With articles like this we don't even need conspiracy theories about Jesuits infiltrating the church.

Correction: "Vatican II opened the windows."

The name is "Ratzinger," not "Ratsinger."

This article summarizes the history as known to Catholic and Protestant liberals. But what it fails to acknowledge is the radical divergence that took place in the 60s and 70s between the actual teachings of Vatican 2 and the so-called "spirit of Vatican 2." This led to the calling, in 1986, of an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, to honestly assess the legacy of Vatican 2, and to make sure its actual teachings were presented and preserved. This synod called for a universal catechism, to incorporate the teachings of the documents of Vatican 2 in the patrimony of the ages. This Catechism was published in 1992.

Karol Wojtyla knew Vatican 2 well. He was present as Archbishop of Krakow. He had a major influence in the writing of "Gaudium et Spes." Joseph Ratzinger knew the council well, too. He was present as a peritus, or expert, to Cardinal Frings. They both operated from the assumption that Vatican 2 stands in continuity with the teachings of the Catholic church of all ages. It changed no dogmas. Its focus was on pastoral application of those teaches in the modern era. This "hermeneutic of continuity" guided the writings of both men as bishops, theologians, and popes.

There are a lot of mistaken ideas of what Vatican 2 did and did not do. Let's take Donna's list as a starting point.

·"Turning the priest around to face the altar and congregation during services." This cannot be found in any documents of Vatican 2. It was never demanded in any official decree.

·"Giving all the faithful access to both bread & wine during communion." Vatican 2 made the possibility of such reception at specific times. The documents never assumed the practice that would come about in the US of everyone receiving both, with legions of "eucharistic ministers" distributing from both. Now some bishops are trying to rein in what they identify as problems--by returning to the text of the conciliar documents.

·"Allowing girls to serve at the altar as well as boys." Nowhere in Vatican 2 was this suggested.

·"Requiring the Liturgy to be in the language of the people." Nowhere was this stated. It ALLOWED for the vernacular, but required Latin to continue to be taught and insisted that Latin remained the official language of the Roman church. Papal masses in St. Peter's have always been in Latin. What it did do was reform the liturgy, simplifying the mass (while never abrogating the missal of 1962). It called for "full, active and conscious participation of all the faithful"--something Pope St. Pius X did a generation earlier (by which he meant the laity joining in the singing and praying of their parts).

·"Requiring all Bible readings in church to be in the language of the people." Not required. What it did do was expand the lectionary to a three year cycle, with readings from the OT, Psalms, Epistle, and Gospel.

·"Encouraging personal Bible reading/study, including the use of other 'versions'” You can find calls like this in "Providentissimus Deus" in 1893 and in "Divino Afflante Spiritu" in 1943.

·"Requiring the Pastor’s homilies to be Scripturally based." The homily was always to be scripturally based. It was now to be a required part of every Sunday mass (and preached not only by the "Pastor," but by other priests "parochial vicars" or by permanent deacons (an office restored by the council)).

·"Recognition of private confession by penitent to God as valid." Huh? It still requires auricular confession of all mortal sins to a priest. That is Catholic theology, always has been. Venial sins may be forgiven in other ways, and mortal sins can be forgiven without confession if there is "perfect contrition," but all Catholics must confess at least once a year. Vatican 2 changed nothing in the theology of the sacrament of reconciliation.

·"Implementing the Rite of Reconciliation, confession to a pastor in a counseling situation." To a priest, not just the pastor. And no, not in a "counseling situation." The rite is quite clear, though simple. It may be without a screen, but either the confessor or the penitent may demand a screen.

·"Promulgation of Collegiality, that is, the power of the bishops to share authority within the
church, to issue pastoral letters, to make decisions and govern their local area (5)." That was not entirely new, but was one of the major emphases of the council. This did underscore their role as "vicar of Christ" for their local church, a title that heretofore had normally been used of the pope. They were not mere "vicars of the pope," or middle managers under him.

Two other major accomplishments were indeed its teachings on religious liberty and other religions. The Catholic church still views Protestantism as having less than the fullness of Christianity (so Protestants are referred to as "ecclesial communities," not "churches"). But these teachings were seen as major changes in prior teaching. This was the cause of Marcel Lefebvre's schism. These remain serious doctrinal differences between the Society of St. Pius X and the Catholic Church.

Funny, nothing here in this summary about one of the key accomplishments of Vatican 2, which was its emphasis on the apostolate of the laity, which is unique to them and not merely delegated to them by the priest. This is conveyed in "Apostolicam Actuositatem." And one of the people who influenced this was Josemaria Escriva--the founder of Opus Dei (which Donna unfairly slanders--read John Allen's masterful book, "Opus Dei").

