Protestants and the New Pope

The Roman Catholic Church has a new pope in Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now and ever-more to be known as Benedictus Decimus Sextus - how is the Protestant Evangelical world reacting to this news?

We can begin with the reaction of our ostensibly "evangelical" president, George W. Bush: "Laura and I offer our congratulations to Pope Benedict XVI. He's a man of great wisdom and knowledge. He's a man who serves the Lord ... We join with our fellow citizens and millions around the world who pray for continued strength and wisdom as His Holiness leads the Catholic Church."

Not too shabby! The evangelical president admits that the new pope "serves the Lord," and does not shrink from referring to Benedict XVI as "His Holiness." But the president is a politician first and foremost, not a theologian - can we get a second opinion?

President of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson stated, "I am delighted that the College of Cardinals has selected a Pope who is dedicated to carrying forward the initiatives of the beloved John Paul II. I believe that Pope Benedict XVI has an emphasis on moral relativism which speaks to the culture of Europe and America with brilliant clarity. I will support him prayerfully in this overwhelming task that has been thrust upon him."

Sounds familiar. Evangelical Pat Robertson, like President Bush, promises to pray for the pope - not for his conversion from Catholicism, as one might expect from an "old-school" Evangelical, but for success specifically in his role as a leader of the Catholic Church. Odd, isn't it?

In like manner, David DeFreese, the current bishop of the Nebraska Synod of the ELCA (Lutheran Church of America), called upon all Christians to be "united in prayer that God may bless, strengthen and guide the new pope as he offers leadership."

Christianity Today reported that Bishop Wolfgang Huber (described by CT only as "the leader of the mainline Protestant Churches in Germany") expressed his desire for "God's blessings in all [of the pope's] decisions, actions and his leadership."

Working our way up the food chain, so to speak, we come to the comments of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams. The Archbishop wished the pope "every blessing in the immense responsibilities he is about to assume on behalf of Roman Catholics round the world." He stated that Benedict XVI's election "is also of great significance to Christians everywhere." He further expressed his eager desire to work with the new pope "to build on the legacy of his predecessor, as we seek to promote shared understanding between our churches in the service of the Gospel and the goal of Christian unity." Not to be left out of the prayer chain, the Archbishop - like Bush, Robertson and the rest - affirmed that the pope "will be in much in our prayers in the days and weeks ahead."

Now, as a Catholic of the "traditionalist" (read: ultra right-wing extremist) stripe, I am certainly pleased to see so many leading lights of Protestantism pledge their support to the new Roman Pontiff. But I really have to wonder: do these guys have any idea what they're talking about? Have the lines of distinction between Catholicism and Protestantism become so blurred?

Even close friends have expressed similar sentiments - one individual told me that the only important criterion by which we can judge a person is whether they "reflect Jesus Christ," and this friend affirmed his opinion that there is "every indication ... that [Benedict XVI] is doing just that."

I would be more than happy if all of these Protestant Evangelicals were truly feeling impelled by the witness of the Supreme Pontiff to return to the one true Church, but somehow I don't think this is what's happening. I think what's happening is that people have forgotten what this pope believes and will certainly uphold in his public teachings - what he is bound to teach always without alteration.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI was for some 20 years the head of the Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or the "CDF"), formerly known as the "Office of the Holy Inquisition." As the head of that office, Ratzinger was charged with the duty of protecting the Church's teachings (positively) and opposing doctrinal errors where they might arise in certain sectors of the local church (negatively). He is no stranger to confronting "heresy" (a term for which he confesses to have little affinity), and has had many years of experience with drawing lines in the sand and insisting that individuals conform their beliefs to the Church's teaching.

How will that affect the way he rules as pope?

He gave some indication of his papal agenda on April 20th, during his first papal Mass before the college of cardinals. In the homily for that Mass, Benedict XVI read an address to the cardinals in Latin, expressing some of his current thoughts and future visions. He spoke in glowing terms of the papacy of John Paul II, and promised to pick up right where the late pope left off. He admitted to feeling "two simultaneous discordant sentiments," one of "inferiority and human turmoil" over being elected pope, but also "profound gratitude to God" for this "gift of divine mercy" - a gift of grace that he attributed to the intercession of his predecessor: "I consider this a grace obtained for me by my venerable predecessor, John Paul II ... I seem to see his smiling eyes and listen to his words, addressed to me especially at this moment: 'Be not afraid!'"

Recalling the events recorded in Matt. 16:18ff, wherein Jesus gave to St. Peter the "keys of the kingdom," the new pope said "I am reliving this very Gospel scene; I, the Successor of Peter, repeat with trepidation the anxious words of the fisherman ... and I listen again with intimate emotion to the reassuring promise of the divine Master ... the divine power on which I can count is surely immeasurable: 'You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church'."

