó a la sociedad y arruinó a la iglesia!

Decir que a Bergoglio no le gusta Calvino es una atenuación. Experimenta fuertes sentimientos contra él. Pero, ¿estamos seguros de que entiende a Calvino más allá de los clichés anticuados y totalmente sesgados? El año 2017 será el 500º aniversario de la Reforma Protestante y Francisco tendrá una oportunidad para volver a los libros de historia más recientes y obtener una imagen más justa y precisa de lo que ocurrió desde el siglo XVI en adelante. Si no revisa su evaluación de la Reforma todo el lenguaje “ecuménico” será una máscara superficial que oculta un verdadero odio a Lutero y (especialmente) a Calvino.