Yesterday at HBU we hosted Daniel Cardinal DiNardo as our guest for convocation. Our director for the school of theology, David Capes, suggested the event after having heard the cardinal speak on a prior occasion. I honestly had no idea what to expect.
Cardinal DiNardo asked about any themes we might have for convocation this year and we provided him with John 14:6, which reads, “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’”
He chose to make that verse the basis of his presentation. I must tell you that his exposition of the gospel of John would have satisfied any Protestant I know. It was relentlessly scriptural and he clearly had mastery of his subject. He spoke comfortably from notes in a way that had the audience on the edge of their seats. There are days when you have to keep after students to leave their phones alone while a speaker is talking, but this was not one of them. Afterwards, many students lined up to speak with him. You can watch his presentation here.
I know there is a distance between catholics and protestants and that it is substantial, but listening to this cardinal preach has bolstered my confidence in the eventual unity of the church.
And please do not assume that I am saying it will occur because we simply concede. I am not suggesting that at all.
March 11th, 2010 | 1:14 pm | #1
First step, no Calvinism.
March 11th, 2010 | 1:18 pm | #2
Christopher, I don’t think there is true uniformity even within the Church of Rome.
March 11th, 2010 | 1:28 pm | #3
It was a pleasure to watch Al Pacino’s homily. :-)
March 11th, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #4
Too sedate for Pacino.
March 11th, 2010 | 1:37 pm | #5
I’m sorry to report, Mr. Benson, that the alleged “huge step forward” was nothing of the sort. It was merely/simply liberal Lutherans compromising on the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Rome did not change its position, at all, in fact, hastened to make it clear that the Canons of Trent still are in full force. No huge step at all, but another example of liberal theologians not caring about doctrinal distinctions and being willing to agree with anything for the sake of “unity.”
March 11th, 2010 | 1:58 pm | #6
Hunter Baker: “I know there is a distance between catholics and protestants and that it is substantial, but listening to this cardinal preach has bolstered my confidence in the eventual unity of the church.”
I highly doubt a visible unity of the Church before the Return of Christ.
However, I do joyfully support co-belligerent efforts on issues such as the sanctity of life, biblical marriage, and religious liberty.
March 11th, 2010 | 1:59 pm | #7
“It was merely/simply liberal Lutherans compromising on the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone.”
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :-)
Seriously, Cardinal Dulles’ assessment is a measured assessment of the Declaration and shares some of the concerns raised by the Rev. McCain:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/two-languages-of-salvation-the-lutheran-catholic-joint-declaration–38
http://www.pcj.edu/journal/essays/dulles9-1.htm
March 11th, 2010 | 2:15 pm | #8
I’m so glad Rev. McCain answered before I even read this thread. We agree completely.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:19 pm | #9
Orthodoxdj: “First step, no Calvinism.”
Oooooh, that’s so exclusive. Such a statement violates Christian Correctness.
Speaking of which, I think one of the first steps for the eventual unity of the Church must be that all Christians adhere to Christian Correctness.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:25 pm | #10
That said, however, (and the break between the two comments is intentional) because I have faith in the Gospel, I have faith that the message of John 14:6 as well as the message of John 3 and John 6 and John 13-15 will win. It will win over Baptist arrogance, and Catholic arrogance, and Lutheran arrogance — and we’ll all be humbled and set right by it.
Just sayin’ — when someone says what the Bible actually says about something, we can all get behind that.
March 11th, 2010 | 2:41 pm | #11
Oh and add Acts 4:11-12, Frank: “This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Just thought I would add that as well.
March 11th, 2010 | 3:55 pm | #12
“And please do not assume that I am saying it will occur because we simply concede. I am not suggesting that at all.”
Oh, go ahead: Concede.
Or at least suggest it. :)
March 11th, 2010 | 4:11 pm | #13
As I mentioned at Touchstone. I imagine he sees true unity as stated in this recent article.
