Bridging the Gulf

Startling changes are taking place in the relationship between Catholics and Protestants. Why? What does this mean?

The sight of millions of Protestants joining their Catholic neighbors in cheering the pope during his visits to the United States offers visible proof that the gulf of separation between Catholicism and Protestantism is being bridged. Similarly, the eagerness of Protestant religious leaders to meet with the pope and to conduct bilateral dialogues with the Catholic Church further indicates that the bridging of the gulf is taking place not only at the grassroots level but also at the higher level of church leadership.

This bridging of the gulf between Protestantism and Catholicism is a rather recent development, which some historians and ecumenists find surprising. Thirty years ago conservative American Protestants still nourished deep suspicion and hostility toward Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. A papal procession in the 1950s might have brought out rock throwers rather than cheerers.

Diplomatic recognition of the Vatican by the United States would have been impossible thirty years ago. In 1951 President Harry Truman had to abandon his plan to appoint General Mark Clark as ambassador-designate to the Vatican, because he was inundated with letters, telegrams, and phone calls from Protestants of diverse religious views who opposed the nomination. In 1984, however, President Reagan was able to recognize the Vatican and the pope as a head of state by appointing California congressman William Wilson as official ambassador to the Holy See, with hardly any noticeable Protestant reaction.

This radical change of Protestant attitude from foe to friend of the pope and his Catholic Church is not surprising to Seventh-day Adventists. On the basis of their interpretation of biblical prophecy, Adventists for over one hundred years have announced that American Protestantism would be foremost in bridging the gulf of separation between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism and in cooperating with Rome. A century ago, Ellen G. White wrote: “The Protestants of the United States... will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power.”¹

Visible Fulfillment.
The clasping of hands by American Protestantism and Roman Catholicism assumed a unique visible fulfillment on September 10, 1987, when President Reagan traveled to Miami to clasp hands personally with Pope John and welcome him to America as the spiritual shepherd not only of Catholics but of all the American people. It is noteworthy that this was the first time an American president traveled to another city to welcome a religious leader. In the brief welcoming ceremony on the tarmac of Miami International Airport, Reagan encouraged the pope to preach freely to the American people. “As you exhort us,” the President said, “we will listen. For with all our hearts we yearn to make this good land better still.”

More recently, on August 12, 1993, President Clinton followed in the footsteps of President Reagan by traveling to the Denver airport to welcome Pope John Paul II on his arrival. Clinton rated John Paul’s address to 190,000 young people from seventy countries as “a great speech,” even though the pontiff openly attacked the pro-choice president by urging Americans to “guarantee the right to life.”

What has brought about this radical change of attitude from hostility to friendliness? What strategy has the Catholic Church been using to bridge the gulf of separation and to enhance the role of the pope as the spiritual shepherd of mankind? Seven factors seem to me to be important.

1. Second Vatican Council.
The foremost factor initiating the rapprochement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches was the Second Vatican Council. Some of the documents formulated at Vatican II, such as the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), solemnly promulgated on November 21, 1964, have been decisive in inaugurating a new age of growing contacts and mutual understanding at both official and local levels.²

At the official level of church leadership and theology, the Decree of Ecumenism has made possible bilateral dialogues between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches, dialogues which started immediately after the Vatican Council. At the local level of congregational life, the Decree has encouraged encounters between Catholic and Protestant church members.

What has made the Decree especially effective in bridging the gulf of separation in Catholic-Protestant relationships has been its positive re-evaluation of the Protestant ecumenical movement. A significant breakthrough of the Decree is its recognition that other churches besides the Catholic Church offer “means of salvation” and “genuine Christian values.”

This new view runs contrary to the traditional view expressed in Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam, which maintained that “there is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that outside this Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.” The new view saw salvation both inside and outside the Catholic Church. This new view, which is also expressed in the ongoing situation of the Church, is paying dividends in terms of Protestant good will and admiration.

2. Tolerance toward Non-Catholics.
A second factor which has contributed to bridging the gulf is the new Catholic policy of benign tolerance toward non-Catholics. While the pope is intransigent toward Catholics, expecting them to uphold church discipline and teachings, he is tolerant and open toward outsiders. Protestants have been rehabilitated from heretics to “separated brethren,” and even to brothers and sisters in Christ. Similarly, members of non-Christian religions are now treated with openness and respect.