As to Benedict XVI and the Legion of Christ--in fact, he removed its head, Marcial Maciel, because of accusations of child abuse (which John Paul II did nothing about), and has instituted a major reform of that order, to purge it of those traits that Maciel had institutionalized to protect himself.

Liberals don't like John Paul and Benedict because they didn't accept Liberation Theology's attempt to baptize Marxism. John Paul lived through Marxism in post-war Poland. He saw what it did. He saw it was incompatible with Christian thinking and practice. And he and Ratzinger won the theological and the ecclesial battle on this issue. The left has never forgiven them. And they stood for traditional Christian thinking on the atonement, on ordination of women. The left didn't like that. And they stood by teachings that distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism--like the infallibility of the pope. Why Kueng never became a Protestant is a mystery to me. Matthew Fox (with a loopy theology of his own that incorporates New Age beliefs and practices) is now at home in the Episcopal church.

But let me underscore a final point made in this article--Read actual authoritative Catholic documents from the past recent decades. Don't read the Matthew Foxes, the Hans Kuengs, etc., you'll only get the wishful thinking of disgruntled theologians, not official teachings of the Catholic church. Read Vatican 2 itself. This was something instilled in me by my mentor, Paul Landa. Oh, he had us read some of the popular liberal authors, too, but he sent us "ad fontes." And to great Catholic thinkers like John Henry Newman.

I'm fascinated by the fact that Donna was a protege of Dr. Jack Provonsha. In what manner, Donna, did he promote your welfare, education, and career? Did he have many women like yourself whose welfare, education, and career he promoted?

I assume that David Larson was a protege of Dr. Maxwell. David also had a wonderful father. Was David also a protege of Dr. Provonsha at the time you were?

I don't care much about the machinations of Rome. I am, however, greatly impressed by your relationship with Dr. Provonsha. I never knew the man; consequently, I would very much like to know what great wisdom, as your mentor, he shared with you.

Donna,

I appreciated the thought behind this article. It is not often I read an Adventist recognize so many positives in the work of Bl. Pope John XXIII and the II Vatican Council. I also welcome any Adventist who makes it clear: any presentation of the teachings of the Catholic Church must take into account the tremendous reforms made in the mid to late 20th century (particularly in such areas as religious liberty).

Even still, as a Catholic, I do share Bill's concerns. Without undermining a single positive contribution your piece has made, I must agree: your retelling of Catholic history represents, unfortunately, a deeply biased and incomplete narrative of 20th century Catholic history. Beside the numerous factual errors Bill has already cited (and tempted as I am to identify several more), I would like to especially lament that you have reduced Bl. John Paul II's papacy, the longest of the 20th century, to a few paragraphs citing only his opposition to liberation theology, women's ordination, and a failure to adequately handle the sexual abuse scandals of the 90s and 2000s. In fact, Bl. John Paul II legacy far exceeds these points. Even from a non-Catholic perspective, his positive accomplishments are too numerous to count: he took landmark steps in interfaith relations, reached key ecumenical agreements with other Christian churches, issued numerous apologies on behalf of the Church, contributed to the collapse of communism, championed human rights in dozens of countries, developed various aspects of Catholic Social Teaching, etc. He was one of the most admired and influential figures of the late 20th century, was wildly popular within his own Church, and was beatified in six short years. These facts would be included in any historical study of the 20th century Catholic experience (of which he dominates a quarter), but have been completely omitted in your account. This omission terribly distorts 26 years of Catholic history, and reduces the greatest late 20th century pope to a caricature archconservative/"fundamentalist." Sadly, your brief treatments of Paul VI and Benedict XVI also represent a one-dimensional perspective.

At the beginning of your piece you expressed a desire to understand "contemporary Catholicism," and humbly noted the possibility that you might be in error on some points. I can appreciate that. I agree with Bill that a positive next step in your journey would be to read the actual documents of the II Vatican Council, the encyclicals of John Paul II, the writings of Catholic theologians from other theological perspectives (for the sake of balance and diversity), acclaimed biographies of the late 20th century popes (Weigel's biography of Pope John Paul II would be my first recommendation), etc.

Again, I hope these criticisms do not discourage you from your continued study of the history and challenges of my Church. I look forward to your next contribution to Spectrum blog.

Bill Cork-
Thanks for your very careful analysis of a document that apparently, assuming you and Mendez are correct and I have no reason to believe otherwise, was possibly more wishful thinking than anything else rather than a document we can trust to be accurate.
It is sometimes difficult to find someone who can evaluate objectively the development of a church or movement. Snide remarks about the SDA church are not appreciated, Donna.

