Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel

The billboard people are a tiny group of ahistorical Adventists. An Adventist in grad school, I live in an intentional community with a bunch of liberal and conservative Catholic seminarians. We have a great time. In fact, my thesis adviser is a Dominican priest. Almost all Adventists disagree with that old 19th century anti-Catholicism that pops up every once in awhile.

Reply to this comment

Stephen,

I have just read your post. Do I remain ignorant of the channel for God's grace, the Roman Catholic Church? Bill Cork, a Roman Catholic for many years has converted to the SDA church. Did his conversion make him ignorant of God's grace thus relieving him of the obligation to seek grace through the sacraments of the church? How does Bill claim ignorance of the grace that flows from the church? He has knowingly reject the grace offered through the sacraments of the church. Is it not fair to conclude that he is bound for hell simply on the fact of his conversion to a church that is not in perfect union with the Roman Catholic church?

What is the grace that you suggest exist outside of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic church? Where is it found?

I just want to make sure I understand your position. I can reject membership in the true church, reject the justifying grace that increases my righteousness before God, desecrate his body and blood everytime I take my unsanctioned wine and bread, reject the authority of the Roman Catholic church and still be a true and faithful Christian in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church? Could you give some authoriative reference that supports this claim on your part.

Just to be clear, as I understand it, the Roman Catholic church does not even believe that the SDA church is a true church. Am I correct? Don't you consider the SDA church a ecclesiatiacal communion as opposed to a church?

The teaching of your church is that all members of the SDA church should leave. The SDA church should stop desecrating the blood and body of Christ. We do not have a sanctioned clergy. We worship on the wrong day of the week. I believe during the middle ages a Pope stated that those who are Sabbath keepers are in league with the Anti-Christ. When you look at these teachings as a whole I don't see how they differ in quality to statements made by the SDA church about the Roman Catholic church. If you describe one church Anti-X you must apply the same standard.

Finally, how do I desecrate the wine and bread? Is the wine and bread desecrated by how it is handled in the SDA church or simply by my failure to believe that it is the literal blood and body of Christ? Have you actually attended a communion service at an SDA church? It is not a party. It is a solemn service. How can I desecrate the wine and bread and not receive the curses spoken of in 1 Cor. 11? If this is what you truly believe then how can I be justified and cursed at the same time?





Reply to this comment

Stephen,
How does conversion make a person blind to the truth? Bill Cork publically and privately declared at a point in his life that the Roman Catholic church was the true church and accepted the sacrament of the Eucharist. He then rejected these firm beliefs and joined the SDA church.

When I am unconvinced of the truth taught by the Roman Catholic church do you believe I must not express me views regarding the church. If I am protected from condemnation because I am not convinced of the truth regarding the RC church why must I be described as Anti-Catholic for sharing those views?

Could you specifically identify a statement from Vatican ll that permits me to do the things I described in my previous post.

The Adventist church does not consider itself the only church nor do we subscribe to the definition of a church expressed by the RC church. This definition, in my view, is another instance of the RC church's intolerance towards other communities of faith. If further supports my view that the RC church needs to clean her own house before you raise the spector of intolerance against another community of faith.

I want to make sure that I am clear on your position. I can create an invalid expression of the Lord's supper and not incur the curses mentioned in 1Corinthians 11.

Is the grace that I receive in prayer and singings hymns sufficient for me to increase in my justification?


Reply to this comment

"Your church has concluded that I am unworthy to take the wine and bread from a RC priest."

But that's just the thing -- according to Catholic doctrine, Roman Catholic priests have no wine and bread to give anyone. All they have to give is the sacrament of the very body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. You don't believe anything the Catholic Church teaches. You think that if you received Holy Communion, all you're doing is going through a meaningful but purely symbolic ritual, a "shadow show" like the typological sacrifices and ablutions of the Old Covenant. That means that if you were to present yourself for Communion at Mass, when the priest offered the Host to you and said, "The Body of Christ," you would be lying when you said, "Amen" and received the Host into your body. Saying "Amen" means, "Yes, I agree that when I receive Communion, I am receiving the all-holy Body and most precious Blood of my Savior, and I desire that His Body and Blood be joined to my body and blood and my very soul."

But you neither believe nor desire those things. So in your case, Holy Communion would not be an expression of the communion (sharing, participation) in the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, because you are not united in faith. With your body and your words you would be saying, "I believe everything the Catholic Church says, especially what She says about the Blessed Sacrament." But in your mind you do not really believe. Therefore, if you were to receive Holy Communion, you would be telling God and everyone around you a lie. You claim the Catholic Church is intolerant because she does not want anyone to commit that sin, but is it wrong to be "intolerant" of sin?

Communion is the sacrament of unity, and Christians are to be one in faith and in the truth. Religious unity that does not include unity in the truth is not the unity that God desires for His People. How can there be open communion as long as the Catholic Church believes that the truth matters? The Catholic Church loves Adventists too much to permit them to misrepresent themselves before God and man by receiving Communion.

