Introduction: Evangelicalism
Derek Poole

Comment: Ourselves Alone
Alwyn Thomson

From the Director
David Porter

A World of Difference
Alwyn Thomson

What is an Evangelical Catholic?
Paddy Monaghan

Decommissioning the Heart
David Bruce

Evangelical Catholics
T. Gordon Hills

Sorting out the Family
David Montgomery

Do They Know Us by Our Love?
John Ortberg

Loyalist Speak
Robert Dunlop

Book Reviews
Alwyn Thomson

< Past Issues Archive

EVANGELICAL CATHOLICS
It was in the 1970's that I first detected that some evangelicals began to adopt a different attitude towards the Roman Catholic church and its teachings. The particular incident, which drew my attention to this trend, was the reprint, by an evangelical publishing house, of a popular paperback dealing with the cults. The reprint had entirely removed all references to Roman Catholicism. The previous editions had dealt in detail with the doctrinal errors of that organisation. There was no explanation as to the omission of this section of the book and at that time I thought that it conveyed the emergence of a changing attitude towards the Roman Catholic church. Twenty years later that change is clearly in evidence.

Prominent evangelical magazines now refer to Roman Catholic Christians in quite a routine way, as though there was no grounds for questioning their orthodoxy. The naivety being expressed is hard to understand but it may have its basis upon the new pragmatic manner in which orthodoxy is being tested, not through the application of Scripture, but by assessing the sincerity of the individual and the genuineness of their experience, however that is not a thesis I wish to develop here. There seems to be no serious concern regarding the doctrinal differences which completely separate them from those committed to the historic Christian faith.

We now refer to Roman Catholic Christians in a quite routine way, as though there was no ground for questioning their orthodoxy.

I need to make it abundantly clear that I believe in the possibility of a Roman Catholic coming to a saving knowledge of Christ while still a member of that church. There is insufficient appreciation by some evangelicals of the real difficulties Catholics face as they try to find their way through the maze of those Christian things they were taught while Catholics, which are correct and other things they were taught which are erroneous! Furthermore a converted Catholic, whose whole view of the Christian church is one of a united visible entity, is not helped as he looks at the divisions existing among the evangelicals. He is immediately encouraged to believe that they have a clearer grasp of the truth, so tolerance needs to be exercised towards those who profess genuine faith but are still practising Catholics.

There is however a considerable difference between an evangelical Catholic emerging into light and another professing the same stance but who sees himself as an apologist of heretical Catholic doctrine and makes it clear that he considers that non-Catholics have missed the truth. Such a position is taken by Keith A. Fournier who serves as Dean of Evangelism at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio and who is hailed by men like Charles Colson who has written a foreword of his book carrying the title "Evangelical Catholics". As I read some of the prominent evangelical and charismatic journals published in America, I note that there is a growing trend to accept Catholic Christians as though they were part of mainstream Christianity. I am concerned that truth is being sacrificed on the altar of a Christian "togetherness" (it cannot be called fellowship) where the all important goal is expressing an acceptance of each other in spite of what God has said.

In recent times a number of people have asked for my opinion on a movement which takes the name "Evangelical Catholics", consequently when I saw Fournier's book carrying this title my curiosity was aroused sufficiently to send for it. The first point I noted was that the author wanted to change the interpretation of the normal usage of the word "evangelical" so that it better suited his particular position. As I turned to the dictionary for its definition and read "the school of Protestants maintaining that the essence of the Gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by faith, and denying that either sacraments or good works having any saving efficacy", I was reasonably satisfied that even the secular world had an understanding of who we were. Fournier however caricatures the interpretation of the word by referring to a select few movements and individuals who have used it historically and arrives at a definition based upon a conglomeration of their differences, which he says is unacceptable! It's a pity he didn't read a good dictionary. If I were to be allowed the same kind of latitude as Fainter takes, and reinterpret the words "Roman Catholic", I could make a case that the word "Roman" is a synonym for Paul's teaching in his letter to Romans. I could then quite happily proceed to use the term Roman Catholic to mean that I am a member of a church which is based upon the doctrine of salvation as declared in Paul's letter to the Romans. Anything is possible when you change the rules! However the difficulty lies with common usage of words and terms and I know that I would be completely misunderstood and would need to do what Fournier has done, i.e. write a book to explain my usage of this term. This is what makes the whole matter so very subtle.

As an "evangelical catholic" Fournier espouses his belief that authority lies in the church not the Bible which is the product of the church; in the "real presence" in the sacrifice of the Mass; in the hierarchical structure of the church its head and bishops. He defends praying before a statue and promotes the idea that conversion is not a single experience and that the faith of an individual cannot bring salvation. He espouses that scripture teaches that the faith of others can bring salvation to an individual, as is the case in infant baptism. Fournier complains that too often his church is not accepted by others when it is in fact the Mother church. My conclusion on reading this work is that nothing has changed, only the language being employed at times but even it has to be reinterpreted.