Bill, Donna says there are different ways of looking at the church. Reading your post, I didn't get the idea that your objections were about viewpoins or interpretations. Your objections are about the facts, or lack of them. Hugo may be concerned about viewponts. You sound concerned about the veracity of the objective reality she rehearses. How that reality is interpreted is another matter.

Is that your concern, Bill, that what Donna depicts is factually inaccurate?

One good way I found to understand the difference between the pre and post Vatican II RC church was to visit an "Old RC Church" which rejected the Vatican II reforms, and then visit a mainstream RC church. The differences are too striking to be missed.

Bill
As an apropos of what Latomus says, I think you lost sight of her main point that churches change. The RCC of today is not the RCC of the Inquisition, and today's Calvinist and Lutheran churches are not the churches they were when they resorted to persecution and murder to enforce their brand of orthodoxy. The SDA church of today is not the same church it was one hundred and twenty years ago, either in belief or practice. Churches never admit that they change even while they're changing. Evolution is a part of life. An organisation that does not adapt to its particular eco-system, does not survive.

When it comes to Liberation Theology I find Donna's version of events far more 'true' than yours:

Donna's version: " Local Cardinals and Monsignors frequently had close ties with the ruling classes and the heads of state. The local parish priests, however, were preaching freedom from oppression and encouraging resistance to totalitarian governments. John Paul II interpreted this behavior as rebellion not just to the state but to the church as well. The “Liberation Theology” being taught by the priests and bishops he labeled as a brand of communism and sought to stamp it out. "

Your version: "Liberals don't like John Paul and Benedict because they didn't accept Liberation Theology's attempt to baptize Marxism. John Paul lived through Marxism in post-war Poland. He saw what it did. He saw it was incompatible with Christian thinking and practice."

While some Catholic priests went as far as renouncing their vows and becoming spokesmen of Marxist organisations (or a cabinet minister, as was the case in Nicaragua, with the Sandinistas), Liberation Theology was about social justice. I applaud the Catholic priests who stood up for the poor and against their own leaders who were in cahoots with the murderous oligarchs that enriched themselves at the expense of the people.

Aage, Liberation Theology was Marxism, pure and simple. Oh, they tried to soften it up and say that they were merely using 'Marxist tools of social analysis," but Marxism it was. "Justice" imposed at the point of a gun. With priests indeed serving as officials of Marxist regimes. Marxism was fashionable on college campuses and in churches in the 70s and 80s. Fundraisers for the Sandinistas were held on many campuses. Folks knew what it was really about.

There were those who tried to steer a middle course, such as Oscar Romero. For him I think it was indeed about justice. But he was seen as naive by the hardcore types.

John Paul II was an astute philosopher and theologian and observer of social reality. He was himself very critical of capitalism (read Centessimus Annus). But he lived through the reality of Communism and recognized it when he saw it--and he helped bring it down. This is the reality.

And yes, churches change. But let's be objective and factual about those changes.

Yes, Bill, I guess I was referring to one of the schismatic groups. Didn't realize there were so many. It may be the Traditional Catholic Church was the organization to which I referred. Inside the church numerous images, art and various extravagances. The contemporary church, a short distance away, was quite plain, even austere.

Both exist not far from the Carmichael SDA church.

I like the contemporary RC churches. Easier to kneel without thinking about an image nearby and wondering if I might be bowing to it. Great places to meditate.

Latomus, oh, there is diversity not just among the schismatic groups (Polish National Church and Old Catholics who rejected Vatican 1, SSPX that rejected Vatican 2, Roman Catholic Womenpriests who are extreme liberal), but even within mainstream Catholicism. Go to St. Peter's, Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal, National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC, Annunciation in Houston across from Minute Maid Park, and you will find "numerous images, art and various extravagances." Go to some other modern churches, especially those built in the 70s, and you will find austerity, with simple crosses for the Stations, sometimes a separate Adoration Chapel, and fewer statues. But many of those are now being renovated to restore much of the older symbolism--my former parish was a case in point. Established by the Basilian order, it was very plain, very 70s-ish. Several years ago it was remodeled, with a pipe organ, a baldacchino, faux marble pillars, and gold leaf. New cathedrals in LA and Houston and other places have tried to blend old and new.

And there is diversity from one diocese to another. This is the most important point, I think, to underscore for non-Catholics. Each bishop is "vicar of Christ." He isn't a papal assistant. He is in charge (and the pastor is in charge of the parish, in a somewhat lesser degree). Vatican 2 did strengthen the hand of the local bishop (after Vatican 1 had over-emphasized the power of the pope, and was interrrupted before it could discuss the authority of the bishop)). The other bishops cannot discipline a fellow bishop, and the Vatican very rarely does. Thus you could have old school liberals like Roger Mahony and Rembert Weakland in some places, and conservatives like Charles Chaput and Fabian Bruskewitz in other places. Slowly, the liberals have been replaced by more conservative bishops. But the diversity remains, from parish to parish and from diocese to diocese. It can get ugly--read the various rags of the partisans, from NCR (National Catholic Reporter) on the left to the Wanderer on the right, for a sense of it (hmmm, sound familiar?).

