The Seventh-day Adventist-Roman Catholic Dialogue

The Seventh-day Adventist-Roman Catholic Dialogue - Part 2
Stephen Korsman (Roman Catholic)

Hi !

Thanks for this; it's a good starting point. It does, however, deal with several subjects at once, so perhaps it would be a good idea to zoom in on one subject at a time. I'll leave that up to you for now, and I'll reply briefly on the stuff presented here. I will explain but for now I'll avoid the proofs of it all.

For the next week (Monday - Friday) I will be away, so I will only be able to get back to any reply you may send sometime next weekend.

> The authority of the Roman Catholic Church exists in the form of a
> bureaucratic structure, with the Pope at the top and the pyramid of power
> beneath him.

I believe that this is the structure set up in the Bible. I see the Bible as showing us that Peter was the leader, with James and John and Paul below him (perhaps not so much Paul, who was probably just more charismatic and thus of more effect) and the rest of the Apostles, with the bishops below them, the priests (the Greek word is presbyteros from which "priest" is derived) and then the deacons, and then the laity. Jesus gave teaching authority to the Church, particularly the Apostles. Later this authority was held by the bishops (actually the Apostles were bishops, but we like to distinguish the rank.)

Jesus gave the leaders of the Church the authority to preach, and this is what the Bible demonstrates that they had.

> For Adventism however God does not direct his people via an
> institution but directly through the inspired voice of prophecy. For SDA God
> is active and alive, directing, leading and instructing through the "more
> sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19).

So it is with Catholicism - we don't believe differently. If you mean prophecy as in interpretation of Revelation and Daniel to determine the date of the coming of Christ, then we disagree, but if you mean prophecy as in the biblical definiton - the preaching of repentance - then we believe the same thing.

> For "where there is no vision, the
> people perish" (Prov 29:18). Adventists don't view E.G White as unique but
> as one of many prophets, indeed at the latter rain (Joel 2:23)

Here we differ. Catholics would, if they looked into the topic, view Ellen White as a false prophet, a fulfillment of the prediction in the Bible that many in the latter days will fall away, and there will be many false teachers. We believe that Protestantism was the first step in that direction, and Adventism is far down the line.

> God shall
> pour His Spirit out and "your sons and daughters shall prophecy" (Joel
> 2:28). SDA are alive to God doing new things, to give new light and lead his
> people into new truths, such life is easily snuffed out by
> backward-looking bureaucracy.
>
> The Future not the Past
>
> SDA understands the present in the light of the future, not the past. Roman
> Catholicism is bound by tradition and precedent, the weight of her past is
> imminence, she is constantly seeking to understand the present in terms of
> the past.

In terms of doctrine this is essential. We cannot ignore the past and pretend that certain doctrines are not true. Once the Church has decided on a doctrine, we can't just go and change it as we see fit. The past determines what the truth is. But I don't think it's accurate that we do not look to the future. Sure, we don't do that as much as we should, but there is a clear element in our worship and calendar that looks to the future. Our main focus, however, appears to be preaching repentance and living a moral life. I think we have that in common with you.

> SDA on the other hand reject the authority of tradition and
> understand the present from the perspective of the future.

So the past is unimportant ? I don't see how that can be true. The Bible itself tells us to follow the traditions - whether oral or written - of the Apostles - and the historical teaching of Christianity is very important. If, for instance, the doctrines peculiar to the Mass have been teachings of all Christians from the first century on down, we cannot just do away with them because we don't like them, and because the past is unimportant. Whether we like past doctrines or not, they remain true, simply because they are based on the Bible and Tradition (actually doctrines are not true BECAUSE of this, but this is the evidence that they are true.)

> Indeed SDA live
> in the future and are part of it. SDA is light, with wings, able to
> transcend and reach into the sky. Roman Catholicism, burdened with the
> claims of time remains weighed to the earth.
>
> The Sabbath and the Seal
>
> For Roman Catholicism the Sabbath is one part of the law of God, part of a
> huge pharisaical list of dos and don'ts, rights and wrongs. It is part of
> the religious system of Christianity.
>
> For SDA the Sabbath isn't about religion, or sin or the law. It isn't part
> of this world. The Sabbath is the crown of creation, it existed before sin
> and so was not given in response to it. It marks the seal of God's people
> and so cannot be the minor religious observance as understood by Roman
> Catholicism.

As I see it, the Bible and history are clear on the following: the Sabbath is not necessary for Christians, Gentile Christians never kept the Sabbath, only Jewish Christians did, and even in biblical times, Sunday was kept by Christians as their day of worship. Thus Sunday should be the focal time of worship, not Saturday.

> SDA and Roman Catholicism
>
> For Christians, Jesus came into the world to set us free from sin - he came
> to free us from the world of sin. That world of sin isn't just the world of
> secularism, materialism, sensualism and militarism - life without God. It is
> also possible to live in the world of sin and believe in God. The Bible
> tells us that even the devils believe. In the New Testament Jesus' main
> opponents are not atheists but very religious, God-fearing people - the
> Pharisees. Historians tell us the Pharisees were very devout, pious people.
> Yet Jesus was continually in conflict with them - why? Because he saw that
> the freedom that God wants to give us - the life God wants to give us - is
> better than pious religion.

But better still is a combination of piety and freedom. I find that best within the Catholic Church.

> Even devout believers are still in the world of sin, They are still making
> absolute that which is only relative. They are mistaking the God of religion
> for the true God, and so are still worshipping idols (see the Protestant
> theologian Paul Tillich for more details of this). Roman Catholics are
> "religious Christians" in perhaps their purest form. For all its piety,
> devotion and love, the system of Roman Catholicism is still part of the
> world of sin because it is still part of the human creation of religion. It
> is man's search for God not God's search for man.

The last sentence I disagree with. I believe that Catholicism is the ultimate revelation of God by God to man. God founded the Catholic Church while on earth; we have found him, he has revealed himself to us, and we are his. Yes, we must still bring this to perfection, try to come closer to God - this is even taught in the Bible.

> The philosopher Jacques Derrida in his recent writings on religion
> distinguishes between the experience of the sacred and holding to a
> religious belief system. SDA live on the side of the experience of the
> sacred - living in the fire of the words of prophecy, living in the future,
> living in the Sabbath, living free from sin. Roman Catholicism lives on the
> side of the religious belief system - the huge religious superstructure,
> still caught in the past: she is living in the law, not the Spirit.

I disagree. Catholicism must teach moral law in order to help her flock to stay on the right path - that is the message of the Gospel. We are not free to sin as we please, and it is the duty of our pastors to help us not sin. That is why we have such a focus on moral teaching. As for what you call the experience of the sacred, we do have that - there are miracles, we have the Eucharist, there are the lives of the saints to inspire us and show us more of God, and there are apparitions of Mary and Jesus and angels who encourage us to pray and repent. These don't fit into the category of legalism, as far as I can see, and they play ain important role in Catholicism.

> Over to you!

I am not sure how to go further. This is not the sort of discussion I am used to ... I am used to taking a doctrinal issue and looking at the historical and biblical evidence for and against it. This, to me, is a bit vague. However, it's up to you what sort of discussion we have. I'll leave it here.

God bless,
Stephen

--
Stephen Korsman
skorsman@global.co.za
http://home.global.co.za/~skorsman/
- hoc est qui sumus - this is who we are - the time is near

Stephen Korsman is a Roman Catholic
John Mann is a Seventh-day Adventist