"Should one view Jesus' message in the Gospels through the lens of apocalyptic literature, or should one interpret apocalyptic literature through the words of Jesus we find in the Gospels."

 This is quite typical of many "either/or" concepts used today to undermine the comprehensive teaching and meaning of scripture.

While justice and mercy have a contrast, they also have a parallel. When there is no parallel presented, it is assumed that justice could not possibly have any viable relationship to "love" and we must abandon justice in favor of grace and love.

For the most part, this is why there is so much confusion in Christanity, and especially in modern Adventism. Every error in the church today is some attack on the unity of grace and law.

This need not be.

Bill Sorensen

I find it highly ironic that Bill Sorensen, who usually tends toward "either-or" approaches to religious issues, criticizes David's review for creating a false dichotomy.  Before I read Bill's comment, I was going to commend David, and still will, for what I believe is the most trenchant observation in his review: Should we view Jesus and His message through apocalyptic literature or vice versa?  This is not a false dichotomy; rather, it is the heart of the gospel message, and this is what it means to be a Christian.  Because of Jesus,  we view everything differently.  The apostle, John, was keenly aware of this reality.  Jesus is the fulfillment of Scripture, not simply a reference point on a chart leading to the SDA Church.

The Adventist sectarian temptation has always been to interpret scripture in a self-validating manner which makes the Church's theology, rather than the living Christ, the ultimate revelation of God's will, and the fulfillment of His word.  The prophetic spirit, which kept early SDAs faithful through time-conditioned, personal, idiosyncratic interpretations of Scripture, was fashioned into a belief system by institutional leaders and made ex cathedra, immutable authority for the world.  The sectarian message that went out was "Jesus saves...through the Adventist belief system."

The unfortunate result is that Adventists have not learned very well to see Scripture or experience Christ except through sectarian filters.  Thus, when progressives reject the authority of those filters, they tend to reject all external authority, including Scripture, and to be highly distrustful of claims made for a God who transcends reason and logic.  Remember when Adventist preachers used to proudly observe that Adventists didn't convert to other religions?  If they left the SDA Church, they rejected religion altogether, because they knew the SDA Church was the true religion.  Isn't it tragic that we used to be proud of having erected barriers which prevented Church members from hearing and responding to God's call unless it came through SDA authority?

It is Folkenberg who ends up creating a false dichotomy between the universalist claims of the SDA Church and the universalist claims of progressives' secular reason and logic.  Both alternatives distrust a living Christ who reveals Himself only in personal relationship, and seeks to infuse His Incarnate body (the church) with present living truth. God doesn't need us to believe in a systematic theology, nor does He want us to be guided by the universalist claims of reason and logic  In fact systematic theologies and the moral claims of reason usually get in His way.  He wants our hearts and our minds - moment by moment, day by day.  Jesus declined to give us the road maps that religion and the world try to shove in our faces.  He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." "If you know me, you know the Father." That sounds anarchistic to Bill.  Indeed, it is a bit scary.  But in Scripture, it seems that when God gets peoples' hearts and minds, He leads them to each other, where they can work out His will and be His body in communities of faith guided by a living Christ rather than by dead prophets. 

In Nathan's post he said......

" He said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." "If you know me, you know the Father." That sounds anarchistic to Bill.  Indeed, it is a bit scary.  But in Scripture, it seems that when God gets peoples' hearts and minds, He leads them to each other, where they can work out His will and be His body in communities of faith guided by a living Christ rather than by dead prophets."

 Of course, Nathan, I don't know what you mean "guided by a living Christ rather than by dead prophets."

I could only wonder if you are not seeking some "spirit ethic" that transcends the bible. How does this "living Christ" guide us? For me, it is by His word, the bible.

So, the Holy Spirit creates the church (the body of Christ) by way of the scripture. And no "prophet" transcends this reality.

Most SDA's have a vague concept of the spirituality of our historic faith and the intensity of conviction of those who participated in its understanding and formulation.

Simply put, bible Adventism was/is built on the biblical concept of "moral perfection". This reality has been abandon for a lower standard of spirituality by way of a false application of the gospel.

