The Unfinished Reformation

What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants After 500 Years

Gregg Allison, Christopher A. Castaldo

• Publisher: Zondervan
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9780310527947
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

The Unfinished Reformation offers a thoughtful look at the key theological and sociological differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

In 1517 a Catholic monk nailed a list of grievances on the door of a church in Germany and launched a revolution in the history of Christianity. That monk was Martin Luther, and the revolution was the Protestant Reformation. This upheaval resulted in flexibility and innovation in the church but also religious instability and division, particularly among the Catholic and Protestant fault line. Five hundred years later, there continues to be unresolved issues between the Protestant and Catholic churches. So, Gregg Allison and Chris Castaldo ask the question... is the Reformation really finished?

The Unfinished Reformation is a brief and clear guide to the key points of unity anddivergence between the two largest branches of Christianity. Fundamental differences in doctrine and practice are addressed in detail:

• Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation
• Image of God, Sin, and Mary
• Church and Sacraments
• Salvation

Written in an accessible and informative style, The Unfinished Reformation provokes thoughtabout Christian beliefs, equips you for healthy conversations with those on "the other side of the divide", and encourages fruitful discussion about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

CHAPTER 1

How Do the Fundamental Commitments of Catholics and Protestants Differ?

Catholic and Protestant teaching frequently suffers from selective quotation without regard to official documents and without taking into consideration how religious ideas influence the faithful. As it turns out, both doctrinal statements and personal piety are important when understanding each other. When our assessment sufficiently accounts for both, we begin to recognize how doctrinal beliefs are forged in the crucible of human experience and how they find expression through our neighbors, friends, and loved ones. Such a perspective does not simply enable us to engage religious ideas but also equips us to talk with people whose lives are committed to those ideas. This chapter will lay the groundwork for acquiring such a perspective.

One way to consider the important ideas and practices that distinguish Catholics and Protestants is to study the lives of thoughtful individuals who have converted from one side to the other. Such stories bring into focus the crucial turning points that lead a person toward or away from Rome.¹ They also tend to illustrate the enduring significance of the controversies from the sixteenth-century Reformation. Among the many outstanding examples of such conversion, the most notable is that of John Henry Newman (1801–1890), the Anglican turned Roman Catholic. Newman’s journey of faith depicts the central issues that distinguish Catholics from Protestants. Furthermore, because it is impossible to understand contemporary Catholicism without some insight into Newman’s thought, it is worth pausing for a moment to give him our attention.

It is sometimes overlooked that John Henry Newman started his religious journey as an evangelical. Under the tutelage of his Calvinist schoolmaster, the Rev. Walter Mayers, Newman experienced his first religious conversion (at the age of fifteen, between August and December of 1816). Mayers quickly became Newman’s mentor, largely through giving Newman reading assignments. According to Newman, these lessons were “the human means of this beginning of divine faith in me” and “all of the school of Calvin.”² It is noteworthy that while Newman’s faith would move in different directions over his lifetime, he never repudiated his evangelical conversion.

As the years passed, Newman’s religious curiosity caused him to rethink his ecclesial associations. On one hand, he sought to avoid the “high-and-dry” church (his way of describing religious liberals).³ This was the arid and somewhat crusty church establishment that rejected the supernatural claims of Christianity. On the other hand, he grew to become increasingly troubled by Protestantism, which he found to be an overly fragmented and “emotional religion.”⁴ He was, however, not yet ready to become a Roman Catholic, which at this stage he regarded as overly superstitious. Therefore, Newman eventually pursued a middle course (via media) between evangelicalism and the Church of Rome in what came to be called the “Oxford Movement.”

In September of 1833, Newman and his colleagues articulated their convictions in a series of articles titled Tracts for the Times. A primary target of the Tracts was the movement of Bible-centered evangelicals, which had grown exponentially throughout Britain. These were the folks about whom it would be said, “[It was] no written creed, no formal declaration of principles” that defined “Evangelical Religion.”⁵ With reference to these evangelicals, Newman and his colleagues exhibited a growing antipathy. He was therefore accused of having an agenda to undermine the Protestant character of the Church of England. Confronted by this concern, a friend warned that the Oxford Tracts “will be one day charged with rank Popery.”⁶ Evidently, John Henry’s Rome-ward movement was becoming obvious.

