Readers know that I am a Reformed Church (RCA) minister and an evangelical Protestant. I do not always care for these labels, since labels are used to "brand" people and thereby end conversations and the obligation to love. But these brands are useful now and then since they genuinely express my Christian tradition and ecclesiastical stance. Some readers think that all Reformed thinkers and writers must be like the "leading voices" of small, but still growing, very conservative Reformed movements. These popular writers and preachers are NOT the sole voice of Reformed Christianity. Indeed, it would improve our present Christian context a great deal if a growing number of people were awakened to these facts. Many younger Christians are increasingly aware of this fact (I am delighted to meet these via this blog and in person) but my generation seems to think that only the most popular authors speak for "true" Reformed Christianity in America. A little knowledge of church history would go a long way, in this case. (Some who respond to this site still insist I am NOT Reformed since I do not pronounce every word in their marginalia with the same fervor and strict wording they employ.)

But faithful readers have seen that I am a missional Christian who is deeply committed to ecumenism as well as confessional Christianity. I believe the world that we presently live in demands this stance if we are faithful to both the Scriptures and Christian tradition. I have naysayers, in evangelical and Reformed circles, for sure. These are quite often people, who for various reasons of real conscience or strong opinion, see Catholicism (for example) as "the" enemy of real faith. They even see Catholics as false professors of faith and true religion, or enemies of God's grace. On the opposite side I have Catholic readers who cannot imagine how I refuse to join the "true" church and repent of schism. They distrust me, but for almost the exact same reason as people on the Protestant right. (Have you ever noticed how sectarianism brings people of opposite viewpoints very close to one another in their way of waging battles for the faith?) Then there are people on the far left who simply do not care for theology at all because everything is a waste of time unless you embrace their ideological and political agenda ranging from homosexual ordination to the radical deconstruction of almost all orthodox Christian theology.

So I manage to confuse a number of fine readers who are good, ordinary and faithful evangelical folks. At the same time there is a growing number of people, many of who read this blog regularly, who want to hear from both sides of the church in the West, Catholic and Protestant. They believe, like I do, that something big is going on today and it is a convergence of Christianity in the missional context. They also welcome believers in the Eastern Church into this dialogue, and their friendship, as well. I love living and writing from this point of convergence.

When you put into this mix the whole issue of "listening" to non-Christians, in a spirit of human cooperation and Christ-like love, you really muddy the water for people who see no place at all for dialogue with those who they think are "the enemies of Christ." (If they are his enemies then they must be mine, so they reason!) The world such people seem to desire will never be one in which we can truly pursue the peace that Jesus taught us to pray for since these folks are committed to stoking the fires of religious controversy for the sake of their understanding of the gospel. The way they see it conversations with Muslims, Hindus, etc. is all compromise!

Since Vatican II Rome has responded very differently to the modern world than previously. This is a good move as I see it. Every Christian, and peace-loving person I know, welcomes this change. John Paul II radically altered the Roman Catholic Church during his long pontificate. (He also put the breaks on some terribly liberal tendencies that threatened the health of the church.) Benedict XVI is carrying on this same direction as many of us who knew him from his writing believed he would. Contrary to mainstream religious media reports he is not a "Panzer pope." He is a first-rate theologian who really gets the modern world quite well. And he shows deep concern for the future of the West, at least as we've known it.

A recent flap touched the leadership of Benedict XVI powerfully when four formerly disciplined bishops were restored to the Catholic Church. Because of the clear evidence that there is anti-Semitism in the thought of one or more of these men the media jumped on this move with passion. Jewish leaders were rightly offended and feared a huge setback in Catholic-Jewish dialogue would ensue. Benedict XVI responded to this with a papal letter on March 10. This letter is a moving demonstration of grace and humility. I am publishing it here because many of my readers will not have seen it. Every Christian can learn something from this statement.