And thus, the intensity of Adventism has been undermined by new model prophets and novices who now control and form the spirituality of the church.

I am a product of the "Brinsmead awakening" which challenged in the beginning the liberal elements of the world being brought into the SDA church. Whether people know it or not, much of modern Adventism is the product of his challenge. When Brinsmead abandon his initial mission for a more comprehensive world view, he also abandon Adventism by way of a rejection of EGW, the investigative judgment and other SDA biblical distinctives.

From there, he soon abandon the bible and of course, Christanity completely. These were the logical and final conclusions that follow the abandonment of EGW and bible Adventism.

No one can or will change the pioneer message. It is biblical and will stand until Jesus comes. Those who see and understand it will be ready by God's grace and their own dilligent effort. Those who reject it won't.

This whole message is non-negotiable. It is not subject to change. Only those who comprehend this reality will have the intensity and moral conviction and motivation to stand during the time of trouble after the close of probation. If we are loyal to the message, our intensity will increase as the apostacy increases.

We have no interest in compromise nor a re-interpretation of the message. Jesus said, "Straight is the gate and narrow is the way......." Few enter. And fewer yet remain.

Was Noah intense? or Abraham? How about the prophets? Were they intense? And Jesus, and Paul? How about Luther and the reformers? and finally, the SDA pioneers? Are movements in the bible intense?

The devil's success is to "dumb down" God's intense messages with a false gospel and a false application. This has been repeated again and again with the same result. I will never accept an "I'm OK....you're Ok" theology that many embrace in the church today.

I know better. And if we patronize evil and condon sin by indifference we are just as guilty as those who participate in it.

I believe God Himself ordained the church and gave us our message. If I didn't, I could care less if and how and what the church does. I don't think the denomination has committed the unpardonable sin......yet. I believe they can, and are in the process of doing it. For me, the church is on trial and in a sense, the church is censured by me. When they repent, whoever "they" may be, I will accept them into full fellowship.

To be redemptive is the goal of every Christian. I believe I belong to the church in heaven, and this is the only "church" anyone should seek to be a part of in the final analysis. As long as the SDA church has an affinity for the one in heaven, then I will continue to support the message found in it. The message is going, going.......and may eventually be gone. Only God knows if and when. I'm no prophet and can not say today this will be a reality. I do know it is a possibility.

Bill Sorensen

Wow Bill,

I've never been in favor of censoring views expressed on AToday.  But you could make me seriously rethink my opposition.  You are seriously scary - an original SDA jihadist. You make me feel like like checking out educatetruth to get some temperate, balanced views.

I cannot help but wonder if an important issue is not being considered here?  That would be the questions "Are the Seventh-day Adventist people a people called out for a unique prophetic role, a role that relates to the proclamation of that which has been sealed in the book of Daniel and is enlarged upon in the book of Revelation?  And are these people correctly identified as those who 'keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus?'"  

If we answer yes to these questions then we might justifiably assume what some might consider a certain spiritual arrogance regarding who we are and what our purpose is.  You may study Bible persons from Jesus to Jeremiah and find that all were seen by their contemporaries as "out of touch" with the realities of their day.   

Noah also was called by God for a specific apocalyptic purpose.  How "progressive" was it of him to continue to tell everyone that the earth was soon to be destroyed by water in spite of scientific and anecdotal evidence?  And to continue with this assertion for 120 years?  Hebrews 11 tells us that Noah was saved by faith, yet that faith instead of causing him to blend in made him a very peculiar person.

While it is true that Christ must be at the center of the message, 2 Timothy 3:12 is also true.  Perhaps the desire to fit in and not be so distinctive is a natural outgrowth of hostility we have felt from others over our beliefs.  If so, I would highly recommend the book of Hebrews.  It was written to an audience struggling with those same issues.  Should we continue with our distinctiveness or should we try to blend in more with what everyone else is doing?  The first few verses of chapter 2 are particularly noteworthy. 

 Otherwise, I feel compelled to ask myself, "If my theology is little different from a Seventh-day Baptist, then why am I not a Seventh-day Baptist?"  No, I feel that I am a Seventh-day Adventist because I believe in a peculiar prophetic purpose for God's people in the end times and that it is this purpose that gives His last day people their uniqueness.

