Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - Mar/67

Contributor - T. Hogerwaard

Title - Rome and The Churches of the Reformation

Topic - Church History

Since the election of Pope John XXIII there has been a considerable and remarkable improvement in the relationship between the Churches of the Reformation and the Church of Rome. Prominent Reformed theologians were honoured guests at the Vatican Council, Roman observers were present at great ecumenical gatherings of Protestant Churches. To say the least: at present it is possible for representatives of Reformed Churches and of Rome to engage in a real theological discussion, something unheard of since the days of the Reformation and the Council of Trent.

There have been two extreme reactions to this development. One is represented by Rev. Paisley, Ireland, who flatly declares that nothing has changed since the days of the Reformation and that unbounded suspicion against Rome is still the only attitude that a Protestant should take.

The other is the unrealistic assumption that we have nothing to do any more with controversies of the past, that the only thing that counts is that Roman Catholic Christians believe in Christ just as we do, so nothing prevents us to be one. However, in the matter of understanding what we have received in Jesus Christ there is one point here that is overlooked and that is the all important matter of truth.

A Christian is unreservedly committed to the Truth, God's Truth! He can never dodge the question: What is the truth of I d's revelation? What is the Gospel in its purity ? What we need is someone who with knowledge and love is willing and able to examine carefully and honestly the latest developments in the R.C. Church to see whether real progress has been made, so that we have to change our attitude towards Rome, or whether perhaps the matter of truth still stands between us and the Church of Rome, as it did in the days of Luther and Calvin.

Dr. Rudolf J. Ehrlich, Edinburgh, Scotland, has undertaken this study, the results of which are described in his book, "Rome, opponent or partner ?" (1) Every Christian should be grateful to him for this clear and helpful book. It should be in the library of every Reformed minister, next to Dr. Berkhouwer's Conflict with Rome. The book consists of three parts, preceded by a preface and an introduction. Part I examines the writings of a convert to the R.C. Church, Louis Bouyer ("the beginning of the contemporary dialogue"), part II is dedicated to a study of the writings of Hans Kung ("the development of the contemporary dialogue") while the conclusion in part III is headed: "Barriers to Christian unity".

The examination of the writings of Louis Bouyer is rather disappointing. He has studied the writings of the Reformers diligently but his total and uncritical submission to the entire body of R.C. teaching simply prevents him from really understanding the issues of the Reformation. When he sees something worthwhile in Protestant teaching it is because he mistakenly thinks that the Reformers about these points were saying the same thing as the Church of Rome. This attitude reminds one of a biting anecdote told by Bernard Shaw. An international group was gathered and the conversation turned to the specific gifts and abilities that the various peoples possessed. An Englishman claimed that his people had an exclusive gift for ruling other people. (It was in the days that the British Empire was still intact.) Hereupon a Dutchman declared that his people too had earned their spurs in colonial administration so that this could not be claimed to be exclusively British. In answer the Englishman said: "I know, but then, dear sir, you Dutch have all the best British qualities".

When Louis Bouyer finds something right in the teachings of Luther and Calvin it is because (he thinks) it is in accordance with R.C. doctrine, while it is not. Protestant conversations with a man like him are not very helpful. But it seems at first sight to be totally different with a man like Hans Kung. He has studied the Reformers and the works of Karl Barth intensively and extensive ly and done his utmost to understand them and discover the Points of agreement. We can highly appreciate this attitude, the more so because it is something totally new and unheard of.

He has arrived at a very remarkable conclusion, namely that the difference between what Rome stands for and what the Reformers taught are very small; most of the differences, he claims, are due to a great misunderstanding. Indeed, if ever a R.C. theologian has undertaken to explain R.C. teaching in accordance with fundamental Protestant doctrines it is Hans Kung.

It seems that with him we can really make progress and that the differences between Rome and us are not so great as we thought up till now. However, is this impression correct ? Not too long ago Karl Barth has pointed out (2) that it is very difficult nowadays to discover exactly what Rome stands for. However, one thing is sure: Hans Kung speaks for Hans Kung and not for the Church of Rome, the only one who can do that is the pope. And even if the pope would take over the convictions and explanations of Hans Kung (which he certainly cannot and will not do) we would not have made as much progress as at first seemed. With all the honest endeavours which Hans Kung makes to show that Rome and Reformation stand much nearer to each other than anyone has thought, he fails to see that the presuppositions which underlie his thinking are different from those of the Reformation. And therefore: If two men say the same thing, it is not the same thing. In our concentration camp one day I had a long discussion with a R.C. priest, a doctor of theology, who claimed that we Protestants mistakenly ascribed Semi-Pelagianism to the R.C. Church, whereas he said, the Synod of Orange (529 A.D.) had already rejected SemiPelagianism, which was confirmed by the Council of Trent. Considering his presuppositions he was in good faith saying this and yet, a Reformed Christian starting from other presuppositions cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that the R.C. teaching about human co-operation with grace resembles Semi - Pelagianism like two peas. Again and again it is: not what words we use counts, but what we understand by them.

