A Stark Missiological Contrast Worth Noting

There are two types of evolution: micro and macro. Micro is not debated, as evolution within a species can be scientifically demonstrated. In order to survive, species over time better adapt to the environments in which they live, but the species itself does not change. This is not controversial. What is more controversial is macro evolution, or the idea that a species can over time evolve into an entirely different species. Compared to micro evolution, the scientific evidence for macro evolution is scanty at best.

There is an analogous case to be made in regard to doctrine within the Roman Catholic Church. Doctrine in Roman Catholicism develops, or evolves, over time. It is organic and develops in order to better respond to the most current culture. In this sense it develops in order to “survive and reproduce itself.” The discussion to be had, however, is if that development in doctrine is micro or macro in nature. That is, is it still identifiable with its previous version, or has it changed entirely and become a different and new doctrine? The Roman Catholic Church will argue that it is the former, but at times we are faced with contrasts in Roman Catholicism that challenge that claim.  

Let’s consider an example. In 1928 Pope Pius XI wrote his encyclical letter Mortalium Animos in which he addressed the issue of religious unity. The early part of the 20th century witnessed several missionary endeavors that addressed how the Christian church could most effectively carry the Gospel to the non-Christian world.[1] Evangelicals hosted conferences, and the Catholic Church issued apostolic and encyclical letters that spelled out their approaches to accomplishing the missionary task, which for both Evangelicals and Catholics was carrying the Gospel to the non-Christian world. Considering the overwhelming magnitude of the task, and the unity needed to accomplish it (and for which Christ prayed in John 17), the question emerged regarding the possibility of all of Christianity joining forces to fulfill the Great Commission. Would not the Christian message be more credible if Christianity could overcome its divisions for the sake of the Gospel?

This is the exact question to which Pius XI responded in his letter Mortalium Animos: “Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be one…All Christians…should be as one: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength” (MA, 4).  

But Pius XI would not be appeased by such superficial unity. “In reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed” (MA, 4). The Catholic Church alone was the one true Church, and therefore mission belonged to the Catholic Church alone, and indeed salvation itself could only be experienced as part of the Church. If you did not belong to the Catholic Church, then you had no part in its mission: 

“The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind” (MA, 11). He further puts the Roman Catholic stamp on his response when he writes, “all who are truly Christ’s believe…the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff” (MA, 9). Pius XI continues, “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors” (MA, 11).

Now let us consider the modern-day Roman Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pope Francis. The RCC seems to have a very different answer to the question concerning ecumenism and collaboration in mission. Consider Francis’s 2013 encyclical Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) on evangelization and mission. It is interesting to note the similarity of the wording in both Pius XI and Francis’s encyclicals: “Commitment to ecumenism responds to the prayer of the Lord Jesus that “they may all be one” (Jn 17:21). The credibility of the Christian message would be much greater if Christians could overcome their divisions and the Church could realize “the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her” (Evangelii Gaudium, 244).

But whereas Pius XI was clear on the exclusive nature of mission (belonging exclusively to the RCC; you are either in or out), Pope Francis presents a much more inclusive vision of mission and evangelization. “We must never forget that we are pilgrims journeying alongside one another. This means that we must have sincere trust in our fellow pilgrims, putting aside all suspicion or mistrust, and turn our gaze to what we are all seeking: the radiant peace of God’s face. Trusting others is an art and peace is an art” (EG, 244).

In his latest encyclical, Fratelli Tutti (2020), Francis further develops his ecumenical approach to mission. In chapter eight Francis addresses the role of other world religions in pursuing greater fraternity. He writes, “The different religions, based on their respect for each human person as a creature called to be a child of God, contribute significantly to building fraternity and defending justice in society. Dialogue between the followers of different religions does not take place simply for the sake of diplomacy, consideration or tolerance. In the words of the Bishops of India, ‘the goal of dialogue is to establish friendship, peace and harmony, and to share spiritual and moral values and experiences in a spirit of truth and love’” (FT n. 271). A few paragraphs later, and citing Vatican II (Nostra Aetate), Francis writes, “The Church esteems the ways in which God works in other religions, and ‘rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for their manner of life and conduct, their precepts and doctrines which… often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women’” (FT n. 277).

The contrasts between Pius XI and Francis couldn’t be any starker. Pius XI drew clear boundaries within which the Roman Catholic Church carried-out missions. Collaborating with so-called believers outside of the Catholic Church was a “grave error” to be avoided (see MA, 4). You were either in the Church and thus saved and part of its mission, or you were outside of the Church and had no part in it. Pope Francis, however, teaches that ecumenical collaboration is essential for missions. In fact, he is happy to pray and collaborate with Hindus and Muslims and teaches that all of mankind are united on the basis of being created by God. We are all brothers and thus united in the same mission, and if we are all brothers, who are we to condemn one another for not believing exactly as we do?

Again, these two approaches are quite contrasting and beg the question, “Is this an example of consistent and acceptable development and evolution in Roman Catholic missiology?” “Are these approaches to missions even relatable? Can they be considered to be ‘of the same species?’”

Regardless of how these questions are answered, it is certainly a stark contrast worth noting and presents a significant challenge for the Roman Catholic Church as it grapples with constant development in doctrine. It is also important that the Evangelical church is aware of the ‘development’ that takes place in Roman Catholicism. This is of course only one example amongst many, and its implications for ecumenism and cooperation are clear: the once clear boundaries imposed by the Roman Catholic Church have been forfeited in favor of a “we are all brothers” mentality. Should Evangelicals, who for the sake of the Gospel and for the sake of mission must maintain clear doctrinal boundaries, participate in an ecumenical agenda that promotes universal brotherhood? The answer – again for the sake of the Gospel – is no. The church indeed evolves in order to be ever-relevant with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it is micro in nature as its message is always consistent with that handed down by the early church and the apostles, and with what was rediscovered during the Protestant Reformation.

[1] 1900 New York Ecumenical Missionary Conference; 1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, Scotland; 1925 World Conference of Life and Work in Stockholm, Sweden; 1927 Lausanne Conference on Faith and Order; and just a few months after the publication of Mortalium Animos the International Missionary Council would host a missionary conference in Jerusalem.