So the "heart of Adventism", according to the cover of this book, is proclaimed by angels who are white men?!
Seems that the (traditional) cover is reflecting the (traditional) content...

It was an interesting choice to have David Pendleton, former Adventist now Roman Catholic, review a book on the Adventist view of prophecy.  Though his review is relatively evenhanded, I think David is underestimating the facility and speed with which his adopted church could backpeddle on the issue of religious liberty. 

One example is the "Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine of the church" issued in 2007.  Historically, the Catholic Church believed and taught that there was no salvation outside herself.  In Unum Sanctum, a papal bull issued in 1302, Pope Boniface VIII stated "outside of her there is neither salvation nor remission of sins."  This became the doctrine of "extra Ecclesium nulla salas" --outside the church there is no salvation.  Pople Eugene IV was even more emphatic: 

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her "

But then along came Vatican II, and Rome seemingly became much more reasonable about the Protestant churches.  In a document called Unitatis redentegratio (restoration of unity), the church said of the Protestant churches:

"We believe they suffer from defects, [but] are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

That would appear to be a sea change every bit as significant as Rome's embrace of freedom of conscience in Dignitatis humanae, which David referred to.  But then came 2007's "Responses to some questions" which said:

"FIRST QUESTION

Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

RESPONSE

The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it."

Unequivocally stating that Vatican II did not change Rome's doctrine of the Church is the functional equivalent of affirming that there is no salvation outside of the Roman church.  Thus, we see that the reforms of Vatican II can easily prove illusory.  A later Pope can always ome along and say, "Vatican II didn't change anything.  The church holds as it always has held., it teaches as it always has taught."

"Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?"

The Catholic church has always taught that it is possible to be saved out side their church on the basis that the individual did not know about Catholicism. But, if and when a person is "enlightened" about the Catholic church, and still oppose it, they are damned.

And this in principle is a viable confession of faith.

As SDA's we hold the same view.

As for religious freedom. The Catholic church defines freedom in religion as meaning they must always have freedom to extend their own dogmas and teaching while no one else should be allowed this same privledge. This is the only "religious freedom" they endorse or contend for.

The Catholic church, like many SDA apologists, are masters of "word games" to obscure what they really mean. The difference being, Catholics know the real meaning of their statements, and SDA's often times don't have a clue.

I would like to hear even one SDA theologian explain what "sanctification by faith alone" means. Yet it is defended by way of Morris Venden and all his books that are spread over the denomination like "the frogs of Egypt".

Simply put, there is no bible doctrine of sanctification by faith alone. And if anyone coins the phrase, they should be willing to carefully qualify what they mean and re-explain it as many times as necessary so no one is mis-lead or confused by the idea.

"Justification by faith alone" was explained many times by the reformers in opposition to Rome's contention that believers could merit and earn the favor of God. And this was and is the only true biblical sense that the phrase can be used.

They proved our legal right to heaven was solely based on the merits of Christ alone and that no being could merit or earn the favor of God. And in this sense, justification is by "faith alone, Christ alone, and grace alone."

James on the other hand, shows that a moral fitness by way of obedience to the law of God was a moral requirement for justification and not by "faith alone."

Our legal title is by "faith alone" as the reformers so clearly stated and defended. But sanctification and a moral fitness is not. Sanctification is by way of "faith and works" and as Paul says,"Work out your own salvation by fear and trembling......" This is certainly not by "faith alone."

If sanctification is by "faith alone" we can simply sit back in our easy chair as God transports us to heaven. The phrase "faith alone" by the very nature of words and their meanings could only mean we have nothing to do except believe. If you try to explain it any other way, then it is obviously not "by faith alone" since you add some other factor besides faith.

So "faith alone" is appropriate when speaking of salvation by Substitution and Representation.   Christ, our Substitute and Surety, alone has the justifying righteousness within Himself that is imputed to the believer when the believer comes to faith.

This righteousness is imputed, reckoned, accounted......etc. Again, we see it can be by "faith alone". Not so with sanctification which is the obedience of the believer as he cooperates with God by faith and works to emulate our Lord and Savior and obtain a fitness for heaven.