Cardinal DiNardo also sees the Anglican Use parish as an effective Catholic evangelization tool to not only reach out to the spiritual marooned Episcopalians in this country and Anglicans abroad to bring them into the fullness of faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church through the See of Peter and to also bring those disenfranchised Catholics who have left the Church and discovered Her again through the beauty and majesty of the Anglican Use liturgy.
He spoke very generally and did not expound on places like John 6 where Transubstantiation and the Eucharist are often defended.
Even a Mormon could speak generally on the Trinity without defining terms and seem agreeable to a Protestant.
March 11th, 2010 | 4:21 pm | #14
“It was a pleasure to watch Al Pacino’s homily. :-)”
I enjoyed watching Scarface too.
;-)
March 11th, 2010 | 5:21 pm | #15
Mr. Benson, as I said, it is not a “huge step forward.” The RCC is not stating anything it has not already said, and the Vatican, at the time Ratzinger himself, made very clear that there was *nothing* said in this agreement that in any way mitigated, modified, or otherwise negated the Canons of the Council of Trent which explicitly reject the teaching that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone. If you think this is a huge breakthrough then, and I don’t mean to sound rude, but you simply do not understand the Biblical doctrine of justification.
Here’s a thorough Lutheran critique of the JDDJ:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CTCR/justclp.pdf
And, interestingly, here is a Roman Catholic critique:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php%3Fid%3D31%26catname%3D15&ei=UG6ZS_6aBovuNMeqtHo&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=1&ct=result&ved=0CAYQhgIwAA&usg=AFQjCNG92qibCzz6WraJLQO1qJsxPFALaA
Now, if you want to go down the path of: “Our differences are not really all that significant” there is nothing more to discuss.
March 11th, 2010 | 6:50 pm | #16
Mr. Benson, you do not understand the doctrine of justification. That’s the problem. Read the materials I linked to in my comment before this one.
March 11th, 2010 | 7:02 pm | #17
Christopher Benson: “Mr. McCain: Stop being puerile. Why do you insist on a “p _ _ _ ing contest” regarding who has a better understanding of the doctrine of justification?”
In all cases, we must remember Jesus’ warning about our words:
“For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:34-37).
March 11th, 2010 | 7:09 pm | #18
Maybe I can interject here although I know that I do so at great peril, but the JDDJ can still be a big step forward while raising red flags among individual Catholics and Lutherans. Thus, you’re both correct!
The JDDJ allowed for the removal of anathemas given at the time of the reformation, which is huge in my humble opinion. Of course, Pope Benedict, as any good Catholic must, cannot say that it abrogates an infallible doctrinal definition such as Trent. The question, from a Catholic vantage point, is whether the JDDJ means that Lutherans no longer fall under the condemnations of Trent because what is condemned there no longer applies. Huge I say!
March 11th, 2010 | 7:11 pm | #19
Christopher Benson to Rev. McCain:
“Stop being puerile.”
“Why do you insist on a “p _ _ _ ing contest”
“Must everyone concur with you – the all-knowing theology wonk?”
Christopher, do your words to Rev. McCain improve or injure your witness-bearing?
March 11th, 2010 | 7:29 pm | #20
Tony Lane is a well-known and respected scholar, and these quotations attest to that. I forgot that you had included them earlier. These posts get so long. . . . I would say “Amen,” but that would be quite self-serving. So, I’ll just say, “let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be. . .”
March 11th, 2010 | 7:40 pm | #21
No, Mr. Coulter is wrong. You are wrong, Mr. Benson.
If either of you would bother actually to study the facts of how the JDDJ came about, what Rome said to make absolutely sure nobody would mistake that they have, in fact, changed their position at all, and how many Lutheran scholars in Germany and around the world rejected it, you would recognize that it was a more of a PR stunt than any sort of meaningful “big step forward.” The majority of the member churches of the Lutheran World Federation did not approve it. The only Lutherans who have approved it are those Lutherans who are liberal in their theology, members of church bodies that have rejected the doctrines of the historic church, pay for children to be murdered through their health plans, and are ordaining and marrying, in various places, active homosexuals.
