I’ve been asked for some reflections on Roman Catholic World Youth Day, held in Sydney last week. My reflections here are more about the ‘vibe’ than specific doctrinal interaction.
Firstly, I support fully the right for Roman Catholics to express publicly and vociferously their religious beliefs and practices. And, as Phillip Jensen argued, I don’t especially mind the fact that some government funds helped support the effort.
Secondly, it was remarkable sociologically to notice how easy it was for large numbers of young people to have a really positive time together without drugs, alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity or sporting fervour being to the driving forces. The pilgrims seemed incredibly well-behaved and friendly.
However, religious adherents being sincere and enthusiastic and well-mannered and clean-living does not prove the truth or praiseworthiness of their religious beliefs. Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims are also typically sincere and clean-living! But Christians agree that they are sincerely wrong.
Still, it was lovely to see all the goodwill and hospitality in Sydney.
Thirdly, the only protest that had any traction once World Youth Day week got underway was from those who felt the Roman Catholic Church had still not apologized properly to and cared for victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by church leaders. This was a sobering reminder of the devastating impact of such abuse on young people. It reinforced my own responsibility not to cut any corners in administering our diocesan safe ministry protocols in regards to such things as screening, child protection training and handling complaints.
Fourthly, when I see enormous line-ups of bishops in flowing robes, often with gold trim, and fancy mitres, and all the pomp and ceremony, I cannot help feel they have wandered a long way from how Jesus and his apostles got around in the New Testament. There were not a lot of ceremony and fine robes there, as far as I know. (This critique applies to Anglican bishops gathering in Jerusalem or Lambeth just as much—though I’m not sure any Anglican leaders ever get the rock star hysteria that the Pope attracted!)
Lastly, some thoughts on the stations of the cross, as played out in Sydney: leaving aside the theology of the concept for a moment, I can see the potential of such symbolism. So I tried to imagine what it would look like to an observer who didn’t have a background of Christian knowledge. One would certainly have seen a statement against torture (with tortured Jesus in solidarity with all torture victims) and a statement for inclusion of the marginalized—especially the indigenous (with an Aboriginal man playing Simon of Cyrene, and the interpretive words of an indigenous lady). Personally, I can understand such concerns. But this sort of symbolism appeared to overshadow any clear explanation and focus on the meaning Jesus’ death for sins. And it was disappointing how the whole thing ended with prayer to Mary.
However, the thing I found most dissonant was how the drama appeared to be a giant tourism advertisement for Sydney, with some of our most spectacular backdrops (such as the Opera House and the Art Gallery of New South Wales and Darling Harbour selected for the various stations.
Undeniably, it advertised Sydney’s beauty. And I can understand the government of the host city and state, wanting to showcase it, and ordinary Australian Christians being proud of our city. Who’d ever want the sets for the whole thing to occur at Fox Studios! But once again, the beautiful backdrops (with their tourist calendar overtones) chosen by the church seemed incongruent alongside the actual historical reality of the dirt and shame and ugliness of Christ’s crucifixion “outside the city gate” (Heb 13:12; NIV).
As I say, my reflections here are more on the vibe than the theology. However, my theological views are clear in our ‘sola power’ sermon series (download the audio).
But just in case anyone is unsure of what I think of the theology behind World Youth Day, I will quote from JC Ryle’s essay on The Thirty-nine Articles. Here he explains why no-one should be surprised if an Anglican clergyman speaks against official Roman Catholic doctrine:
Let us mark, in the fourth place, as we read the Articles, the thoroughly Protestant spirit which runs throughout them, and the boldness of their language about Romish error.
Ryle then cites (among others, like Article 24, 25, 30 and 37):
- Article 19, which says the Church of Rome has erred
- Article 22, which says the Romish doctrines of purgatory, of adoration of images or relics and of prayer to the saints are repugnant to the word of God
- Article 28, which declares that transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, and opposes the reservation or adoration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper
- Article 31, which says that “the sacrifices of masses, in which it was commonly said the priest did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceit”
- Article 32, which opposes Rome’s demand for priestly celibacy.
He continues:
Now what shall we say to all this? Nine times over the Thirty-nine Articles condemn, in plain and unmistakable language, the leading doctrines of the Church of Rome, and declare in favour of what must be called Protestant views. And yet men dare to tell us that we Evangelical clergymen have no right to denounce Popery, — that it is very wrong and very uncharitable to be so hot in favour of Protestantism, — that Romanism is a pretty good sort of thing, — and that by making such a piece of work about Popery, and Protestantism, and Ritualism, and semi-Popery, we are only troubling the country and doing more harm than good. Well! I am content to point to the Thirty-nine Articles. There is my apology! There is my defence! I will take up no other ground at present. I will not say, as I might do, that Popery is an unscriptural system, which every free nation ought to dread, and every Bible-reading Christian of any nation ought to oppose. I simply point to the Thirty-nine Articles.