Let me urge you to read these words very carefully. If you are not Catholic then you will disagree with the whole premise about the papacy, about Simon Peter and thus Pope Benedict's office. I do personally. But I urge you to read this for all the light that shines through it. You are also likely to reject the expression of devotion to Mary, which is both right but, sometimes, unfortunate. (I personally reject the two major Marian dogmas of the 19th and 20th centuries, which are extra-biblical. But love for Mary predates modern evangelicalism and should be rethought by serious Christians who are not simply reacting to Rome. The Protestant Reformers did not throw love for Mary overboard the way modern evangelicals have done!)

So, read Benedict's words with care and discernment, but read them. Read them to see the grace at work in this man's kind soul. And read them to see how theology, when done by a whole church, can often be a beautiful lesson to us all. And while you are at it observe the genuine humility of this man Benedict XVI.

Papal Letter on Society of St. Pius X

We Must Have at Heart the Unity of All Believers

VATICAN CITY, MARCH 12, 2009 ( Here is the letter written by Benedict XVI concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X that were ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988.

Dear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry!

The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope's concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.

An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church's path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council—steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the Internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which—as in the days of Pope John Paul II—has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.

Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment—excommunication—with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical
status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers—even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty—do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei"—the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope—to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world's Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church's teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962—this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.

I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren't other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a
defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer
has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1)—in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with

increasingly evident destructive effects.

Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith—ecumenism—is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light—this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity—this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.

So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf. Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents—to the extent possible—in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things—arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them—in this case the Pope—he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.

Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide—even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.

With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain

Yours in the Lord,


From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

© Copyright 2009 Libreria Editrice Vaticana

Related Posts


  1. jls March 18, 2009 at 7:12 am

    Another point of widespread evangelical criticism of the Roman Catholic church is papal infallibility. Clearly, this Pope does not believe that he is infallible.

  2. Chad Toney March 18, 2009 at 8:39 am

    While papal (and ecclesial) infallibility remains a difference between Catholic and Evangelical theology, no where does the pope deny it within this letter.
    Infallibility only comes into play when “in virtue of his office as the Supreme Pastor of the Church, or the College of Bishops, in union with the Pope especially when joined together in an Ecumenical Council, proclaim by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals” (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 185).
    I think it would be more accurate to say that this pope (and every pope that has come before him) does not believe that he is impeccable.

  3. Kathy Allen March 18, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Wow! What a letter! Unless you have read quite a few of papal letters (and I have!) you wouldn’t realize what a rule-breaker this one is. Benedict refers to himself as “I” rather than with the royal “we”, he tries to speak in a readily understood manner rather than in the stilted ways used by most of the other popes, and he is clear about where he was wrong. Better yet, he comes forward with a plan to repair the problems. He also shows us his heart, and we can see that he was hurt by all the people that assumed the worst about his decision. And he acts in such a pastoral way, hoping to bring the strays home. The tone of his letter gives me hope for our Church.
    And he will need it today, after the media outcry and misrepresentation of his words in Africa regarding AIDS.

  4. Chad Toney March 18, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Kathy, I’ve heard that the last Pope to use the Majestic Plural or the Royal “We” was Paul VI.

  5. jls March 18, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    Hi Chad,
    Thanks for posting your very helpful clarification. I was simply alluding to the fact that many evangelicals criticize Catholicism on this point without understanding what the Catholic church actually teaches. As a former Catholic, I know what that teaching is, but some do not. My choice of words was poor; yours is much better. This is an important topic of contention between the two camps, and if evangelicals wish to discuss it with their Catholic brethren, they should do so from a standpoint of knowledge, not ignorance.

  6. ColtsFan March 18, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    I was in a hospital lobby watching TV at 2:30 a.m. and there was a Catholic apologist on the air making some points. I started taking notes, and the presenter (I did not record names) said the following:
    “The Roman Catholic Church has inherited and replaced Jesus Christ in the offices of “Prophet, Priest, and King.
    In the office of Prophet, the Church has the Magisterium and predicts the future, as occurred in 1968, regarding predicting Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and the evils of abortion….
    In the office of Priest, the Church is the priest to accept your sins….
    In the office of King, the Church has the hierarchy.”
    That is an almost word for word quote.
    I was sitting there, and I could not believe the RCC guy actually used the word “replaced”.
    Catholic friends:
    is this typical Catholic dogma or is this a false caricature of your viewpoint?