But this is one of the reasons the 1986 Extraordinary Synod called for a Universal Catechism, and why Rome has taken a greater interest in how the liturgy is translated in different countries, because Rome's role in Catholicism is to maintain the "Catholic" part of Catholicism, to ensure that it is the same faith in all places and in all times, and the same liturgy.

"The Vatican" is just as diverse, with competing voices in different offices, all wanting to be heard, all needing to get their publications out. Some have more powerful voices than others. So you have to sift it, and know the voices, and read between the lines.

And for the individual Catholic, there is more diversity in how to live the Catholic life than Protestants generally imagine. Not all Catholics pray the rosary. It is a devotion. It is optional. One way that Catholicism has managed the tension between the universal and particular is by encouraging the growth of different devotions. And these form subgroups in each parish (its how people maintain a sense of community in a parish of 1000+ families). Some are into Eucharistic devotions, others Marian devotions, others Charismatic prayer (not as popular as it once was), others social justice, others pro-life. Some join lay groups associated with the Dominicans, or the Franciscans, or the Regnum Christi movement, or Opus Dei. As long as they submit to the pastor and to the bishop, all is well.

Donna, I've appreciated 'geologian' Fr. Thomas Berry, who saw the universe as story, and perhaps some Adventists might, as well.

The Great Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cCCKo5rxE0

I wish the whole video were online - it's lovely, I think.

The Great Story
The Great Story is a 50 minute documentary film for educational venues and public broadcast portraying the life and work of Thomas Berry. The film displays the beauty of the natural world as Berry tells the story of the universe emergence and highlights the critical environmental crisis we are currently facing.

•Produced by Nancy Stetson and Penny Morrell
•Ordering information:
Bullfrog Films, Inc.
PO Box 149
Oley, PA 19547
1-800-543-FROG (3764)
more info: www.bullfrogfilms.com

Bill
What is lost in your dismissal of Liberation Theology is the evils that produced it. South and Central America for years were plagued with fascist-like regimes that squandered the resources of their countries on a small elite of white people, while leaving the majority population to fend for themselves in poverty and squalor. If we can't call that evil, we have no right to call Marxism bad. If the lords of the church are free to collaborate with evil, why shouldn't priests be free to combat it. In my opinion, Marxism is not a good way of promoting social justice. I don't like the dictatorship of the proletariat any more than I like any other dictatorship, but I understand why the advocates of the poor and downtrodden gravitate towards Marxism in a context where politics has no effective middle ground.

Wanda, mentally challenged people have enough problems without our using them to berate other people, don't you think?

Donna, you're a brave woman to take this one on!

Sometimes being struck dead by lightening has its charms....

Bill, I have re-read your critique and as previously mentioned conceded that my wording should have been, "since Vatican II" rather than "by Vatican II". However, on my second reading I realized how strongly you had reinforced the very point I was trying to make. You said:

"This article summarizes the history as known to Catholic and Protestant liberals. But what it fails to acknowledge is the radical divergence that took place in the 60s and 70s between the actual teachings of Vatican 2 and the so-called "spirit of Vatican 2." This led to the calling, in 1986, of an Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, to honestly assess the legacy of Vatican 2, and to make sure its actual teachings were presented and preserved. This synod called for a universal catechism, to incorporate the teachings of the documents of Vatican 2 in the patrimony of the ages. This Catechism was published in 1992."

What Adventists often get is Catholicism from your perspective, exactly as you have stated it. But as you acknowledged there are "liberal" thinkers and theologians also within the body of Christ. By quoting Pope John XXIII's "revised speech" up front in my op ed, I made it clear that there are forces at play within the church that resisted change during the conclave and that these same forces are at work today.

The 1986 Synod, that you mentioned is a part of the branch of the church that seeks to return Catholicism to the past. And the 1992 catechism was an attempt to reign in those who would carry on the "spirit of Vatican II" - very similar to the forces within Adventism that would have all employees sign a doctrinal statement of belief.

The point of contention is the "actual teachings" of the church - and there are Catholics whose "radical teachings", I believe, are more in line with the gospel of Christ than the those of the current Pope.

To the majority of Catholics it means little the pronouncements of the pope. As a group, they simply ignore them. Most practice birth contol, the annullment necessary to remarry is a farce, and are likely meant for the general public, but when the members of the church essentially ignore the pope and his public positions, of what effect can they be? Adventists have long had this habit of watching and listening for all things Catholic much more than its own members. What's wrong with this picture?