I ask any one to explain how any English clergyman can be acting consistently, if he does not oppose, denounce, expose, and resist Popery in every shape, either within the Church or without. Other Christians may do as they please, and countenance Popery if they like. But so long as the Articles stand unrepealed and unaltered, it is the bounden duty of every clergyman of the Church of England to oppose Popery.
I was fortunate enough to obtain an old copy of JC Ryle’s wonderful book Knots Untied at last autumn’s Lifeline South Coast Big Book Fair for just $3. It contains the essay referenced above. Evangelical Anglicans in particular should grab a copy of the book if you can find it.
(May I also commend Mark Gilbert’s blogs: there are six posts in all by a generous but Protestant Anglican observer at World Youth Day! Start here.)
Sandy
Thanks for your reflections on WYD.
I’m glad you linked to Mark Gilbert’s postings too. They make very sobering reading – not so much for his reflections on WYD events (which as you say were generous and discerning), but for the description of his many conversations with Roman Catholics during the week. Mark spent the whole week having evangelistic conversation after evangelistic conversation, and he has my utmost respect not just for the love he showed to those people and the gentleness and respect with which he talked to them, but also for his physical endurance to keep at it for so many hours a day over the week.
It’s also worth mentioning the Certainty web site. Opportunitites for conversation with Catholic friends will contine for a while, and this is a great site to refer them to.
good analysis.
bad doctrine (heresy!) aside, the week went off very well from a logistical perspective.
sad though it is to see so many deceived by ‘popery’, I’d rather have ‘pilgrims’ running all over town with whom I can engage in friendly evangelistic conversation than certain of the (often) hostile members of the gay community that Sydney is more famous for.
Sandy
Here’s a question designed to get you into trouble… If you had to give the speech that Rob Forsyth gave to the Pope, would you have welcomed him “as a fellow Christian brother”?
Interestingly the WYD website notes that with registration and attendance you will receive an indulguence for you and a mate – buy one, get one free.
Ian, would I welcome the Pope as a “fellow Christian brother”?
The answer is that it all depends. For example, it depends on what I know of the Pope’s personal beliefs – and that might come from at least two sources: his published writings, and personal knowledge.
And it depends on the context. What is the occasion where it’s happening. Whom am I representing? What might I convery
I can understand caution about using those terms – it could be seen to endorse the Pope’s teaching and role. Of course, Robert Forsyth made it very clear he did not accept either his role as spiritual head of the Church nor all the doctrines of his Church. Some media clearly felt his comments contained a rebuke as well as a formal welcome.
I can also understand that I ought to be cautious in claiming I can determine that he is definitely not a brother in Christ and so refusing the call him a brother.
People make distinctions between false teaching and outright heresy and sub-Christian and so on. And on a Thursday afternoon my brain is not working well enough to expound the nuances.
I am more ready to speak firmly about how official Catholic doctrine undermines the biblical gospel of grace, than I am to make a personal judgment on the Pope.
Presumably, the Pope recites and believes the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. So he declares his trust in Christ as our only Lord. In my opinion, his teachings of official RC doctrine certainly appear to undermine this. But despite this, it certainly appears to me that some Roman Catholics trust in Christ and try very much to keep to focus on Christ and his atoning death.
One last bit of this musings. I notice that Paul did not hesitate in his opening greetings and throughout his epsitles to address the members of the various churches he wrote to collectively as “saints” (e.g. 1 Cor 1:2) and “brothers” (e.g. 1 Cor 3:1, Gal 1:11), even though some of these churches were rent by division and false teaching and practice so serious as to be denial of the the gospel (Gal 1:6 etc).
Presumably some of those addressed by Paul as brothers were in the wrong in these matters, and not just as followers, but very likely in some cases, as teachers.
Perhaps I might find another form of words if I was asked to welcome the Pope. But I would not mind treating him with courtesy and respect he clearly deserves in his role. I believe in freedom of religious expression, after all.
Sandy,
I think you are being a tad over-cautious and diplomatic. Do you really think that a Ratzinger would be Pope if had a saving faith in the Apostolic Gospel???
You said “Presumably, the Pope recites and believes the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. So he declares his trust in Christ as our only Lord.”
But as we both know, he will define these creeds through the grid of RC theology and catechesis.
“In my opinion, his teachings of official RC doctrine certainly appear to undermine this. But despite this, it certainly appears to me that some Roman Catholics trust in Christ and try very much to keep to focus on Christ and his atoning death.”
Of course! But this is rare, and if the Pope did this, he would be stood down.
I think Rob erred on calling the pope ‘a Christian brother’. It sends a mixed message to Evangelicals who are not sure if the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian church. I think is also an insult to Evangelicals who are presecuted for coming our of the RCC, as well as to missionaries in Mexico, Boliva and parts of Italy who cop a battering from the RCC (all with the endorsement of the Pope).
All the RCC has done since Vatican II is had a face lift mate! It still has the same heart.