Professor Lane apparently is not much of a scholar if he does not recognize how at odds the JDDJ is with historic Reformation theology.
Mr. Benson, it is sadly apparent you do not have a grasp of the facts of the JDDJ, nor its meaning, nor, apparently, are you aware of the details and meaning of the doctrine of justification. One wonders why then you are bothering to particpate on a blog titled “Evangel.”
The JDDJ should be filed away under: “This is what happens when revisionist theologians, who are willing to barter away every historic doctrine of the church, get their hands on the doctrine of justification.”
March 11th, 2010 | 7:42 pm | #22
Mr. Coulter, you are also woefully misinformed about the JDDJ.
FACT: The only Lutherans who regard the JDDJ to be a “breakthrough” are those members of liberal/leftist Lutheran bodies. There were no “anathemas” removed by the JDDJ. The Vatican made very clear every canon and statement of the Council of Trent was still very much in force, with all the anathemas against the doctrine of justification by grace, through faith alone, very much in place and in full force.
Please do not attempt to comment on a subject about which you obviously know very little.
March 11th, 2010 | 7:43 pm | #23
Mr. Benson, that you are the one who feels a need now to resort to name-calling reveals the level of ignorance about these issue with which you are operating.
March 11th, 2010 | 8:08 pm | #24
Rev. McCain: “Mr. Benson, that you are the one who feels a need now to resort to name-calling reveals the level of ignorance about these issue with which you are operating.”
I was thinking that his name-calling actually revealed more of his Pharasaic hypocrisy given what he wrote on his chopped-up thread “Donkey Fart Doctors of Theology: Learning Invectives From Thomas Muntzer.”
March 11th, 2010 | 8:16 pm | #25
Mr. McCain,
I hate being wrong. Ah well, c’est la vie. But I digress. . . .
The JDDJ itself says: “41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.”
So, I’m not wrong with regard to what I said about Pope Benedict. I just heard Monsignor John Radano, who served on the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Unity, say as much last week.
I did not really speak to Lutheran reaction to the document although I do know that the Finnish Lutheran church has viewed it as a step forward. I know some Finnish Lutheran theologians (home of the New-Finnish interpretation of Luther) and I would not describe them as liberal.
March 11th, 2010 | 8:32 pm | #26
At the risk of having Rev. McCain respond with harsh words, I have to remark that the link you provided gives the Missouri Synod response to the JDDJ. What about the ELCA? Do you not consider them to be Lutherans? I have some ELCA friends, who are not liberal in their theology, who would consider themselves Lutheran.
March 12th, 2010 | 6:10 am | #27
Alison, the ELCA is a liberal mainline protestant church body, not a confessional Lutheran Church. Individual laypeople who are members of ELCA congregations may still retain some traditional Lutheran teachings and understanding.
March 12th, 2010 | 8:53 am | #28
Rev. McCain: “Alison, the ELCA is a liberal mainline protestant church body, not a confessional Lutheran Church. Individual laypeople who are members of ELCA congregations may still retain some traditional Lutheran teachings and understanding.”
Precisely.
Emphasis on the word “liberal”.
And if anyone really wants to get into it, the clear manifestation of this liberal infection is Women’s Ordination within ELCA.
March 12th, 2010 | 9:21 am | #29
@#37: I would say it is but one clear manifestation. One among many.
March 13th, 2010 | 9:46 pm | #30
“Rome did not change its position, at all, in fact, hastened to make it clear that the Canons of Trent still are in full force”.
Anyone who imagines or expects “Rome” to contradict Trent understands nothing at all.
March 14th, 2010 | 2:44 am | #31
“Anyone who imagines or expects “Rome” to contradict Trent understands nothing at all.”
While I don’t claim to understand “Rome”, I certainly don’t expect “Rome” to contradict Trent.
While I think it would be nice for “Rome” to repudiate Trent’s anathemas, they’d probably lose too much “face” if they did it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact