James White had a very thoughtful post on the theological issues that underlie the decision to be or not to be Roman Catholic. Reading that post, as well as listening to his extended Dividing Line podcast has led me back into the fold of Calvinism, which I believe is a very good thing. I need to solidify my theology if I expect to defend it against outsiders.
But it leaves me with the question of why I’m Reformed and not something else, like Roman Catholic. Regular readers of this blog will recall that I was raised Catholic–baptized and confirmed. So why am I not still Catholic?
I’m not Catholic for four very important theological reasons: dispensing of grace by sacraments, veneration of saints and Mary, the Eucharist, and the alleged infallibility of the Pope. I simply cannot agree to the Roman theology behind these three items.
I’ve found recently in two snippets from the news and the book Justification by Hans Kung that the Roman view of justification is essentially the same as the Reformed view. I admit that I haven’t read Justification carefully enough, but I’m assured that that is the conclusion of the book. Man is justified before God solely on the basis of grace through faith, plus nothing. That is the Reformed view as well as the Catholic view.
However, Catholicism differs from the Reformed view of grace significantly. Grace is dispensed through the sacraments in Catholicism. In the Reformed view, it is God’s discretion upon whom grace is given; in other words, it is a free gift and not of works (Eph 2:8-10). Since grace is unmerited favor, it makes no sense that one has to work for it in the Roman view. On the other hand, the Reformed view makes much more sense; God bestows grace upon whom he will (see Rom 9).
Worshiping anyone or anything other than God is idolatry; Scripture makes that clear (see, for example, this post from TurretinFan). Therefore, I see no justification for the veneration of saints, angels, or the Virgin Mary that one sees in Romanism.
The rubber justification that the Romanists often use is that they only pay latria to God, while offering dulia to the saints and Mary. Latria is pure worship, while dulia is more like a deep reverence. This is a distinction without a difference. One should err on the side of caution, especially in light of the first commandment’s harsh penalty proscriptions for idolatry.
Consider the severe punishments that God pronounces on the entire nation of Israel for her disobedience and idolatry. Consider the judgments of the pagan nations in the Promised Land due to their idolatry. This is something that God takes very seriously. As an extension, so should we!
The Eucharist is a fancy form of idolatry. The Eucharist isn’t merely a symbol of the body and blood of Christ; in Romanism, it becomes the body and blood of Christ, and therefore an object to be worshiped. Worshiping bread and wine is idolatry, regardless of what it symbolizes.
The Eucharist is disgusting in another way. It “re-presents” the sacrifice of Christ, so that Jesus is sacrificed over and over again on the altars of Romanism. This makes light of the fact that Jesus declared on the cross, “It is finished” (Jn 19:30) because he offered himself once for all (Heb 7:27). There is no need to offer sacrifices daily because Jesus took care of all of that with the sacrifice of himself (Heb 10:11-14).
Finally, papal infallibility makes Roman Catholicism into a cult. The power of the pope to define doctrine ex cathedra, thus binding all Roman Catholics to that teaching for all time, is too much power to vest in one man. This is nothing less than an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture in faith and practice.
I’m not a Protestant out of mere preference, as James White suggests many are. I understand the theological issues that divide us from Roman Catholics. Ultimately, I know that Catholics aren’t saved because of what Rome teaches, but in spite of what Rome teaches.