Those who can not distinguish between the legal (justification) and moral (sanctification) aspects of redemption will always remain a part of "Babylon" with ongoing confusion between the two aspects of redemption.

In the end, these two aspects works together in a perfect unity in such a way, that you can not have one without the other. None the less, they are not one and the same thing as Rome claims nor can they be seperated as apostate Protestantism and much of present day Adventism claims. Each aspect can be clearly defined, but not seperated in a practical application.

For my explanation, Nathan and others would like to censor me and/or throw me out of the church.

Bill Sorensen

What I said, Bill, was that you make me rethink my opposition to censorship on this private website.  I did not say I WANTED to do so, nor did I even imply that you should be thrown out of the church.  I would be the first to come to your defense if anyone suggested such a thing.  I would much rather have you modify your style of expression, as you did in your latest post.

The problem I have when you revert to an angry attacking mode is that you want to call down fire and brimstone on those who provide this forum for you to freely express your views.  Most who express their opinions on this site do so with relative dignity and respect, even those who share your theology. They do not scrawl angry graffiti.  If you provided a place for me to stay, it would be unreasonable for you to expect that I should share your beliefs.  But it would not be unreasonable for you to be deeply offended if I scrawled personal attacks on you all over the walls.  

From Bill Sorensen:

"...the church is censured by me. When they repent, whoever "they" may be, I will accept them into full fellowship."

I truly look forward to the day that I will be purified to the point that Bill will hang out with me.  I'm waiting with baited breath, and tremble with excitement at the mere idea of Bill awarding me my robe of righteousness.

I thought Pendleton's review was a lot better than the mere "evenhanded" complement awarded by David Read.  And I find the editors' choice of reviewer more than just "interesting."  As a Catholic and Former Adventist, Pendleton at some point chose to abandon the friendly confines, warmth, and salvation of God's remnant church for the hellfire and brimstone of Satan and the Pope.  Will the congregation please join me in an audible gasp, and a synchronized clutching of our collective breast in astonishment and woe?

I don't have the discipline of Pendleton to bother with sitting down and reading Folkenberg's book.  The three winged Abercrombie and Fitch models on the cover just kind of turn me off.  But more than that, I have no desire to see the church return to its "heart" if that heart truly is the apocalyptic fear-mongering of Mr. Folkenberg. 

Whether we like it or not, there are serious problems with both getting back to the heart of Adventism, and Getting Back to the Heart of Adventism.  First, the obvious question is "What is the heart of Adventism?"  If the answer is "The Three Angels' Messages" then we need to ask a few other questions.  First, are we exactly, unerringly correct in our traditional interpretation of Prophesy?  Has our church been wrong before in our quest to translate prophesy?  Since the obvious answer is yes, we should ask if we learned any lessons from those errors.  And herein lies the problem with Getting Back to the Heart of Adventism.  I don't think Robert Folkenberg ever asked himself any of these questions.  The only thing more dangerous than being wrong is being wrong and being overconfident in your rightness. 

At any rate, if the Three Angels' Messages are the heart of our church, we can't forget that the heart of the Three Angels' Messages is that men fell, and God provided a way to get back up. 

What is the "Heart of the Matter" anyway?  Here's an answer, written with more grace, talent, and depth than I could ever muster...

The more I know, the less I understand
All the things I thought I knew, Im learning again
Ive been tryin to get down
To the heart of the matter
But my will gets weak
And my thoughts seem to scatter
But I think its about forgiveness
Forgiveness
These times are so uncertain
Theres a yearning undefined
And people filled with rage
We all need a little tenderness
How can love survive in such a graceless age?
The trust and self-assurance that lead to happiness
Theyre the very things - we kill I guess
Pride and competition
Cannot fill these empty arms
And the work I put between us
You know it doesnt keep me warm
And the more I know, the less I understand
All the things I thought Id figured out
I have to learn again
Ive been trying to get down
To the heart of the matter
But everything changes
And my friends seem to scatter
But I think its about forgiveness
Forgiveness
                                                     - Cambell, Henley, & Souther

"

Bill, the words "censor" and "censure" have different meanings, the former meaning to suppress free speech or communication, the latter meaning a formal reprimand.  You seem to be using them interchangeably.