It is very sad to see the recycled conspiracy theory about John Paul I in this article. It's take is actually very anti-Catholic. Blessed John Paul was THE Pope of the Council. He saw, as Catholics should, that there is a hermeneutic of continuity. Vatican II quoted Trent quite often. Benedict XVI has been a leader in the Church response to abuse, so again it is disappointing to see such a shoddy hatchet job on him. In fact he is not a huge supporter of the Legion of Christ and was the main official to push for its founder to be disciplined. I would say Donna should take her own advice and check her facts before writing about Catholicism. I also am not nor have ever been a Jesuit.

I did not recycle a conspiracy theory... Yes, I am aware there are conspiracy theories out there - All I said was "questionable" - which indeed it was. A pope in good health, suddenly dying, no autopsy - has to be "questionable"... There may or may not be any "conspiracy" but it was indeed a questionable death.

And yes, there are two distinct viewpoints as to "facts" and "interpretation". You have yours - and I have mine. I am aware of the "facts" as you say - I just happen to disagree with the interpretation.

Most Adventists have been exposed to the version of the "facts" as you and Bill state them - I was trying to point out that there are other perspectives - there are large numbers of Catholic believers with whom many folks who read Spectrum would feel quite at home, whose understanding of God and spiritual realities are quite similar.

The Catholic church did change in the last half of the 20th century. What I wish for is a Vatican II experience in Adventism.

Donna, the insinuation is that he was murdered. This is based on a conspiracy theory and is pure bunk. If you have real solid evidence that his death was unnatural then I would certainly be interested to see it.

The interpretation you give is that of a small minority of Catholics. One of them, Matthew Fox, is an ex-Catholic. When dealing with a religion it is always best to base your interpretation on what the religion actually teaches. Not on what dissenters and ex's think. They may be mentioned in context, but they do not reflect Catholicism. One of the issues is that American, and European, liberal Catholics tend to imagine that their concerns are universal. In fact most Catholics do not have issues with the Church doctrines that we debate so often. In Africa, Asia, and Latin America they are non-issues. Philip Jenkins had done some fine work on this from a sociological point of view.

The predominate view of Vatican II is that it is one Council. It did not delete the other Councils and is seen in context with them. It did change certain things, but not nearly as much as some think. It did not change any dogmas of the Church. Even the Mass was changed in that it was translated into the vernacular, but even that was not mandated by the Council. The official Mass text is still the Latin Mass and it reflects the same faith we had before the Council. I am all for Vatican II, in fact I am a Vatican II fundamentalist. I refer to the texts of the Council documents not some nebulous "spirit" of Vatican II. Vatican II firmly taught that the authority of the Pope and the magisterium are intrinsic to the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict is right in line with the Council.

I don't think a Vatican II moment is in the cards for Adventism. I certainly agree that Adventism needs to be updated and that certain aspects need change. But to do so would probably rupture the denomination and it would splinter. It would take a massive movement from within to create a ground swell to make such a change and maintain unity. I don't know if there is a mechanism that could do that.

I would also recommend "The Church Maintained in Truth" by Kung

Here's a quick overview of my experience with Dr. Provonsha. Others may wish to share as well.

I took ethics from Dr. Provonsha at Loma Linda. I also attended his Sabbath School class.

He was a master teacher at asking questions to stimulate thoughtful discussion about the what God is like.. i would seem him as a masterful blend of a thoughtful, caring physician and rabbi, Adevntist style, who taught thousands that our role is to seek to live in the Path of Jesus to be healers and caregivers seeking the restoration that comes through a relationship to the Father, the Spiriit, the One.

In 1997 I attended y 30th reunion from Auburn Academy with my friend Glen. We took a day afterward to go see Dr. Provonsha in his retirement home on Marrowstone Island. We talked to him in his little upstairs library and were graciously welcomed and had a wonderful conversation about our faith, ambitions, and heritage.

His last penetrating question for our consideration was, "How will we know when the Work is done?"

in 1999 after a ceremonious departure in bureaucratic state office, and dealing with a very bumptious son--and he with a a bumptious, contrary father, I went to see Dr. Provonsha. He was old, frail, and he ministered to me gently in his thoughtful caring way, talking about the Hope, the Good Book and the Advent Movement he loved--including his childhood.

As I left, I said, "Dr. Provonsha, thank you for your ministry to me.. " He graciously said, "...and you to me."

I consider Dr. Provonsha as a mentor who taught thousands of us that our key role is to deeply care about people, and to be open to that love.

One line of his in a theology class I remember was, "The footsteps of God can be found in all the religions of the world."