"Because of all these things you cannot treat me as a brother in Christ by washing my feet and eating the wine and bread with me."

A brother in Christ strives to hear and obey all that his Father and his Mother say. If the Catholic Church did not believe what She believes, yes, it would be possible for non-Catholics to receive what would only be wine and bread, just as Catholics could receive the wine and bread of non-Catholic churches and sects. But if the Catholic Church is what She claims to be, then Christians who do not believe what She believes would commit a grave offense to eat what they think is nothing more than wine and bread.

To reiterate, when non-Catholics receive Catholic Communion, they send the false message, "I believe what the Catholic Church says." And when Catholics receive non-Catholic bread and wine, they send the message, "I don't believe what the Catholic Church says, but I believe what this sect says." Maybe they believe what that sect says, maybe they don't -- if they do, then it would be incongruent and inappropriate for them to remain in the Catholic Church; but if they don't believe what the sect says, then they are misleading everyone by proclaiming a unity that doesn't really exist.

Now, all of these considerations do not enter into the question of whether non-Catholics should remain non-Catholic, whether they offend God with their non-Catholic communion services, etc. The Catholic Church distinguishes between objective sin and subjective sin. That is, because of the importance of the human conscience, there are any number of factors that can mitigate culpability for a wrong action. So, no, the Catholic Church doesn't want non-Catholic Christians to remain apart from the Catholic Church or to believe things that are contrary to the Catholic faith. But the question of the salvation of non-Catholics isn't a simple one from the Catholic viewpoint. Objectively, their separation from the Catholic Church is an evil that endangers their souls. Subjectively, one an individual-by-individual basis, we cannot judge who is truly hellbound and who isn't. That's God's prerogative, not ours. In Bill Cork's case, for example -- no, we Catholics cannot think it is a good thing that he has gone back to Seventh-Day Adventism, and we can only believe that he is placing his soul in jeopardy by doing so. But we also cannot affirm that he is definitely on the road to hell and driving in the fast lane. There is so much that we aren't in any position to know about Bill, that God alone can know and understand. So, we pray for his return and his repentance, and that's all. But he can still be saved, in spite of his public adoption of teachings that contradict the Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition. It may not be easy to envision the circumstances in which, if the Catholic faith is true, a man in Bill's position could nevertheless be saved, but we're not God, and we can't know all the things He knows.

"Could you specifically identify a statement from Vatican ll that permits me to do the things I described in my previous post."

Here is one statement, Lumen Gentium 8:

"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth." This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."

Further on, there is Lumen Gentium 15:

"15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth."

Reply to this comment

Stephen,

It seems to me that you are completely ignorant of the structure of the Adventist church. The revelation seminars, for the most part, are created by local adventist ministers or lay people. They are not adopted as official teachings of the church and most are dated. If you want to learn what the church officially teaches then consult the book the 28 fundamentals of the SDA church or an Adventist Bible Commentary.

In fact, the people who put up billboards are not members of the SDA church. The SDA church has, on occassion, taken these individual to court for violating the church's copyright.

It seems to me the basis of your label of anti-catholicism is that my theology is wrong so I am therefore anti-catholic. It would seem to me that you would need to demonstrate some malice or intent to attack the RC church.

The SDA church has adopted in principle the conclusions of the proptestant reformers life Martin Luther and John Calvin. Were they anti-catholic?


The problem for me with the communion is that your church precludes me from taking the wine and bread and prevents you from sharing in the wine and bread at my church. This is a conclusion that I am unworthy. 1 Corinthians 11 requires that a person not take the wine and bread unworthily. It does not suggest that a failure to believe that the wine and bread are the literal blood and flesh of Jesus precludes one from participating. Nor do we find support for your view that if I shared with you in your church my beliefs would desecrate the wine and bread. Paul seemed to able to share in the religous practices of those with whom he disagreed. At a minimum you should be able to share communion with me even if I can't do the same with you.

I would submit to you that SDA's and Episcopalians are not on the same page in our understanding of the wine and bread and yet we can mutually share the wine and bread together.

If your conclusion is that theology trumps claims of intolerance then why do you label Adventists intolerant for their sincerly held theological positions?

Reply to this comment

Jared,

I just want you to know that I appreciate your responses. I think that your response establishe the point that I am trying to make.

My contention with Stephen is his labeling the Adventist church as anti-catholic.

The RC church teaches that she is the true church and all should return to her bosom. The Adventist church teaches that she is the Remnant church and all should come to her as well. The RC church does not deny the sincere Christian expression of Roman Catholics and other chuches. The SDA church affirms that there are true Christians in each Christian Church. The RC church affirms that those who are not members of the RC church are not in perfect union with Christ. The SDA church believes that a person can remain a faithful Catholic or Baptist and still be saved. I could go on and on. The point is that both faiths express their beliefs and theologies in a manner that could be labeled and anti-catholic or anti-sda. The issue is whether this is a fair label. I think that this label is used to marginalize the standing of dissenters and mute legitimate debate and arguements over complex theological issues.