"since one of the primary confessions of faith for the Catholic church is this "Faith ought not be kept with heretics","

"which simply means, a Catholic can lie, cheat, steal and use any method necessary to advance the Catholic religion"

",we can only conclude anything written either today, or in the past must necessarily be interpreted by the Catholic church itself... in this case, what ever interpretation the church places on its own words will be the final and true meaning of any statement made."

Hugo Mendez says, "No Catholic would read that 2007 statement and believe that the clarificatons and developments of V2 are null; no Catholic could." 

Oh contraire, mon frere.  Many Catholics were never on board with Vatican II to begin with.  The Society of St. Pius the X, (Lefebvrists) rejected Vatican II including the experimentation with the idea that non-Catholics can be saved.  Here is a site with their statement:  http://www.google.com/search?q=society+of+st.+pius+x&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7HPIA_en.

You ought to take some time and peruse the Catholic blogs:

http://www.catholicbook.com/AgredaCD/eens.htm.  "Some come to this conclusion by asserting that there does not exist any objective truth for us to adhere to, which in turn leads to a denial of the existence of God. Others say that there exist only a few basic objective truths that we need to believe in order to be saved. Both opinions miss the plain reality of the order established by God – one must believe all and everything that the Catholic Church teaches to be saved."

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Hutton_Gibson.html.  "Why can’t you just shut your mouths, drop your pens and repeat without exception:  Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation?  Are you trying to keep non-Catholics from the Catholic Faith?  You blind fools, you are enemies of God and the non-Catholics whom you falsely try to justify!"

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/nonsalus.htm.  "He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however praiseworthy his conduct may otherwise seem, will not be saved."

http://tridentinecatholic.blogspot.com/2008/01/outside-church-no-salvation-catholic-or.html.  "the Catholic Church, by virtue of her perpetual teaching given to her by Our Lord Jesus, she firmly teaches that a person outside the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church, cannot be saved."

http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Salvation_Outside.html."No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

Or, as Ervin's favorite Cardinal, Robert Bellermine, put it: "Outside the Church there is no salvation . . . For this reason the Church is compared with the ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church."

Trying to reconcile the medieval "inerrant" papal utterances with the attitude Rome is trying to convey post Vatican II is quite hopeless, and involves mental gymnastic that must cause pain and soreness.  A good summary can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm.

The temptation for any honest, reasonable Roman Catholic to cut through this mess by returning to the previous clear, unequivocal statements would be overwhelming, and Pope Benedict, ne Cardinal Ratzinger, has started the process.

By the way, the traditional doctrine, even before Vatican II was that those in "invincible ignorance" of the Catholic Church could be saved if they followed the dictates of natural law.  But for all of us Protestants who know about the Catholic Church and yet reject her, there is no salvation. 

Here is an interesting chapter on the Catholic position that one ought not to keep faith with heretics:  http://www.freepres.org/papacy/pap02-20.htm. 

For a thousand years, Rome vehemently denied the doctrine of freedom conscience.  For six hundred years, Rome maintained a machinery of torture, to root out "heresy" and burn at the stake those who finally confessed, under torture.  What is more in keeping with the character of the Roman Church:  what it taught and did for 600 years, or what it professes in the last 45 years since Vatican II?  As a wise person once said, "Rome never changes." 

Hugo, you are very much correct.  Over your church's 2000 year history, there was bound to be mishaps, and mistakes, and misstatements from you leadership.  My Adventist church is an infant in comparison, and in our 150 years we've found ourselves apologizing for our position on race relations in America, and our purging and betraying of SDA ethnic Jews in Europe during the holocaust, among other things. 

To judge our church by decades-old missteps would be a difficult judgement to sit through, for sure, and no less unfair than judging yours by centuries-old, long-since modified positions.  

So several hundreds of years of Rome insisting that there was no salvation outside herself, and insisting that freedom of conscience is a damnable heresy, and having and using the machinery of compulsion and torture to back up those doctrines was a "mishap," a "mistake", a "mistatement"?  Oops! 