This is a big view that if Adventists take it seriously will allow us to break bread and seek Truth with all the people of the worlds. Our role as his is ultimately help people and cultures ask the question, "What is God like...and how can we find the Truth...let's study God's word together and open our hearts and minds to the beauty of God's message and of his creation.

Along with a handful of Adventist thinkers, Dr. Provonsha helped me see the amazing joy and meaning to be found in the path to understanding, humbly asking the questions and becoming dogmatically rigid, for God is working everywhere. Our role is to open our hearts up to him based on scripture and thoughtfully asking, "What is God really like?"

His bioethics class gave me perspectives that have stood me.

In my view Dr. Provonsha--or as I heard older folks say, "Jack"--always had the attitude of one who could learn from his students and appreciated their contributions to meaningful discussion.

Donna says: "I am aware of the "facts" as you say - I just happen to disagree with the interpretation."

No, Donna, that's no way out. Your "facts" were mistaken, and you have very little interpretation (unless your insinuation that a Pope was murdered is an "interpretation"). I think you confuse interpretation with prejudice.

Donna says: "Most Adventists have been exposed to the version of the "facts" as you [Fr.Jim] and Bill state them."

Donna, very few Adventist religion professors and bible teachers have any clue about the information in Fr.Jim's and Bill's postings, much less "most Adventists." Even you, who supposedly did some research, got a lot of it wrong.

Then this: "What I wish for is a Vatican II experience in Adventism."

Donna, you must not understand how much learning, how much labor in the humanities, how much reverence for the sacred traditions, how much mastery of languages, what depth of Biblical and historical studies and how much immersion in millenia of theology and ecclesiastical law goes into an effort like Vatican II? Not one Adventist professor or church leader in 10,000 has half the euridition of the humblest participant at Vatican II. So don't hold your breath.

Why not wish for a little perspective among our "intellectuals" in Adventistism, so they might see themselves as they really are?

It is interesting to me how difficult it is to describe one's experience or history, acknowledging how perspectival it is, without someone else reading it and taking it as a normative stand. Some responders to Donna above gently make factual corrections to her memory or understanding, while others use it to launch their own perspective--without taking the equally vulnerable step of revealing their own story and sources.

The point of publishing an opinion is to encourage a conversation, which is what has happened in response to Donna's essay. We have Catholic and ex-Catholic clergy participating in the discussion, along with those who have never stepped outside of their own anti-catholicism.

The difficulty seems to be in how one ends an essay: do I open up the topic by raising an unanswered forward-looking question, or do I give my conclusion and focus the responses on dis/agreement with my thesis? Donna's conclusion, "Be very careful in quoting sources regarding Catholic doctrine and practices...." certainly invites examination of her own sources, but as a thesis, it was well-designed and offers a necessary caution for all writers and readers on this site.

Donna, I really don't think we are circling the wagons. John Allen, no conservative, regards the Church's current situation as a careful response and an engagement with a culture that is increasingly secular. Benedict by no means wants the Church to retreat into the ghetto. His speeches during his trip to Germany were fantastic.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1349569?eng=y

Aage,

I'm just interested in folks telling the truth. There's a commandment that says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." That's done by both conservatives and liberals when it comes to the Catholic Church. And I can bring the same passion to a discussion of Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or Hinduism, as my students know.

"Have you come to regret your return to Adventism?"

Nope. (And, incidentally, I was never a member of the clergy of the Catholic church; I was neither deacon, presbyter, nor bishop).

"Adventism and Catholicism have a lot in common"

Yes, notably a belief in the Trinity, in the Incarnation and the two natures in Christ, and a belief in the other essentials of the Apostles Creed, including the coming of Christ to raise us bodily and to take us to his eternal kingdom. We believe in baptism in the Triune name.

" such as an infallible, extra-biblical magisterium, the concept of the true church, a compatible soteriology and a similar male-dominated, non-democratic hierarchial structure."

Adventists believe in sola Scriptura, Catholics do not.

Adventists do not have a magisterium in which certain folks, chosen from above, are invested with the fullness of sacramental power and authority. Instead, we elect our leaders for a set term of office.

Yes, Adventists do believe in a true church, and according to Great Controversy, the Celtic monks, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, the Anabaptists, and many others have been part of it.

Adventists believe in justification by faith alone. Catholics do not. Adventists are Protestant.

"Differences are mostly at the level of liturgy, history and the stewardship of the sacraments as well as Settimbrini's intellectual sophistication."

Catholic liturgy includes reading of Scripture, singing of praises, praying for the whole church, preaching from the Word, and breaking bread and sharing wine for the remembrance of Christ, who is coming again. We do that.

Catholics believe that Christ has been faithful to his church through history since Christ ascended. So do we.