The chapter of the Decree of Ecumenism mentioned above says that “in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith.”³ The implication seems to be that while the “full truth” is to be found in the Catholic Church, which is “the foundation of the Christian faith,”⁴ “lesser truths” are to be found in other Christian churches and non-Christian religions. Heinrich Fries and the late Karl Rahner, in their book Unity of the Churches: an Actual Possibility, speak of “partner churches in the one Church.” Unity is interpreted to mean not uniformity but rather “unity in diversity.”

To achieve “unity in diversity” the emphasis in the bilateral dialogues appears to be more on mission rather than on message. The tendency is toward a “doctrinal reductionism,” which defines a common mission based on only a minimum common understanding of the gospel.

3. New Ecumenical Role of the Pope.
A third factor in bridging the gulf of separation between Catholicism and Protestantism is the perceived new role of the pope within a partnership of Christian churches. In past ecumenical discussions the pope has generally been seen as the most serious obstacle to church unity. Today, the pope is seen more and more not as an obstacle but as an asset to Christian unity, since he could function as the symbolic head of a reconciled church. In such a unity non-Catholics would be expected to accept the leadership of a reformed papacy on a different basis than Roman Catholics would view that leadership.

“The sense in which we would be ‘under’ the papacy in a reconciled church,” writes Richard John Neuhaus, “is today sharply qualified. It is qualified by the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue which speaks of a papacy reformed under the Gospel.”⁴ The Catholic Church would require non-Catholics to accept a modified primacy doctrine, one which reflected the Catholic view before the promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council in 1870.⁵

By adopting what Jesuit Professor Vernon Ruland calls “The Catholic Double Standard,” the pope is successfully gaining global acceptance and bridging the gulf of separation.

The double standard consists of intransigence toward Catholics and doctrinal accommodation and “benign tolerance toward outsiders.”⁷ In practice this works out to a triple standard. The pope expects Catholics to adhere uncompromisingly to the official church teachings. He expects Protestants to accept a minimalist understanding of the gospel and to accept his spiritual leadership. And he expects non-Christians “to strive sincerely to live according to their conscience”⁸ and to accept him as the champion of the moral and spiritual aspirations of mankind.

By adopting this triple standard the pope is succeeding admirably in becoming widely accepted as the papa urbis et orbis, the spiritual father of Rome and the world.

“John Paul II,” writes George Huntston Williams, Hollis Professor of Divinity Emeritus at Harvard University, “may well go down in history as the Bridgemaker of Peace among the peoples and economies and ideologies of the First, the Second and the Third worlds. . . . John Paul’s discipline and hence somewhat narrowed ecclesiology [doctrine of the church] has not restricted his soteriology [doctrine of salvation] nor in any way hampered his outreach to embrace the global neighbor regardless of whether Christian or agnostic.”⁹

4. Pope’s Global Vision and Efforts.
A fourth factor to bridge the gulf between Catholicism and Protestantism is the global vision and efforts of Pope John Paul. His global vision is evident in the major themes of his speeches. He pleads for human dignity, brotherhood, social justice, peace, an end to the arms race, and especially compassion toward the poor and downtrodden. Upon his arrival in the United States on September 10, 1987 the pope said, “I come as a friend—a friend of America and of all Americans: Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants and Jews, people of all religion, and all men and women of good will.”

To foster his role as the spiritual leader of mankind, the pope welcomes regularly to the Holy See delegations and leaders from Christian and non-Christian religions. In October 1986, for example, it was most impressive to see hundreds of leaders of all the major world religions accepting the pope’s invitation to come to Assisi in Italy and

During his recent visits to America, Pope John Paul took advantage of America’s religious pluralism to further enhance his influence.

participate with him in a special prayer service for world peace. A clear message was conveyed to the world for those who saw the service on television. The pope is accepted by the world’s religious leaders as the champion of the spiritual aspirations of mankind.

During his recent visits to America, Pope John Paul took advantage of America’s religious pluralism to further enhance his influence. For example, on September 11, 1987, the day after his arrival at Miami, he conferred with national Jewish leaders. Later that same day the pope met in Columbia, S.C. with twenty-seven Protestant and Eastern Orthodox leaders whom he exhorted “to work toward the time when it will be possible for the one Christians to confess together the Christian faith,” presumably the Catholic faith.