I am currently reading about a six hundred year "mishap" called the Inquisition, which took the lives of at least 100,000, possibly millions: http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Inquisitors-Manual-History-Terror/dp/0061732761/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255982698&sr=8-2.

There is no question that the current pope is reacting against the reforms of Vatican II.  As one Catholic writer describes the situation:

"Benedict is bringing back insulting old attitudes about "non-Catholics," decidedly including Jews. During his 24-year run as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he was constantly on the lookout for opportunities to reassert pope-centered Catholic supremacy. His 2000 document Dominus Jesus ("The Lord Jesus") said that those outside the Catholic Church live "in a gravely deficient situation in comparison to those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation." His reassertions, as Cardinal Ratzinger and as Pope Benedict, of this exclusivist supremacy have astounded people of other faiths - and wounded them."

Pope Benedict is even attempting a rapprochement with the LeFebvrists, recently remitting the excommunication of four bishops ordained by LeFebvre.  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20090702_ecclesiae-unitatem_en.html.  "With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the "Society of St Pius X" to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church." 

LeFebvre recognized, quite correctly of course, that Vatican II was a betrayal of everything Rome had stood for up to that point.  Especially pernicious, in LeFebvre's mind, was the doctrine of liberty of conscience, which the popes had uniformly condemned up to that time:

"They do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor of recent memory, Gregory XVI, insanity; namely, that 'liberty of conscience and worship is the right of every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society', which the Pope goes on to describe as a "liberty of perdition". (Dz 1690)."  This statement is proudly featured on a current SSPX website:  http://www.sspx.org/District_Superiors_Ltrs/2001_ds_ltrs/nov_01_district_superiors_letter.htm.

One of the bishops included in the remittance of excommunication was Bishop Richard Williamson, a notorious holocaust denier.  Pope Benedict claimed he was not aware of Williamson's views on the holocaust when he remitted the excommunication. 

Rome.  Never.  Changes.

I neglected to properly cite the Lebebvrist passage about the heresy of liberty of conscience; it was from an 1864 papal encyclical issued by Pope Pius IX, entitled "Quanta Cura."  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanta.htm.  (Foolish LeFebvrists, thinking that a late 19th Century pope is still quotable in the 21st Century!)  The pasage in question reads:

"From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

Quanta Cura is more famous as an introduction to its "syllabus of errors."  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm.  Among the things he condemned as error were:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.

24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

David - can you apply equal levity and humor with which you refer to the Inquisition to the Adventist Church's error in Germany, ca. early 20th century?  When we found Hitler's clean lifestyle and strong leadership so worth of effusive praise?  When we purged our church of Jews, and assisted in the holocaust, rather than provide safe harbor?  Or perhaps because such error went uncorrected for decades, instead of centuries, it's forgivable and forgettable.  

A wise person once said, "Rome never changes."  This same wise person also said that masturbation causes blindness, insanity, and death, and equated it to suicide.  She also provides divinely inspired support for the Honorable Keith Bardwell's recent refusal to marry an interracial couple, based on the burden of scorn and ridicule it places upon their children, like Halle Berry, Mariah Carey, Craig David, Lenny Kravitz, etc. (all mulatto, all unattractive, all rejected as societal misfits.)  The two examples of this person's statements I mention are not intended as mockery, but rather examples of statements, like "Rome never Changes" that haven't proven to be true. 

As a 3rd generation SDA, I'm not suggesting that Adventists merge with the Catholic Church anymore than Hugo or David Pendleton is.  I understand that the common ground the two denominations share cannot resolve their fundamental differences.  However, taking pride in our unique message and beliefs need not include the acts of mocking and criticizing others, as we are not immune to such treatment ourselves.  Half-Truths, Mockery and criticism of the Catholics (or the Muslims, for that matter) doesn't serve to grow our church or further our mission. 

David, the last paragraph of your post is the perfect example of a half-truth, told with the intent of painting a negative picture.

One of the bishops included in the remittance of excommunication was Bishop Richard Williamson, a notorious holocaust denier.  Pope Benedict claimed he was not aware of Williamson's views on the holocaust when he remitted the excommunication. 

You are surely aware that the Vatican released this statement:

"Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the Church, will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah [the Holocaust], which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted.”