Unlike Stephen, you have taken the RC church's theology to it's logical conclusion. So you would acknowledge that Bill Cork is in some jeopardy if he remains on his current course. You are correct in noting that he could again rejoin the faith that he now rejects.

Finally, in the book of Acts we see the Apostle Paul engaging in acts of ceremonial washing and presenting himself to the Elders in the Jerusalem Church. By doing so did he lie by engaging in these ritual practice when his theology clearly led him to conclude that these rituals were not the means of receiving God's grace nor a continuing sign of God's grace? It seems that he engaged in these pracitices for the benefit of unity. I don't need to believe everthing your church teaches about the Eucharist in order to share this practice with you. Like Paul I would be acknowledging the come unity we have and Christ.

Reply to this comment

"I think that your response establishes the point that I am trying to make."

"My contention with Stephen is his labeling the Adventist church as anti-catholic."

Yes, and I have to agree with Stephen. Seventh-Day Adventism as a doctrinal package is inherently anti-Catholic, though of course individual Adventists may or may not be anti-Catholic in their attitudes and beliefs. But a religious system that maintains that the apostolic tradition of the Lord's Day is a false, unbiblical, unauthorised and/or anti-Semitic innovation of later centuries is inescapably anti-Catholic. SDAism also has historically championed a pseudohistorical "Trail of Blood"-style narrative of contempt for orthodox Christianity. As Stephen has pointed out, there is no comparable animus or narrative regarding SDAism in modern Catholicism, nor has Catholicism ever had such a thing. The only thing comparable is the historical anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism that long plagued the Church along her history, but that is something the Church has definitively and irrevocably renounced. Many SDAs are also renouncing the essential anti-Catholicism of their religion, a development that can only be applauded and encouraged.

"The point is that both faiths express their beliefs and theologies in a manner that could be labeled and anti-catholic or anti-sda."

Sorry, you have not shown that at all. SDAism is anti-Catholic in its origin and fundamental beliefs. The Catholic Church, and the wider mainstream of Christianity, serve as the foil against which SDAism historically has reacted as a purported restorationist reforming movement. Historically, many if not most SDAs have believed some variation of the radical Protestant doctrine of the Pope or the Catholic Church as the Great Whore or the Antichrist. But SDAism holds no such unique place in the tapestry of Catholic doctrine and the Church's self-understanding. Frankly, most Catholics know nothing of SDAism, don't even know it exists, so there's no way we would expect Antichrist to arise from the SDA religion. So it's simply erroneous to portray the Catholic Church's disbelief in SDAism as anti-SDAism.

"Unlike Stephen, you have taken the RC church's theology to it's logical conclusion. So you would acknowledge that Bill Cork is in some jeopardy if he remains on his current course. You are correct in noting that he could again rejoin the faith that he now rejects."

I don't think there is any significant disagreement, if any disagreement at all, between me and Stephen regarding Bill Cork or anyone in a comparable situation.

"Finally, in the book of Acts we see the Apostle Paul engaging in acts of ceremonial washing and presenting himself to the Elders in the Jerusalem Church."

I suppose you are referring to St. James' counsel that St. Paul join some other Jewish Christians for the purification rite at the conclusion of a vow (presumably a Nazirite vow). We know that St. Paul, a Jew of the Tribe of Benjamin, who had belonged to the Pharisee sect before becoming a Christian, continued even after his conversion to observe many if not all of the Mosaic rites of his people, even though he made clear to all that such things were neither obligatory nor salvific.

"By doing so did he lie by engaging in these ritual practice when his theology clearly led him to conclude that these rituals were not the means of receiving God's grace nor a continuing sign of God's grace?"

No. The false rumor had spread that St. Paul was forbidding Jews from observing Jewish customs and rites. This was a good way to prove to everyone that the rumors were false. St. Paul was telling the truth about his beliefs -- that he did not forbid those things at all, but participated in them himself. What St. Paul objected to was the claim that the Law of Moses was mandatory. He allowed Jewish Christians to continue to observe the Torah (or those parts of it that they chose to observe), but forbade them from imposing the Torah on Gentile converts.

"It seems that he engaged in these practices for the benefit of unity."

Yes, and to squelch false rumors about him and his ministry to the Gentiles.

"I don't need to believe everything your church teaches about the Eucharist in order to share this practice with you."

If you don't believe everything the Church teaches about the Eucharist, then you wouldn't really be sharing it with me, appearances notwithstanding. It would be an outward show that contradicted the inner reality. Same thing if I were to eat bread and drink wine (or grape juice) at an SDA or Protestant communion service.

Reply to this comment