  7. Nick Morgan March 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    John, as an “evangelical” Roman Catholic who shares so much of your vision for the Church, I can’t thank you enough for posting this letter by our beloved Pope. I hope all of us can see the genuine Christ-like humility and kindness that comes forth from this man, especially in this letter.
    God bless!

  8. Chad Toney March 18, 2009 at 4:28 pm

    ColtsFan, are you sure that wasn’t an anti-Catholic speaker attempting to prove that the Catholic Church is *anti-Christ*? 🙂
    I’ve never heard anything like what you’ve said about the Church *replacing* Christ.
    Those are certainly interesting points about Priest, Prophet, King, but I’d be much more likely to say that Christ *continues* to exercise these roles through his Body, the Church he established on the apostles.

  9. ColtsFan March 18, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    Hi Chad Toney:
    My above comment was only intended as a sincere question. It was not intended as a verbal bomb hurled at Catholics.
    I am very confident that I heard that quote from a RCC priest on the TV in the wee a.m. hours of the morning. I should have written the names down. When I find some free time, maybe I will try to google it.
    To be honest with ya, I do remember the actual quote being something like, “the RCC has inherited and replaced Jesus Christ concerning the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King.”
    I was so amazed by that quote that I grabbed a magazine and wrote it down, and then went to email it to a buddy of mine who I discuss theology with often.
    take care,

  10. Nick Morgan March 18, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    Hi Colts Fan,
    Maybe this priest also used a poor choice of words to make his point. Chad is correct in stating that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Christ exercises His roles of “Prophet, Priest, and King” through rather than independent of the Catholic Church. This is based on our understanding of ecclesiology that the Church on earth is Christ’s Body and therefore an extension of His Incarnation on Earth. Never has the Church taught that she in any way has “replaced Christ”, but rather as His Body, founded on the Apostles, she is totally dependent on Christ for the mission He has given to Her and enabled by the Holy Spirit working through the Pope, the magisterium, and the faithful. I hope this clarifies the Roman Church’s position here.
    God bless!

  11. ColtsFan March 19, 2009 at 1:05 am

    Thank you Chad and Nick Morgan for your comments.
    The Roman Catholic Church priest was a middle-age guy who was talking to a much older Catholic layman. There was a nun on the show as well. It was around 2:30 a.m. Chicago-land.
    Again, thank you for your comments and discussion.

  12. ColtsFan March 24, 2009 at 4:24 am

    Chad and Nick Morgan,
    I just saw the same TV program I made reference to earlier. The name is “EWTV”. Tonight they were interviewing a former Methodist turned Roman Catholic who was discussing ways to convert Methodists to “return on the journey home” to the Roman Catholic Church. The commentator tonight was not the same guy I made reference to previously. But it was the same show, of that I am certain.

  13. Nick Morgan March 26, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    I’m familiar with that program and station. That is the Catholic TV Network. It is an excellent network with many good programs, but it is also admitedly a strong apologetic for the Roman Catholic Church. The particular show you mentioned sounds like “The Journey Home”, which is hosted by former Presbyterian Minister-turned Catholic Marcus Grodi. They routinely interview former Protestant clergy and laity who have “come home” to the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sure most of my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ will not agree with the program’s premise, however I find listening to the journey these brothers and sisters made to the RCC and the hardships they suffered along the way to be very interesting. Unfortunately, most of these “converts” to the RCC receive poor treatment from former Church members and family regarding their decision, though there are exceptions. God bless brother and take care!

  14. ColtsFan March 28, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Hi Nick Morgan:
    I read your comment with interest. Thanks,

Comments are closed.

My Latest Book!

Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!

Recent Articles