So to clearly summarize your accusation against Rome, you are saying that because in 2009 Pope Benedict re-admitted (although he later set conditions to re-admittance) Bishop Williamson, who was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, who in turn was a fan of Pope Gregory XVI, who said back in the mid 1800's that religious liberty is a liberty of perdition, and because Ellen White said in the 1800's that Rome Never Changes, that this is proof that Pope Benedict would like to secretively revive the Roman Inquisition from the mid 1500's.

When it's all laid out like this, does your accusation make sense?  Or does it seem more accusatory and fantasmagorical (this is a Jonathan Kirsch word) than factual.  Can you see why such a convoluted path to conviction of the Catholic Church engenders more resentment than it inspires one to the pursuit of salvation? 

StatefarmSteve: I assure you I was not making light of the Inquisition.  The shadow of the terror carries across the centuries and abolutely precludes any levity.  I was ridiculing the notion that the inquisition was a "mishap" or a "mistake." 

Equally deserving of ridicule is the idea that Vatican II, which took place less than 45 years ago, is sufficient to efface the image, deeply embedded over the course of many centuries, of Rome as a persecuting power, a resolute enemy of freedom of conscience.  As yet, Vatican II is an outlier, a one-off, completely out of character with Rome's long, bloody, horrifying history.  It isn't just that Vatican II contradicts some medieval popish pronouncement from the 11th or 13th or 16th century, it contradicts statements repeatedly made by mulitples popes as recently as the late 19th Century.  The problem with the LeFebvrists isn't with what they believe (which is what Catholics have always believed and professed) it is that they are giving the game away on the particular piece of taqiyya and kitman known as Vatican II, which is intended to con gullible Protestants into believing that Rome has changed.      

A technical point about Williamson, his re-communication (or whatever the technical term is) is not dependent upon giving up holocaust denial.  Remitting the excommunications is fait accompli; it is done.  What is dependent upon future negotiation is restoration of pastoral privileges; my understanding is that, even with the lifting of the excommunications, these people do not have any official pastoral authority but are essentially just lay Catholic. 

But the broader point is why is Pope Benedict doing this??  Has the SSPX renounced its criticisms of Vatican II?  No.  They have done nothing to merit the church's favor; they have done nothing to soften their criticism of Vatican II. 

Hugo wanted me to read Benedict's 2005 address to the Roman Curia:   http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia_en.html.  Well, I read it, and I am not completely reassured.  Benedict asks what has been the result of Vatican II?  "Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken?"  As if it were a trial and the jury is still out, or a broadway show and the reviews have not yet been published. 

He then says there's two ways to "interpret" Vatican II, through the "hermeneutic of discontinuity" or through the "hermeneutic of continuity and reform."  He argues that discontinuity is the wrong hermeneutic, and that Vatican II must interpreted in continuity with the church that existed before Vatican II.  

Well, put me in the discontinuity camp.  I'd like to see a clean, sharp break with, e.g., Pope Pius IX, his quanta cura and his syllabus of errors, and that seems to be exactly what Pope Benedict is looking to avoid.  Benedict's unrequited overtures to SSPX are exhibit "A" of his impulse to have "continuity" with the ravenous beast that was pre-Vatican II Catholicism.

In dealing with papal writings, it is necessary to unpack the anfractuosities of language (just, as Cliff Goldstein noted, one must do with Darwinists who insist on calling themselves Adventists).  At times, Benedict seems to be saying that things like religious liberty are expedients, not principles:

"Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.   It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction."

In other words, the church formerly viewed a policy of religious freedom as implying that Catholicism might not be the one true fatih, whereas now we view it as something that just helps people co-exist and get along. 

There's so much of this mealy-mouth nonsense in the Christmas address that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that these types of writings are calculated to leave hostages to fortune, should the need to crawfish arise.  About the most encouraging, straightforward thing he says is this:

"The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State." 

There's a sentiment I can endorse.  I could quibble, and say that liberty of conscience is not merely an essential principle of the "modern state," (whatever that means), but is a bedrock, foundational principle of God's government of the universe.  But that would be asking too much.  Has Rome really changed her principles, or is her adoption of liberty of conscience merely expendient accomodation of the "modern state"?  Time will tell.  The jury is still out.