Near the end of his homily, he invoked "the maternal intercession of Mary Most Holy, in whose hands I place the present and the future of my person and of the Church," adding to this a request for the prayerful intercessions of "the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints." Already, then, he has implicitly affirmed his belief in several of the Church's teachings: the divinely-willed existence of the papal office, the communion of the saints, the role of the dearly departed in obtaining favors and graces for the living, the prayers of the saints, and the role of "Mary Most Holy" as a "maternal intercessor."

In the middle of his homily, he proclaimed his intention to take up the cause of the Second Vatican Council, saying "I ... wish to affirm with force my decided will to pursue the commitment to enact Vatican Council II," but he quickly added that he would undertake this task only "in faithful continuity with the 2,000-year-old tradition of the Church."

This is wholly in keeping with the principles that he, as head of the CDF, continually expressed: "If by 'restoration' is meant a turning back, no restoration of such kind is possible ... there is no going back, nor is it possible to go back ... there is no 'restoration' whatsoever in this sense ... by restoration we understand the search for a new balance after all the exaggerations of an indiscriminate opening to the world, after the overly positive interpretations of an agnostic and atheistic world ... In this sense it can be said that the first phase after Vatican II has come to a close." (The Ratzinger Report, pp. 37-38) The new pope has no intention of stopping the process of reform, nor does he have any intention of "going back" to pre-conciliar ways; he intends to go forward, but to do so with "new balance," that is, "in faithful continuity with the 2,000-year-old tradition of the Church."

What about ecumenism? Will he continue to reach out to Protestants (and, for that matter, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.)? In his homily he did indeed speak of "that full unity for which Christ longed in the Upper Room." He affirmed that "the current Successor [of St. Peter] assumes as his primary obligation that of working without reservation of energy towards the reconstitution of the full and visible unity of all Christ's disciples. This is his ambition, this is his compelling obligation."

The pope declared further that, in the work of ecumenism, "expressions of good sentiments are not enough," and that "concrete gestures are required to penetrate souls and move consciences." What "concrete gestures" does he have in mind? We will wait to find out. He did give a broad idea, however vague, of his agenda for ecumenism: "Theological dialogue is necessary. A profound investigation into the historical causes of past choices is also indispensable."

Like his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI intends to "do all in [my] power to promote the fundamental cause of ecumenism," and also "to cultivate any initiative that may seem appropriate to promote contact and agreement with representatives from the various Churches and ecclesial communities."

What he means by all of this is quite another question.

Protestant Evangelicals who have been quick to express their approval of the new pope should recall what he once wrote while still known as "Cardinal Ratzinger." In the year 2000, in response to the "Asian situation" (i.e., the developing relationship in Asia between the Catholic Church and various other religions), Cardinal Ratzinger - writing in his official role as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - penned the document Dominus Iesus.

The document drew immediate criticisms from the Jews, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and even some ostensibly "Catholic" theologians. Cardinal Cassidy, head of the Pontifical Commission for Christian Unity, quickly distanced himself from the document by claiming that it was "not addressed to the ecumenical world," but rather, "to the academic world" and "to some Asian Catholic theologians." Why the negative reaction to this document? Because it affirmed a very controversial, but very ancient teaching of the Church.

I would encourage today's Protestant Evangelicals to pay attention to this document - the man who wrote it is now the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, with the highest level of judicial authority in the hierarchy.

Dominus Iesus, the document begins, suis discipulis mandatum contulit nuntiandi Evangelium cunctis hominibus omnesque populos baptizandi - "The Lord Jesus ... commanded His disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all men, and to baptize the nations." From this first fundamental "seed," to which the Gospel testifies, flowers the rest of Ratzinger's conclusions about the role of the Church in the world.

The Church, he affirms, has a "universal mission" that is "born from the command of Jesus Christ" to the apostles. That mission is evangelization, and the cardinal (now pope) believes this is a unique mission given especially to the Catholic Church by no less than the God-Man Himself. While "inter-religious dialogue" is a tool utilized by today's Church, Ratzinger insists that it "does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes."

Ratzinger expresses his concern that the Church's mission "is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism," a relativism that immediately threatens fundamental truths which Ratzinger believes are non-negotiable. Among these truths he includes "the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ," the "inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture," and the "personal unity" - that is, the hypostatic union - "between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth."

In dialoguing with other religions, the cardinal insists that the truth must be firmly believed - and stated - that "Jesus Christ ... Lord and only Saviour ... through the event of his incarnation, death and resurrection ... brought the history of salvation to fulfilment." With force he declares, "solutions that propose a salvific action of God beyond the unique mediation of Christ would be contrary to Christian and Catholic faith."

Evangelical Protestants should certainly applaud the cardinal's stance on these issues - and these are the very issues for which he is now, as pope, being lauded by Evangelicalism's spokesmen. However, Ratzinger also insists on other non-negotiable truths, doctrines with which Evangelicalism has historically disagreed: for example, "the universal salvific mediation of the Church," the "inseparability ... of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church," and finally, "the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church."

On this last point, that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church, the cardinal explains that the phrase "subsists in" is a phrase that attempts to reconcile and "harmonize two doctrinal statements," namely: on the one side, that the "Church of Christ," the Church which Christ founded, "continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church"; on the other side, quoting the Second Vatican Council, Ratzinger affirms that "outside of [the Church's] structure, many elements of sanctification and truth can be found." Continuing to quote from the council, he quickly adds that "with respect to these" elements of sanctification and truth found outside the Catholic Church, "they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church."

The cardinal affirms that those "Churches which ... remain united to [the Catholic Church] by means of ... apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist" - namely, the Eastern Orthodox - "are true particular Churches." Turning to the Protestant denominations, he states that these "ecclesial communities" which lack valid priests and a valid Mass, "are not Churches in the proper sense." This, no doubt, was the statement that raised the ire of the then-Archbishop of Canterbury.

Ratzinger did affirm, however, with regard to individual Protestants, that "those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church."

Recalling a previous document (Mysterium Ecclesiae) issued by his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger reminds the reader that a Catholic is "not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection ... of Churches and ecclesial communities," and neither is a Catholic "free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach."

For Ratzinger - for Pope Benedict XVI - there really is one true, visible, universal Church of Christ, and it "subsists in" the Catholic Church. Quoting again from the Second Vatican Council, he reminds us that "these separated ... communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation," since "the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation" - however, if these Protestant denominations are sometimes used to mediate salvation, they "derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." Thus, in a loose way, Ratzinger affirms (then and now) that "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church."

In fact, he all but states this explicitly, by quoting again from the Council of Vatican II: "it must be firmly believed that 'the Church ... is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself ... affirmed ... the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door.'"

Going further, Ratzinger declares that the Church "has, in God's plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being." For those who are "outside the Church" in a formal and visible sense, "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation."

How precisely God "mysteriously" grants grace to some of those who are formally outside the Church - yet are still "imperfectly united" to Her in a material way - is unknown, he admits, and is a subject for future inquiry. Whatever the case, however, he concludes that "it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions," because "God has willed that the Church founded by [Christ] be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity."

To put it in another way, "it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace," yet at the same time "it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." Not that this by any means indicates that all Catholic in the Church will be saved, because "their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ," and if these Catholic Christians "fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged."

To sum up the position of the cardinal - which is certainly still his position as Pope Benedict XVI - and to give us an idea of his future papal agenda vis-a-vis Evangelicals, we may quote these concluding words: "the Church ... must be primarily committed to ... announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This will undoubtedly be the personal conviction that motivates his future actions as pope. As he believes, so he will certainly act: other religions must be told of their need for Jesus Christ, and other denominations (having already encountered Christ) must be told of their need to adhere to the Church, "through Baptism and the other sacraments."

But the memory is a fragile thing. Perhaps Bush, Robertson, Williams, and the rest have simply forgotten - in the five years that have passed - that the hand which recently gave the new papal blessing to the crowd in St. Peter's Square on April 19, 2005 is the same hand that signed the document Dominus Iesus, affirming again the Church's ancient teaching: voluit Deus ut Ecclesia ab eo condita instrumentum esset ad salutem universi humani generis - God has willed that His Church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, be the instrument of salvation for all men.

[Note: as was stated, there was much heated debated that arose in the aftermath of the promulgation of Dominus Iesus. Catholic World Report published a short piece on the world's reaction to the document, and the section of the article relating Cardinal Ratzinger's response to the hostility is worth reproducing here:

"Finally, Cardinal Ratzinger weighed in, defending the document which had appeared over his signature. The cardinal indicated that he was 'very much upset' by the charges that Dominus Iesus was a triumph of 'fundamentalism, Roman centralism, and absolutism.' He remarked that Protestant leaders had no reason to be offended by the notion that the Church is the sole means to salvation, since this has been the constant teaching of the Church for centuries.

Responding to critics who have suggested that the language of Dominus Iesus was too harsh, Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out that 'the words of Jesus are often terribly harsh and formulated without much diplomatic prudence.' While conceding that the language of the statement is quite different from the language generally used in the mass media, the cardinal suggested that Catholic teachers should take pains to help others understand the Church teaching. 'The text should be explained rather than disdained,' he said."]