The fundamental issue of importance, from Newman’s perspective, was the status of religious authority and of the early church’s dogmatic creeds, councils, and tradition. Due to suspicion or rejection of such theological sources by some of the Protestants whom Newman encountered, he saw evangelicalism as a boat tossed in a raging ocean of personal preference and subjectivity. From his point of view, this weakness was most clearly observed in the evangelical practice of private interpretation (the authority of believers to decide for themselves the meaning of Scripture), a concept that he regarded as absurd. In opposition to this practice, Newman preached a sermon expressing his frustration with the myriad of evangelical voices claiming to pronounce authoritatively on issues of doctrine. Instead of personal Bible study, Newman sought to fortify the church with a commitment to its ruling authority and liturgy.

Newman’s attraction to Rome also led him to combat the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide). Its tragic effect, as Newman saw it among evangelicals, was to reduce Christian faith to a subjective experience of conversion and to discard the need for obedience. In modern parlance we might call it “cheap grace.” Therefore, instead of faith as the means by which one receives divine forgiveness, Newman pointed to the sacraments, which he regarded as comparatively more objective and reliable.

Before Newman’s conscience would permit his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church, he had one more hesitation to overcome. Modern Catholicism, in Newman’s view, appeared much different from the church of the early centuries, especially in reference to papal primacy. Newman eventually found a solution to this problem, proposing that external religious traditions grow into shape over time, like an acorn that develops into a tree. Similar to Charles Darwin’s work, On the Origin of Species, Newman postulated his theory as an explanation of how a given subject may progressively develop into a new state. This enabled him to embrace the elements of Catholic tradition that lacked explicit testimony in the biblical text. Newman’s classic book on the subject, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, was published in 1845 when he converted to the Catholic Church.

What can be learned from Newman’s migration toward Rome? We might boil it down to two fundamental decisions—the first one concerns authority, and the second involves salvation. Concerning the former, he came to locate authority in the Church’s hierarchy—an authority that came through apostolic succession, under whose authority doctrine develops. This ecclesial authority elevated tradition to the same level as Scripture as God’s Word. On account of this, Newman emphasized the catechism and the creeds (where the church provides an authoritative interpretation of Scripture) as the sources to which Christians must look for religious instruction. Concerning the latter decision regarding salvation, Newman pointed to the grace of the sacraments (starting with grace’s initiation in Baptism and continued in the Eucharist) as the way by which one is actually made righteous and accepted by God.

To be sure, the social and religious realities of Newman’s lifetime differed in many respects from the sixteenth century (and from the twenty-first). Nevertheless, the Reformation issues that distinguished Catholics and Protestants in his day still do so today. To better understand why these issues remain so intractable, let’s take a closer look at some of the foundational concerns of these two respective traditions.

BY WHAT AUTHORITY?

It has been argued that the Catholic understanding of authority is best summarized by recognizing the interconnection of Christ and his Church,⁷ the notion that the incarnated presence of Jesus is expressed in and through his Body. Thus, in the words of Father Richard John Neuhaus, “For the Catholic, faith in Christ and faith in the Church are one act of faith.”⁸ In this statement, Neuhaus echoes the Catechism: “Christ and his Church thus together make up the ‘whole Christ’ (Christus totus)” (CCC 795). Simply put, this type of “incarnation” is not simply a historical event from two millennia ago; it is the ongoing bond that makes the Church a single subject with Christ. Other ways of expressing this idea of the Church include the “continuing incarnation” and “the prolongation of Christ’s mediatorial nature and work.” As Pope Benedict XVI explained, “the Church [is] described as the Incarnation of the Son continuing until the end of time.”⁹

Implications of the Christ-Church interconnection can hardly be overstated. It is, for instance, the reason why the Catholic Church understands itself to be the only valid and true Church, while Protestant assemblies are considered to be ecclesial communities, rather than actual churches. It is why Rome claims to be the determiner of the canon of Scripture. It is the basis of the Mass in which bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ and are therefore worshiped as divine (in Eucharistic adoration). It is why Catholicism mediates prayers, righteousness, and merits. And it is why evangelization (or ecumenism) for the Catholic Church is ultimately a matter of calling humanity home to Mother Church, which it regards as Christ in the world.

Protestants agree with Catholics that a vital union exists between Christ and his church. We stand together in affirming Christ is the Firstborn (Rom. 8:29), our Head (Eph. 4:15), the Branch into which we are grafted (Rom. 11:17). We agree that Christ is the eternal Word who speaks from his Church, resulting in a deeper experience of holiness and witness to the world. From a Protestant perspective, however, the Catholic concept of continuous incarnation—the notion that Christ’s actual being, infallible revelation, and authority subsist in the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church—is inconsistent with Scripture. It is an infallible text that God gives us, not an infallible Church.¹⁰ This conviction, that Scripture is the singular body of divine revelation and therefore the supreme authority, is captured by the Protestant phrase sola scriptura, “Scripture alone.”

