{"id":1577,"date":"2018-11-01T06:00:16","date_gmt":"2018-11-01T05:00:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=1577"},"modified":"2018-11-20T10:45:19","modified_gmt":"2018-11-20T09:45:19","slug":"155","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/nl\/2018\/11\/155\/","title":{"rendered":"155. Roman but Not Catholic: A Book Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

November 1st, 2018<\/em><\/p>\n

What remains at stake with the Roman Catholic Church 500 years after the Protestant Reformation? This question is of capital importance given the general ecumenical climate, which blurs differences and even finds them disturbing to talk about. The book Roman but Not Catholic: What Remains at Stake 500 Years after the Reformation<\/a> provides timely food for thought in assessing the historical and theological implausibility of Rome being \u201ccatholic\u201d and \u201cRoman\u201d at the same time. Written by two evangelical scholars (Kenneth Collins, professor of historical theology at Asbury Theological Seminary, and Jerry Walls, professor of philosophy at Houston Baptist University), this work is an engaging exercise in historical theology that helpfully grapples with the defining claims of the Roman Catholic Church: on the one hand, its claim of \u00a0\u201ccatholicity\u201d (universality), and on the other, its \u201cRoman\u201d structure. This combination is essential to the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is highly questionable on various grounds. The book is a well-argued critique of the very fabric of Roman Catholicism.<\/p>\n

Roman and Catholic?
\n<\/em><\/strong>First, let\u2019s have a look at the main claim that shapes Roman Catholicism. Its catholicity has a Roman<\/em> element so intertwined that it is an inextricable part of the whole. \u201cRoman\u201d is not just a geographical reference, but an essential and constitutive part of a system that is both Roman and catholic, or better still, \u201cRoman Catholic\u201d in a single breath. The romanitas<\/em> of the system is co-essential with its catholicity. According to Jaroslav Pelikan, \u201cthe name \u2018Roman Catholic\u2019 conjoined the universality of the Church over the entire world, which has long been the content of the term \u2018Catholic\u2019, with the specificity of only one single see\u201d[1]<\/a>, that of Rome.<\/p>\n

Within the Western tradition, then, Roman catholicity is a long-established union of catholic universality and Roman particularity, catholic plurality and Roman unity, catholic comprehensiveness and Roman distinctiveness, the catholic totus <\/em>(whole) and the Roman locus<\/em> (place), catholic fullness and Roman partiality, catholic breadth and Roman narrowness, catholic elasticity and Roman rigidity, the catholic universe and the Roman center, catholic organism and Roman organization, the catholic faith and the Roman structure. Roman Catholicism wants to affirm both. But is it a warranted claim biblically or even historically?<\/p>\n

Pointed Critique
\n<\/em><\/strong>Having briefly described the nature of the combination of Roman and Catholic elements in the Roman Catholic Church, the main critique of the authors is intelligently summarized at a number of points in the book. For example, the authors state, \u201cRoman Catholicism represents not the universal church, as is so often claimed, but instead a distinct theological tradition, one among others<\/em>\u201d (p. 30, emphasis in the text). If Roman Catholicism is Roman, it cannot be truly catholic, and since Roman Catholicism wants to be Roman, it is not truly catholic.<\/p>\n

The book surveys the development of Roman traditions that departed from the catholic (read: biblical) stream of the ancient church. Along the way, ecclesiastical voice and power supplemented and ultimately overtook biblical authority (ch. 2-4). The Roman Church grew its exclusive claims (ch. 6-7). The rise of the papacy became the climax of the Romanization of Catholicism (ch. 8 and 11-12). The sacraments were used to divide rather than to unite Christians (ch. 9). Accounts of the Mary of the Bible were idealized, which reflected the Roman Catholic synthesis (chps. 15-16).<\/p>\n

\u201cIn short,\u201d the authors say,\u201cironic though it is, the Church of Rome is not sufficiently catholic\u201d (p. 83). The cumulative argument presented is that Rome wants to tie its romanitas <\/em>(made of imperial structure, political power, hierarchical organization, extra-biblical traditions) to its status as the only church of Jesus Christ where the fullness of grace can be found. But this is exactly the point at issue. By wanting to be Roman, the Church ceases to be catholic. Hence the brilliant title: Roman but not Catholic!<\/p>\n

This critique is always gently and respectfully put, but it has devastating effects on the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church if it is taken seriously. Among other things, it means that the Roman aspect of the church takes precedence over the biblical outlook and leads it away from clear biblical teaching in core areas like tradition, authority, Mariology, salvation, etc. It means that its Roman Catholicity was given primacy over its biblical catholicity, thus altering the fundamental commitments of the Roman Church.<\/p>\n

One Standing Issue
\n<\/em><\/strong>The book is outstanding in its impressive scholarship and careful argumentation. I have many words of commendation with only one remaining criticism. The authors, though masterly at presenting a convincing case, don\u2019t go far enough in coming to terms with its consequences. They still operate with the mindset that what divides Evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church is less than what unites them. Here is the way they put it: \u201cDeep Disagreement despite Deeper Agreement\u201d (p. 78). According to them, the deeper agreement is the Trinitarian and Christological foundation of the \u201ccatholic\u201d tradition (as it is enshrined in the early creeds of the ancient church), whereas the deep disagreement refers to the later Roman accretions (as they are, for example, reflected in the papacy).<\/p>\n

This way of understanding the dividing line between Evangelicals and Catholics is popular in ecumenical circles, but it is not fully consistent with the thesis endorsed by the authors. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is committed to its Roman identity and to its catholic heritage means that even the catholic (i.e. Trinitarian and Christological) core is affected by its Roman commitment. According to the Catholic Church, the Roman and non-biblical elements (i.e. the Roman pontiff, the Roman imperial institutions, the Roman hierarchical ecclesiology) are not accidents of history; they are considered to be de iure divino<\/em> (i.e. stemming from divine law, being rooted in God\u2019s will) constitutive components of the church. For Rome, its catholic and Roman dual identity is grounded in the divine will. So these foundational Roman commitments do impact the way\u00a0 in which the \u201ccatholic\u201d ones are understood and articulated in doctrine and practice. The \u201ccatholic\u201d heritage of Rome has been shaped, curved, and bent by its Roman additions to the point that it is no longer the way it was in the ancient church. It is a different catholicity. It is Roman Catholicism.<\/p>\n

Moreover, all of the spurious Roman elements are argued for in Trinitarian and Christological ways by Roman Catholic theology. For example, the Pope is believed to be the \u201cvicar\u201d of Christ and chosen by the Holy Spirit. This is a Trinitarian argument, but a kind of Trinitarianism that is significantly different from the biblical one to the point of allowing and demanding the wrong Roman developments.<\/p>\n

The point is that the \u201cdeep disagreements despite deeper agreement\u201d approach adopted in the book should actually be reversed. Between the Evangelical faith and Rome are deep agreements despite deeper disagreements<\/em>. \u201cRoman but not Catholic\u201d means that the catholic that is in Rome is no longer biblically catholic, but distortedly Roman Catholic, and needs to be reformed according to the gospel.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a>J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition<\/em>, vol. 4 (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1963) pp. 245-246.<\/p>\n

\"Share<\/a>