David - I understand your skepticism.  I'd go so far as to suggest that many Catholics would understand, in light of the historical weight of the church's past actions and the historical philosophy that until relatively recently, was held in the highest offices of the Vatican.  However, I'd suggest a little more willingess to give the benefit of the doubt to modern Catholics and their leadership.  Equating significant evolution in church philosophy and an opening of arms to other religions with "intentional lies and half-truths" is a condemnation of the Catholic Church - putting all Catholics in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" quandry. 

In the meantime, in the spirit of change, the Pope has reached out to the SSPX, and there is a clear thawing in the relationship.  I don't know if they'll resolve their internal struggle any quicker than the SDA denomination will resolve our issues with Hope International, the Hartland Institute, and the Remnant Ministries, but we should be more understanding of the desire to heal fractures within the midst of the Catholic Church, since we suffer from a similar issue.  Hope, Hartland, and Remnant are just as vicious, disruptive, and difficult to deal with for SDA leadership as SSPX is for Catholics. 

The last part of your comment gives me some hope.  It almost sounds like you are willing to observe and watch to see if Rome has truly come to embrace religious freedom, even if until such is proven, you'll sleep with one eye open.  I don't begrudge you the freedom to do so, but I hope and pray that you will at least consider toning down your opposition to their change.  I believe the Vatican II positions are a good thing, but I've admitted my naivete many time before on this very site.  Perhaps I'll proceed as a wary buyer, with less effusive praise, if you'll agree to proceed with cautious optimism, and less harsh critique. 

David Pendleton wrote:

I'll add my favorite quotation from Avery Cardinal Dulles -- a quotation by the way which captures the essence of the theology for which the Vatican made him a Cardinal:

"Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God's promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God's saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted." <http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/02/001-who-can-be-saved-8>

It took nearly 2,000 years for the Catholic Church to realize that God is so great, so myserious, and so awesome that uniformity in all beliefs is not likely. Just as there was diversity of perspectives between and among the Apostles and disciples -- most famously between Paul and James -- there will be a variety of sincerely held theological views in our own day. So to think we will all at some point in history, whether near at hand or in the distant future, uniformly agree about God in all respects is not realistic.  Christianity has always been characterized by a range of views rather than a monolithic body of doctrine.

Looking at the demographics of conversion, Adventism continues to fall behind. Tomorrow there will be more non-Adventists on the planet than there are today. Whereas a hundred years ago there were perhaps only a billion non-SDAs.Today there are billions of non-SDAs. And that tragectory will only accelerate as Hinduism and Islam continue rapidly to grow. At this pace, God's plan of salvation -- if viewed solely from the perspective of Christianity -- is looking increasingly exclusive, should Adventist eschatology as traditionally articulated be true.

This demographic slide is also true for Catholicism, because it is true of Christianity. While Catholics number 1.2 billion, it is an increasingly smaller slice of the world population pie. Christianity, once much larger than the 600-year-younger Islam, will no doubt be surpassed by Islam in the coming centuries. We will perhaps never have as high a proportion of Christians on this planet as, say, during Constantine's time. That's just the demographic reality.

As Christians we will have to redefine success in nonquantitative terms. Rather than counting converts, we ought to live lives more faithfully reflective of our own genuine conversions. Rather than obsessing over statistics on baptisms from overseas, we ought to strive to be individuals who have been truly baptized.

The tyranny of numbers  -- 1844, 144,000, 666 -- has not always served Christianity. If we must talk about and think with numbers, how about returning to Jesus' own prayer that we all be one in faith and love.

Whether the transition from a quantitative to a qualitative perspective is possible or even desirable is not clear.

This we know: the God of Jesus Christ loves humankind more than we can say with human words, and He is in control. He will come at the perfect moment in the perfect way to save a less than perfect creation through God's perfect grace. He is ready, willing, and able to save those who don't even know His name. No doubt, then, he can save even Christians who sincerely disagree on various doctrinal points. 

May God's love and peace change the world, beginning with each individual heart.

David Pendleton