Catholics believe in the sacraments. We celebrate the Lord's Supper, we baptize, we anoint the sick, we marry, we ordain. We don't confirm as a separate rite, and we don't practice sacramental confession.

So these really aren't the biggies (not on the level of simple aspects of faith--though we'd see many, many differences turning to the specifics of what are understood by these points). The biggies that separate us are the things that you incorrectly think we agree with Catholics on. We don't. We are Protestants. And I think Protestantism recovered key teachings of the New Testament that needed to be recovered. A lot of the rest is adiaphora.

But again, the most important point is if we are going to speak of another faith, we need to speak in such a way that they can recognize their faith being described. We'd ask no less from them.

Aage, I do remember your association with Des and RDB in those days.

And I think they oversimplified things in trying to make their polemical point.

Adventism embraced the Reformation in 1888 and following, in 1926 (Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness), in Froom's day, and at many other times. And some Adventists in each of these periods had a hard time with it.

You say, "You're obviously right in arguing that the Reformation dogma of justification by grace through faith alone (to use the pedantically correct terminology) is not shared by Roman Catholics (as long as we're talking about the Protestant definition of those terms)."

Catholics do indeed speak of grace, and justification, and faith--defining them differently than any brand of classical Protestantism. But they've had a hard time with "faith alone," imputation, and "simul iustus et peccator." Catholics also have a distinctive theology of merit and satisfaction; in the Catholic understanding, the sacrament of reconciliation forgives the guilt of sin but not the temporal punishment due it, hence there remains a need for satisfaction. The Catholic understanding of merit and of the communion of saints allows for indulgences to relieve that temporal punishment. For Catholicsm, justification is a making righteous as faith, hope, and charity are infused through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. These are all pretty important elements of the Catholic teaching that Adventists do not and have never shared.

Most Adventists have a Wesleyan view of salvation and our role in it. They are closer to Methodists than to Gnesio-Lutherans or to Calvinists. But that doesn't make them "Catholic." Again, I think that was a rhetorical device used by certain folks in the 70s to score debating points. I don't think it's accurate. (In fact, I think some Adventists, notably Joseph Bates, were raw Pelagians, who would have gotten the same treatment from Rome that Pelagius did ).

In my op ed piece I listed many changes that occurred SINCE or FOLLOWING Vatican II. Mistakenly I left the impression that I thought these changes were mandated by the council. I had read all the documents approved by the council and Bill Cork is correct in calling me on my seeming assertion that these chances were written into the documents themselves. The changes I list are changes that are visible and recognizable since the conclave.

Bill Cork is also correct in other areas as well. I am quoting a few of his remarks along with my response in capital letters.

“This article summarizes the history as known to Catholic and Protestant liberals.” YES

“Its focus was on pastoral application of those teaching in the modern era.” YES

“Liberals don't like John Paul and Benedict because ( 1) they didn't accept Liberation Theology's attempt to baptize Marxism. (2) And they stood for traditional Christian thinking on the atonement, on ordination of women. The left didn't like that.” THAT’S CORRECT

“…my mentor, Paul Landa. Oh, he had us read some of the popular liberal authors, too, but he sent us "ad fontes." And to great Catholic thinkers like John Henry Newman.” YOU HAVE YOUR MENTOR, I HAVE MINE. MY READING OF POPULAR LIBERAL CATHOLIC WRITERS TOUCHED MY HEART AND STRENGTHENED MY FAITH.

“Paul VI simply reiterated and defended what had been unanimous CHRISTIAN teaching prior to the 1960s.” EXACTLY MY POINT!

Another writer, Hugo, ,made this comment:
“I would like to especially lament that you have reduced Bl. John Paul II's papacy, the longest of the 20th century, to a few paragraphs citing only his opposition to liberation theology, women's ordination, and a failure to adequately handle the sexual abuse scandals of the 90s and 2000s.” HUGO, DEAR, I HAD ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF WORDS TO USE - I WAS NOT WRITING A EULOGY FOR THE MAN – AND I STAND CORRECT AS TO HIS ACTIONS THAT YOU MENTION.

“The "Spirit of Vatican 2" was about wishful thinking. There was a headlong rush by liberals to go far beyond anything Vatican 2 imagined--Protestants got caught up in it, too. The pendulum swung to the far left in many places.” BUT THE PENDULUM DID SWING, BILL – AGAIN MY POINT.

“And there were certainly lots of people in some chancery offices and among the Paulists who took a very liberal approach ... and who were very angry at JP2 and B16” YES, AND THESE PAULISTS ARE ONE OF MY RECOMMENDED SOURCES.

