A few weeks ago a Catholic member of YMX called me some names and said I was intolerant. Honestly, those are daggers sent out foolishly because they only inflict harm without attempting to fix anything. Certainly, those accusations (which were a cyclical arguement whose logic proved themselves wrong: Calling a person intolerant for having different views from yourself is actually a form of intolerance!) were meant to belittle me as inferior, blah blah blah. I just chose to overlook those daggers thrown, it’s really not a big deal.
So, I’m a glutton for punishment and I responded to another thread in the forums about Vatican II, specifically the document on Ecumenism. (Just a disclaimer to my friends: YMX exists to love, support, and encourage those who love, support, and encourage today’s amazing adolescents… so we’re not stuck on doctrinal differences… we unite in our love for today’s student’s.)
So here is my response:
OK, well I’ve left this alone for a while hoping more conversation would spur on. While I see how VII has changed the RCC (much to some dismay who are still in denial that it’s a good thing) I don’t think some of the reforms went far enough IMO.
As an evangelical, the one document that speaks out to me is The Decree on Ecumenism. I love the first paragraphs but I quickly depart from the document when I get further into it.
Just for the sake of conversation and understanding that I’m not trying to be argumentative or disruptive or "a hater," I just depart on some areas of the document.
1. Peter and his succesors as head of the united church. Obviously, protestent church history doesn’t teach this to be true. We’re not going to solve this here… but it’s been a point of division for more than 400 years, in my western civ classes it was pointed out that this was divisive for much longer than that. So protestant’s and catholics are likely to disagree on that topic indefintely.
2. Point 3 clearly accuses both protestant and orthodox Christians of the sin of seperation. It starts off by saying this was mutual "both side to blame" but then condemns the people they are trying to unite by saying "who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation." Specifically, this fails to acknowledge that the Reformers acted righteously in seperated from a corrupt papacy. Protestants still hold that Luther’s claims were valid and this document calls Luther’s actions "sinful." So we are likely to disagree on that topic indefinitely.
3. Protestants do not acknowledge the following statement as true "For it is only through Christ’s Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation." Protestants beleive that salvation comes from grace alone. (Ephesians 2:8) We’re likely going to disagree on this point until the cows come home.
I’m not a theologian or church historian… I’m no expert. (So please be careful, speak slowly to me!) But I know when I read this document I disagree on many points. The overarching reason I don’t think many protestants have not embraced this document resolve around the three issues I’ve raised. It "feels" like the document exists to encourage Catholic leaders to try to "bring back" these groups who have seperated from the Catholic church. However, it doesn’t deal with the reasons these people seperated. Until it’s abundantly clear that these groups seperated for valid reasons and an open repentence for those reasons comes from the RCC… there will likely be no great effort to seek "unity."
Last thing. While here in the United States this discussion can take place peacefully and a place like YMX is perfect because we’re not coming together here because we agree theologically… we’re here because we share a common denominator of loving students… it must be acknowledged that there are places where the dialogue is not happening peacefully and these documents have led to fire and brimstone coming from RCC and protestant pulpits alike.
So, these are my thoughts. Hope they help spur on more discussion.