Every R.C. theologian - in searching the Scriptures, let alone "explaining" R.C. dogma's in a Protestant sense - is simply bound by the definitions of the magisterium of his Church, that is, the sayings of the pope which are binding to any and every R.C., bishop, priest or layman. In case there is a conflict between what Scripture says and the sayings of the pope, the latter has the last word!

The last part of Dr. Ehrlich's book where the conclusions are drawn to which his study has led him, is by far the most important. It is not very encouraging. It simply turns out that the gulf which separated Rome and the Churches of the Reformation is still as wide as it ever was. For Protestants the Word of God has final authority; for R.C. the Church, represented in the pope expresses the ultimate truth. Rome cannot and will not admit that all its teachings have to be brought before the bar of the Word of God to be judged. For Rome considers itself to be the judge and no appeal to a higher court is possible.

In the teaching about grace, the question what faith is, the exclusive place which Christ has to occupy as Mediator between God and men, the authority of Scripture, the teaching about the Church, the present differences between Rome and Reformation are still the ones they were in the days of Luther and Calvin. Our fathers preferred to die rather than give up their convictions about God's truth; if put before the same choice, we still would have to follow their example. Giving up our Reformed convictions would amount for us, as it did for our fathers, to a denial of Christ and the grace of God which we have in Him and in Him exclusively.

Every Protestant who knows what he believes and who has studied the differences between Rome and the Reformation, who longs for Christian unity (which, however, can never be achieved at the expense of God's truth) will heartily agree with Dr. Ehrlich's final lines, when he writes: "In ecumenical circles there is a tendency to give great prominence to what the various Churches hold in common and to minimize their differences. The continued schism of the Christian Church is excused by the somewhat trite and irritating formula of so many ecumenicists: what unites us is more than what divides us.

There are times when those who take part in the Protestant-Roman Catholic dialogue are also liable to yield to the temptation of introducing the arithmetical categories of quantity and number into their theological discussion on the unity of the Church. If it were a question of counting and adding up the number of points on which the Church of the Reformation and the Church of Rome agree or disagree, the result might well be encouraging. Arithmetically it could be that the points of agreement outnumber the points of disagreement. But this kind of ecumenical arithmetic does not do away with one all-important and undeniable fact: the schism Of the Christian Church continues. The Protestant-Roman Catholic dialogue has certainly helped to remove misunderstandings and to break down imaginary barriers, but it has not yet been able to overcome the real obstacles which still keep the two Churches apart: their different understanding of grace, of justification, of faith, of authority, etc.

Whether these obstacles are counted as so many points of disagreement compared with a greater number of points on which the two Churches agree is irrelevant. What matters is that the issues on which the two Churches disagree are so important, vital and fundamental that they prevent the unity of the Church of Jesus Christ from becoming a visible reality.

The question underlying our whole inquiry was: the Church of Rome - opponent or partner, adversary or ally ? There cannot be any doubt that with regard to the dialogue, i.e. the determination to examine together differences and disagreements from a truly theological instead of a merely historical, psychological or emotional point of view, the Church of Rome and the Church of the Reformation are today partners and allies. But there cannot be any doubt either that with regard to important areas of theology the two Churches remain opponents and adversaries. The real achievement of the dialogue is the fact that even in their opposition to each other, in their calling each other in question, they feel responsible for each other. Love prevents them from letting each other go. What gives us hope and the courage to go on in spite of our disagreements is the fact that in the last resort even the reunion of separated- Christians is the work of Christ Himself..

It could not be otherwise, for it is His Body which is torn and only He can ultimately heal its wounds. In the meantime, what is required of Protestants and Roman Catholics is not to try to hide from Him the wounds which they themselves have inflicted on His own Body. Christians should certainly rejoice that in spite of schism and separation they are yet one in Christ. At the same time, however, they ought not to conceal their divisions which prevent them from becoming visibly one, but should, as it were, frankly expose them to Christ, that He may heal them. And heal them He will; but He will do it in His own good time. This we must and do believe: "Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief" (Mark 9 24).

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.