“Marxism was fashionable on college campuses and in churches in the 70s and 80s. Fundraisers for the Sandinistas were held on many campuses. Folks knew what it was really about.” I REMEMBER WELL THE CONCERTS BY PETER, PAUL & MARY FOLLOWING THEIR VISITS TO SAN SALVADOR AND THEIR EXPOSURE OF THE DUPLICITE ROLE OF THE US GOVERNMENT IN THOSE COUNTRIES. THE BEST WAY TO DISCREDIT SOMEONE IS TO “LABEL” THEM – MARXIST, COMMUNIST, SOCIALIST, LIBERAL, ETC.

“bishops cannot discipline a fellow bishop, and the Vatican very rarely does.” SAD, ISN’T IT?

“Slowly, the liberals have been replaced by more conservative bishops. But the diversity remains, from parish to parish and from diocese to diocese. It can get ugly--read the various rags of the partisans, from NCR (National Catholic Reporter) on the left to the Wanderer on the right, for a sense of it (hmmm, sound familiar?).” OH DEAR, YOU’RE SINGING MY SONG, BILL. MY POINT EXACTLY. THANKS FOR THE GREAT DIALOG!

How very similar our churches are.

Donna, a nice old Shaker hymn. Yet the Shakers are gone now.

I would argue that those on the Catholic Left are vastly more dogmatic. I have experienced a great deal of persecution from them. I had friends in seminary that were run out of their school because they were seen praying the rosary. From the Catholic perspective John Paul and Benedict are guiding the Church. That's why they were chosen. I would urge you to read Pope Benedict's books on Jesus of Nazareth. You will find him a deep and engaging intellect who is by no means out of touch.

And it's now in my "liberal Catholic hymnal" and being sung in Adventist churches - how the world turns.

I will let history be the judge of US foreign policy in the 80's...

Bill, thanks for that link. I agree with what Ratzinger says in his prefatory remarks, namely, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a message of freedom and a force for liberation. . . . Liberation is first and foremost liberation from the radical slavery of sin." And that our seemingly disparate and diverse problems, "derive ultimately from sin, and so often prevent people from living in a manner befitting their dignity."

The gist of his prefatory remarks is that the real root problem is sin, and when people see a problem of injustice in society, but don't trace the problem back far enough (to the human race's Fall into sin), their proposed solutions are likely to be problematic.

I think Pope Benedict would make a good Adventist.

As a point reflecting another Priest"s reflection on protestant,s ,in particular Lutherans.,check out the 35th most popular religious blog [as complied by churchrelevance.com] It is called Standing on my Head and is by Fr. Dwight Longnecker. It is an 'interesting' short comment on Reformation Day.

Thank you, Dr. Drew, for your comments. These are issues and question that we need to seriously consider. You have proposed them graciously - I do not find you disrespectful or unkind.

Bbazusa,

Man, what an apology! It is on every page I click on...

So Aage, You assume yourself morally superior to Elijah as well, when he was giving the priests of Baal a hard time, telling them to chant louder because their god was on vacation or sleeping?

There are no homosexuals or pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood.

Elaine, there are homosexuals in the priesthood which has led us to the scandals. Now it is prohibited to ordain homosexuals. We learned a hard lesson. It has worked. The number of new scandals is in the single digits.

Aage, again I point you to his explanation. He was mocking her vestments. And he makes an excellent point about the current craze of being offended, which apparently does not include offending those on the more conservative side of things.

Michael
You ask: "So Aage, You assume yourself morally superior to Elijah as well, when he was giving the priests of Baal a hard time, telling them to chant louder because their god was on vacation or sleeping?"

The short answer is 'yes.' Elijah was the first 'village atheist.' There have always been people who trumpet their disrespect for other people's religions. As you know I am not shy about expressing my own views on these matters, but I challenge you to demonstrate that I have ever shown people of faith the kind of disrespect that Elijah showered upon to the priests of Ba'al--before he killed them. The reason I don't like to call myself an atheist is because i resent the in-your-face attitude associated with the word.

One of the problems I have with especially the Old Testament is the profound lack of decency and morality that often is attributed to God and his earthly project managers. I have always argued that the first moral qualification that a deity must meet is a moral consciousness that's higher than mine. The writers of the various Bible texts often slandered God by ascribing the worst of human passions to him. The only God I can conceive of is Tillich's God who hides behind all the imperfect projections of human metaphysical imagination. The problem is that I'm not good enough at spiritual hide-and-seek to find this ultimate reality. What I am certain about is that a murderous prophet who mocked and slew hundreds of priests from another religion did not represent anybody that I would ever acknowledge as God.

I loved the article, thank-you. Spectrum published my report on attending the Catholic "World Youth Day" in Sydney in 2008. Like Donna, I am an outsider to Catholicism and do not pretend to be an expert.

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/10/25/adventist-catholic-festival