It is the use of language and terms which is causing so much confusion. It is easy to formulate a creedal statement, which appears to be quite orthodox, but it is how those terms are normally understood by the writers of the creed which is the key to its interpretation. Another example of the confusing use of language is to be found in a pamphlet emanating from Dublin, which carries the title "What is an Evangelical Catholic?" In seeking to present their position to be in line with their brothers and sisters "in the various Protestant churches" the writers, both lay and clergy, affirm "That the Eucharist (or Mass) is not a repetition of Calvary, i.e. Jesus dies once and for all. The priest and people enter into that one all-sufficient sacrifice by Grace". It all sounds quite orthodox to an unenlightened evangelical. To the best of my knowledge it was only ill-informed Protestants who ever believed that the Mass was a repetition of Calvary, it certainly was never promoted by the Catholic church. The Catholic church has never officially taught that the Mass was a repetition of Calvary. Their actual position is that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead and in the Mass there is offered to God the very same sacrifice as was offered at Calvary. The Catholic church has always been careful not to state that it is a repetition. But event the use of the words "by Grace" need to be understood when used by a Catholic, for to a Roman Catholic (and Evangelical Catholics are Roman Catholics) grace is something conferred by the Virgin Mary through the sacraments of the church and not something which is normally mediated directly from God to the sinner.

The pamphlet goes on to explain that Evangelical Catholics are committed to "A respect for and obedience to the teaching authority of the Pope and Bishops of the Catholic Church unless that obedience goes against one's conscience as enlightened by Scripture and Church teaching". The qualifying statement seems to allow for some latitude. However when you realise that these people have already accepted the Catholic position that "it belongs to the Church and to the Church alone, to determine the true sense of the Scripture, and that we cannot interpret contrary to the Church's decision, or to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, without making shipwreck of our faith" it rather robs it of its influence.

A great many people are being influenced to believe that the Catholic Church has gone through some considerable changes. This influence may have been the result of hearing a practising Catholic expressing their personal beliefs, or through reading some book which has been written by a Catholic, which challenges or reinterprets some of the teachings of that Church. There are many such publications in circulation but they do not carry the official "Nihil Obstat" from the censors department, which is a declaration that the work is free from error, consequently it is not a reflection of the teaching of the Church.

What is not sufficiently understood is that Catholic doctrine is enshrined in dogmatic theology which is defined as " the Scientific exposition of the whole theoretical doctrine revealed by God about God Himself and His activity and which (Catholics) accept on the authority of the Church".

A Catholic must accept what the Church has revealed as a dogma if he is to continue to be a Catholic. To quote one official source: "If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott). Every Catholic is obliged to believe the dogma promulgated by Pope Pius XII on 1st November 1950 that "Mary, the immaculate perpetually Virgin Mother of God, after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven". This is not open to discussion or a different interpretation. If a Catholic fails to believe it they are automatically subject to excommunication. The fact that a local priest may be unaware that one of his congregation does not accept this dogma changes nothing and the protestations of its members cannot bring about any doctrinal change. There may be changes in things peripheral, but not in essential teaching, as Martin Luther discovered. Although a great deal has been said and continues to be written concerning the value of Vatican II, (an ecumenical council, which took place in the early 60's), no doctrinal change took place through that gathering of Bishops.

We should not exhibit intolerance...

There has been a concentrated effort over the last thirty years, by the Catholic church, to find acceptance within the mainstream of Christianity. This has been fostered through the various ecumenical committees it has set up through the Vatican and involves continuing dialogue with all the major Protestant denominations. They are striving for recognition and evangelicals ought not to be aiding them in their quest. However our stance towards that church as a heretical organisation, must not be confused with our approach towards individuals within that church who are sincerely searching for truth. We should not exhibit intolerance towards such individuals who have been deceived into believing lies; nor should we expect the full blaze of truth to immediately shine upon their pathway when they take those first steps of faith, for that was not the experience of any one of us. Let not the use of familiar terms, jargon or even songs be the criteria by which we judge the true spiritual state of anyone who professes to be born again, whether they are generally referred to as Catholics or Protestants or Pentecostals.

T. Gordon Hills is the Field Superintendent of the Elim Pentecostal Church. His previous positions involved pastorates in both England and Ireland. For 18 years he served as an Evangelist in the Republic of Ireland. 'Evangelical Catholics' is printed with the permission of the author.