Thanks for furthering the discussion Joshua.
Perhaps the merciful thing to do is to assume someone is not a Christian brother, until you discover otherwise. So, contrary to Sandy, only if I had personal knowledge of someone’s saving faith would I call them a Christian brother or sister – rather than referring to them in that way simply because I have no evidence that they don’t have that faith. As Joshua suggests, I think this prima facie assumption that the Pope does not have a saving faith is only reinforced by his position as Pope. “Is the Pope a Catholic?” is genuinely assumed to be a rhetorical question, and, whilst some Catholics may be Christians, Catholicism is not Christian.
So if I was put on the spot and asked “Do you think the Pope is a Christian brother?” at a press conference, well maybe generosity and diplomacy comes into play, and I’d try to find some wording that does not come across as condemnatory. But to offer a welcome to someone as a Christian brother, when that is not even an issue, maybe isn’t wise.
Having said all that, maybe I don’t know all the circumstances of the speech Rob gave, and maybe Rob didn’t mean for us to read “Christian brother” as a technical term to mean “one with an Apostolic saving faith in the full and sufficient sacrifice of Christ for the atonement of sins”. Maybe all Rob meant was “I welcome you as a fellow follower of Christ.” I think we can safely assume the Pope genuinely thinks he is following Christ – even if we think he is getting it wrong.
Maybe it’s all semantics. But words are important. If we don’t watch ourselves, we’ll end up using the sort of weasel words that seem to be coming out of Lambeth.
It is patently obvious that fellow christians world wide both within and between denominations,for many reasons,interpret the scriptures in myriads of ways,sincerely,devotedly and faithfully,often in ways we find astoundingly incomprehensible and from our perspective misleading,dangerous and sometimes heretical and in other cases challenging and uplifting.
I suggest the ‘gap” between what we say we believe and what we practise,that talking the talk is much easier than walking the walk is true of every christian but is more readily recognised in other fellow christians than ourselves.
I assume we would agree that while we may and must in many situations make judgements as to whether another is, according to our understanding of scripture, a “christian”, it is ultimately God who knows all things and judges the heart of man who determines who is a christian.This is indeed a most comforting thought.Personally I have known a number of roman catholics who are Christians.
I have no problem giving Pope Benedict the “benefit of any doubt” ( much to his relief), in that he worships the same God as I and that his trust is in Jesus as is mine in spite of huge differences in how we interpret many parts of the Bible,our views of the the church and its practises etc.
Warren,
You might be mixing up the issues I think. It’s not about the state of Joseph Ratzinger’s heart, as an individual, nor indeed about how well each of us ‘walks the walk’—that, as you say, will be judged by God. But as Pope Benedict XVI, what the Pope stands for and teaches and represents is most definitely NOT the same trust in Jesus as you and I have, WD. It’s not in Jesus ALONE for a start.
This is the problem with public support and affirmation for the Pope as Pope. We cannot treat him publicly as a brother, as if the differences between us in the end do not impede our fellowship. The differences are too central—about matters of salvation—to be glossed over. And when they are, it is unhelpful and confusing for everyday evangelicals (and the Roman Catholics they are seeking to tell the gospel to).
TP
Watching this blog unfold reminds me of a beautiful story told by Jesus… the parable of the forgiving father.
I’m imagining the Holy See as the younger son gone awry and the fervent Protestants as the grumpy older brother ….
and ….
I’m also imagining the fervent Protestants as the younger son gone awry, and the Holy See as the grumpy older brother.
In the end, it its the father’s grace and compassion that rejoins the family – neither son is judged more worthy or less than the other.
Are the differences really that great to even deny christian brotherhood publicly? Can we imagine what the forgiving father of the parable might say to us in this situation?
Cheers
Tony,
I’d humbly endorse a recent book that I bought from Dymocks called “The Essential Writings of Pope Benedict XVI” or something like that. The guy is an amazing thinker and an amazing Christian. The clarity with which he discusses Protestant stumbling blocks to Roman Catholicism with respect to different issues is quite impressive. You may be surprised by what you read – I know I was.
“Are the differences really that great to even deny christian brotherhood publicly? Can we imagine what the forgiving father of the parable might say to us in this situation?”
For a start, the presenting question was not whether to “deny christian brotherhood publicly”, but whether to affirm Christian brotherhood publicly when not asked to do so. There’s a significant difference, in my view.
And if we are going to ask your question, we might well have to also ask what might the forgiving father say to Luther, Cranmer, et al, who publicly attacked and criticised the unbelief of the Roman Catholic church, for many of them at the cost of their own lives? I think they thought the differences were important enough!
Without those men making publicly clear the truth of the Gospel, this site would not even exist to remind us of the solas that are at the heart of the grace of the forgiving father.
Furthermore, whilst the parable is about the grace of the father in welcoming the son back, it is also true that the son repented. When the Roman Catholic Church repents of its teaching, I – as an ‘older brother’ – will absolutely rejoice.