Out of respect for the predominant Protestant culture of the area, where only 2% are Catholics, the pope did not celebrate the mass there. Instead, he led out in an ecumenical prayer service attended by 60,000 sweltering people, gathered in the grandstands of a stadium. He issued a ringing defense of traditional family values and of the Bible as the “inspired and unalterable words” of God, themes that greatly pleased the large number of evangelicals present at the gathering. In Los Angeles during the same trip the pope met with representatives of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism and for the second time met with representatives of Judaism.

“John Paul II,” wrote Robert Niklaus, “is intent on reestablishing the [Catholic] church as an active world force. He is intensifying the papal presence in the United Nations and in other international settings. He has offered Vatican mediation in the Lebanon crisis and has come out in support of the Afghan revolt. The recent appointment of an American ambassador to the Vatican is indicative of the church’s increased stature in international affairs.”¹⁰

The significance of the United States’ presence at the Vatican must not be overlooked. Mr. William Wilson, the first U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, clearly stated in a speech he delivered at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts, that his country’s presence at the Vatican has gone beyond mere information-gathering. “There has been,” he said, a “development from a ‘listening post’ mentality to a quest for morality. . . . In these latter days, we have consciously entered into a quest to recognize and understand the role of religion in international affairs.”¹¹

The implication of Mr. Wilson’s speech is that the U.S. government is seeking moral guidance from the Vatican. It is doubtful that Congress understood that the exchange of ambassadors would eventually, much less so quickly, lead to this.

5. Pope’s Stand for Morality.
A fifth factor in bridging the gulf is the pope’s strong stand for certain fundamental doctrines of biblical faith. Though evangelicals cannot agree with the pope on such points as the role of the Virgin Mary, the mass, the intercession of saints, masses for the dead, priestly celibacy and so on, they admire his strong commitment to the authority of Scripture, to the sacredness of marriage, to a Biblical sexual ethic, and to the protection of unborn babies.

Instead of attacking Catholicism, evangelicals are choosing to attack liberal Protestantism for undermining the authority of Scripture, for promoting unbiblical moral values, and for conforming to contemporary secular values. To them the pontiff has become, as Prof. Martin E. Marty puts it, “a walking fortress of faith”¹² in the midst of a godless society.

Unintentionally, perhaps, by eroding confidence in the authority of the Bible, liberal Protestantism has helped to enhance the authority of the pope among evangelicals. To the extent that Protestantism weakens the authority of the Bible, it strengthens the authority of the pope. The reason is simple. Most Christians resent tyranny but welcome the voice of authority, certainty and assurance. They want to hear from their church leaders, “This is the way, walk you in it!” When they fail to hear this voice of authority from Scripture proclaimed by their pastors, they become attracted to the pope who claims to offer them infallible interpretation of Scripture.

6. The Authority of the Bible.
This leads us to consider a sixth factor, namely, the Catholic emphasis since Vatican II on the authority of the Bible for defining Christian beliefs and practices. Historically Catholics have appealed to two sources of authority, namely, Scriptura et Traditio, that is, Scripture and the tradition teachings of their church, often referred to as the magisterium. The Reformers rejected this dual concept of authority by upholding the principle of the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura).

By eroding confidence in the authority of the Bible, liberal Protestantism has helped to enhance the authority of the pope among evangelicals.

Having grown up in Rome, Italy, I recall how difficult it was to have a meaningful dialogue with my Catholic relatives and friends, because every time I would appeal to the Bible to defend my beliefs, they would retort, “ma la tradizione della chiesa c’insegna . . .”—“but the tradition of the church teaches us . . .” In a sense Traditio was more important and safer than Scriptura, because it was less open to private interpretation. When my father in 1941 asked his parish priest to explain some of the things he was reading in a Bible a Waldensian friend had lent him, the priest persuaded my father to leave the Bible with him, because reading it, the priest said, “would only breed confusion and unrest to your soul.” Father reluctantly complied. Later, as he desired the urge to read the Bible again, he searched in vain for an Italian Catholic Bible in the major bookstores in Rome. Finally he found the branch office of the British and Foreign Bible Society, where he was able to buy a “Protestant” Italian Bible.

What a change has taken place since Vatican II! Not only have Catholics been working with Protestants to produce ecumenical editions of the Bible, but they are promoting Bible reading by their members. With a sense of pride my father, who still lives in Rome, Italy, took me recently to visit Don Romano, the priest of the local Catholic Church, who on a few occasions has graciously invited him (a Seventh-day Adventist) to lead out in a Bible study for his congregation.

The new Catholic emphasis on the authority and study of the Bible has obviously encouraged and facilitated dialogue between Protestants and Catholics among church members as well as church leaders.