A helpful way to think about the concept of Scripture alone is in terms of the correlation between Jesus the living Word and Jesus’ authoritative written Word (the Bible).¹¹ The inspired text is the way in which Jesus’ revelation and authority extend to the church and the world.¹² In the words of Alister McGrath:

When the first generation of Protestants spoke of the “authority of the Bible,” this was to be understood as “the authority of the risen Christ, mediated and expressed through the Bible.” . . . Precisely because Jesus Christ stands at the heart of the Christian faith, Protestants argue, so must the Bible. There is the most intimate interconnection between the Bible and Christ in the Protestant tradition. The Bible is the means by which Christ is displayed, proclaimed, and manifested.¹³

Of particular importance to Protestants is what Scripture affirms for itself. For example, Paul says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). Because this inspired Word sufficiently equips the church for every good work, Protestants seek to work out their salvation with explicit reference to it.

HOW SHALL WE BE SAVED?

There are several ways to compare the Catholic and Protestant doctrines of salvation. To begin with, we should recognize our common commitments.¹⁴ We agree, for instance, that salvation is Trinitarian: The Father redeems sinful people and reconciles them to himself, through the work—the death and resurrection—and saving grace of Christ, by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. We believe that salvation is rooted in history, with implications that are spiritual, moral, relational, vocational, and more. We affirm that Jesus Christ, whose blood atones for our sins, has merited justification for us. And we recognize the aim of salvation to be the realization of holiness in service of the glory of God.

In addition to our similarities, we also have important differences. Our fundamental disagreement concerns the reason why God ultimately accepts sinful people. For Catholics, this acceptance is the culmination of a religious process, a faithful life nurtured by grace conveyed through the sacraments in which one grows in holiness. In the course of growing, one merits divine favor and, by doing so, eventually receives the divine declaration of acceptance. While the initial grace of salvation cannot be merited, faithful people merit for themselves and for others all the graces needed to obtain eternal life.

For Protestants, fallen humanity is unable to secure the smallest measure of divine merit by performing good works. Even the most selfless examples of human behavior are unworthy of God’s favor. Instead, divine acceptance is based on the perfect righteousness of Christ, which is imputed (attributed or reckoned) to sinful people. In other words, because believers are “in Christ,” clothed in his perfection, they are regarded by God as completely righteous. Unlike the Catholic system, in which the decisive verdict of God’s acceptance follows a lifetime of accumulating sacramental grace in which one accrues merit (by performing good works), Protestants emphasize the decisive point when people believe in the gospel. At this moment of conversion, God accepts sinful people.

Once converted, children of God embark upon a journey toward holiness called the process of “sanctification.” Regarding the necessity of this journey, Paul emphasizes: “But now he [God the Father] has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel” (Col. 1:22–23 NIV, emphasis added). Paul’s qualification is important to note: “if you continue in your faith.” Evidently, this is what Newman failed to see among his evangelical contemporaries, leading him to regard their position as cheap grace. In fact, perseverance is necessary and will occur to authenticate the reality of one’s faith. Those who do not persevere demonstrate they were not truly saved in the first place. For Protestants who don’t have a Reformed outlook on salvation, such texts indicate that it is possible to lose salvation. In either instance, the Protestant vision insists that while justification is secured by faith alone, it is a faith that never remains alone because of ongoing sanctification by the transformative work of the Holy Spirit who lives within God’s children.

At this point, a person might wonder, “Have not the differences of the sixteenth century concerning justification been resolved in the various ecumenical dialogues between Catholics and Protestants over the last fifty years?” What about the ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: What Happened 500 Years Ago?
• 1. How Do the Fundamental Commitments of Catholics and Protestants Differ?
• 2. Where Protestants and Catholics Stand Together: Ten Commonalities
• 3. Key Differences Between Protestants and Catholics, Part 1: Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation
• 4. Key Differences Between Protestants and Catholics, Part 2: Image of God, Sin, and Mary
• 5. Key Differences Between Protestants and Catholics, Part 3: Church and Sacraments
• 6. Key Differences Between Protestants and Catholics, Part 4: Salvation
• 7. The Gospel of Jesus Christ: Hope for Both Protestants and Catholics
• Conclusion: Is the Reformation Finished?
• Notes