These positive developments, however, must not blind us to the fact that no noticeable change has taken place in Catholic teachings.

These positive developments, however, must not blind us to the fact that no noticeable change has taken place in Catholic teachings, as the recent visit of Pope John Paul has shown. The Bible still remains the Bible of the Catholic Church, subject to her historical teachings, rather than the Catholic Church becoming the church of the Bible, subject to its teachings.

7. Pope’s Advocacy of Social Justice.
A seventh factor helping to bridge the gulf between Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism is the pope’s advocacy of social justice, a more equitable distribution of resources, peace based on justice, an end to the arms race, respect for the rights of all people, even of the unborn, and especially, love toward the poor and downtrodden.

In his September, 1987, message to a crowd of 100,000 in the Pontiac Silverdome, John Paul challenged Americans to remember “their responsibility for justice and peace in the world.” He also made a passionate plea to protect the lives of unborn babies: “America, your deepest identity and truest character as a nation is revealed in the position you take toward the human person. The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless ones . . . those yet unborn.”

Most people welcome the pope’s call for peace, justice, brotherhood, respect for human life, and an end to the arms race. By championing these legitimate human aspirations with zeal, dignity and devotion, the pope has become for many the symbol of the noblest aspirations mankind must struggle to achieve.

Summing up, we could say that Pope John Paul is successful in bridging the gulf between Protestantism and Catholicism and in establishing his role as a global religious leader because he practices well both statecraft and soulcraft. He has learned to be a man of many things to many people. To devout Catholics he is a symbol of piety, certainty and assurance of salvation amidst the conflicting teachings and values of our time. To evangelicals, he is a man of faith and courage, willing to withstand the secular, humanistic pressures of our times. To mainstream Protestants and people in general, he is the champion of peace based on social justice.

A Final Warning.
The many positive facets of the bridging of the gulf that is taking place between Catholicism and Protestantism must not blind evangelicals to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church still stands strongly for its traditional teachings that historically have divided Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. The great Protestant truths of Scripture alone, Christ alone, grace alone, and faith alone, are still foreign to Catholic theology.

In his messages Pope John Paul has reiterated his strong commitment to such Catholic teachings as the intercessory role of Mary and of the saints, transubstantiation, papal infallibility, the sacramental role of the priests, forgiveness only through the sacrament of penance, salvation by faith plus meritorious works, masses for the dead, and the interpretation of the Scripture by the magisterium of the church. For him, these views are not negotiable.

Ecumenical Christian unity, in Pope John Paul’s view, is possible only on Catholic terms. At the 1979 meeting in Chicago with the nation’s Catholic bishops, he quoted the testament of Pope Paul VI, who said, “Let the work of drawing near to our separated brethren go on, with much understanding, with much patience, with great love; but without deviating from the true Catholic doctrine.”

Let us never forget, then, that while in the area of social justice the Church of Rome has changed and John Paul has been a strong advocate of such change, in the area of church doctrine and discipline, Rome is still unchangeable and John Paul is simply her most effective communicator.

The gulf of separation between Protestantism and Catholicism is being bridged, and the bridge that is being built is leading Protestantism closer to Rome and further away from Scripture.

NOTES

1. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, p. 588.

2. For an analysis of the Decree, see Harding Meyer, “The Decree on Ecumenism: A Protestant Viewpoint,” The Ecumenical Review 37/3 (July 1985): 320-325.

3. Cited in the article by Harding Meyer (n. 2), p. 324.

4. Richard John Neuhaus, “Healing of Memories in the Third Century: An Impressive Possibility,” Dialog, A Journal of Theology 25/1 (Winter 1986): 40.

5. Quoted in Heinrich Fries and Karl Rahner, Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility (New York, 1985), p. 70.

6. Vernon Ruland, “The Catholic Double Standard,” The Christian Century 98 (December 16, 1981): 1311.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. George Huntson Williams, “The Ecumenical Intentions of Pope Paul II,” Harvard Theological Review 75/2 (April 1982): 175.

10. Robert Niklaus, “Vatican: The First 1800 Days,” Evangelical Mission Quarterly 20/3 (July 1984): 302.

11. Quoted in Editorial, “Grossly Improper,” Christian Century 102 (November 6, 1985): 933.

12. Martin E. Marty, “What America’s Non-Catholics Think of the Pope,” TV Guide, September 5, 1987, p. 34.