Church History Companion Unit 1: Biblical Foundations

To return to the Introduction and Table of Contents, click here.

The Great Story

The story of history is the story of God's revelation of himself in his creation.  God is complete in himself, the Fullness of Being.  He exists eternally as one Being in three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--and within the relationships of love between these three Persons he is perfectly happy and blessed.  But God chose to create a universe, rooted in him and yet distinct from him, through which he could manifest his own perfections and glory, thus delighting in his own perfections displayed through his works in creation as well as sharing the blessedness of his divine joy with his creatures.

Our first parents were created by God in a state of blessedness, sustained in goodness and in a right relationship with God--and therefore with themselves, each other, and everything else--through God's grace--grace being God's sharing with his creatures his own divine life.  But, unlike God's own essential goodness, the goodness of his creatures was not immutable.  God gave our first parents free will and the ability to decide whether to continue in a right relationship with their Creator or to spurn that relationship, declaring independence from their Creator and attempting to establish their own lives by their own means.  Our first parents chose to rebel against God and declare independence.  The results of this were catastrophic.  God is the source of all life, goodness, and blessedness.  To cut oneself off from God, therefore, is to choose death, evil, and misery.  This is both the natural consequence and the punishment of those who would reject God.  By their rejection of God, therefore, our first parents plunged themselves into what the Catholic faith calls a condition of "original sin".  Cutting themselves off from God's grace and the divine life, they lost their original goodness.  They became estranged from God and were hardened into an attitude of enmity against him.  They also became estranged within themselves, as their reason lost control of their passions and they fell into many disordered desires, leading them to be drawn to foolish and wicked choices.  They became estranged from their physical environment, leading to the subjecting of their bodies to death.  They became estranged from each other and from the whole creation.  Their fallen nature was now a fount from which would spring enmity, wars, and selfish subjugation and destruction of the environment.  And, in themselves, they had no hope of ever being able to be freed from this "independence" they had wished on themselves.  Cut off from the divine life, they had no power in themselves, as mere creatures, to rekindle that life within themselves or to reestablish their connection with God.  Unless God should do something for them they could not do for themselves, the Fall of humanity entered our first parents--and all their descendants who inherited this condition from them--into a downward spiral of destruction that would culminate eventually in a state of complete death, wickedness, and misery--a state called "hell".  They would reap fully and permanently the independence from life, goodness, and happiness they had so foolishly chosen.

But God did do something for us we could not do for ourselves.  Throughout the history recounted in the Old Testament, we see God preparing the world for his ultimate plan of salvation.  When humans began to multiply on the earth and sin was rampant, God flooded the world and started over with a single family, that of Noah.  Would this solve the problem of sin?  No.  Noah and his family brought the problem with them.  God chose a man named Abraham and promised to bring salvation to the earth through him and his descendants.  He chose those descendants to be his own special people.  He gave them his moral law, and brought them into their own land.  But they continually slid back into sin, and their sin led to terrible consequences.  They were conquered by their enemies.  Famine came upon them.  Plagues came upon them.  Every time disaster struck, they cried out to God for help, and God saved them.  But then they backslid into sin yet again, and the whole cycle started all over again.  One could be forgiven for reading much of the Old Testament and wondering where any of this was going.  Rather than having a wise, sovereign plan to bring good out of evil, the history of humanity, including that recounted in the Old Testament, looks in some ways more like the story of a God who tries again and again to fix his fallen creation but is continually stymied.  But, of course, there is a method to the apparent madness.  Just like a series of cures that treat symptoms but leave the real cause of the disease untouched, the endless cycle of sin, disaster, crying out to God, deliverance from disaster, sin, disaster, crying out to God, deliverance from disaster, sin, etc., had the effect of helping God's people see what the real, root cause of their problems was.  The real problem was not famine, disease, physical enemies, even death, and so many other ills of human life.  These were but symptoms of the real problem--which was, of course, sin.  If God is going to save us, he must save us from our sins, for only then can we be reconciled to God and so have our connection restored to the blessedness of God's divine life.  Throughout the Old Testament, we see God gradually leading his people to realize this, and we see greater and greater hints of what God would eventually do to defeat sin.  We see the promise in the Garden of Eden that God would bring a descendant of the woman who would crush the serpent's head.  We find the sacrificial system in which we are pointed to the idea that only some kind of sacrifice of atonement, culminating in the shedding of blood, can take away sin.  A promise arises of a kingly line--stemming from David--which would culminate in a King who would be "God with us", who would save us from our enemies by suffering for our sins, who would save his people Israel but would also be a light to the Gentiles and bring peace to all the earth.

Finally, in the New Testament, we read the story of the coming of this King.  God himself became man, taking upon himself a human nature in addition to his divine nature--one Person with two natures.  As both fully human and fully divine, Jesus Christ could do something no one else could do.  He could unite himself to us, taking our weaknesses, our miseries, and our sins, upon himself, even to their logical end in death.  And yet, being God, he could overcome that sin, that weakness, that misery, with his own divine righteousness, strength, and joy.  He could overcome our death with his life.  By uniting humanity and divinity in his own person, and lifting up the former by the power of the latter, Jesus bridged the gap between God and humanity.  In him, we are reconnected to the divine life.  Our sins are washed away, and we are reconciled to God.

The Church and Her Authority

Jesus came to earth in order to live a life of righteousness, die for our sins, and rise from the dead for our salvation.  But he also came to found a community.  His salvation does not work on us only as individuals,  He unites his redeemed people to himself and therefore to each other.  As we are in him, the community of the saved are, in a sense, an extension of his incarnation.  Of course, he is the unique God-Man, but his influence in this world continues through the people who come to be called the Body of Christ, the called-out ones--the Ecclesia in Greek, "Church" in English.  This Church will have both a spiritual and a temporal/tangible component.  It will be both invisible and visible.  It will be an organic union held together by the grace of God, and also a tangible, formal community in the world.  Like Jesus himself, it will partake of both the human and the divine.  It will be the locus of salvation in the world, possessing grace and the gospel of grace.  But it will also be a hospital for sinners.  The Church on earth will be full of people recovering but not yet fully recovered from sin, and so, while partaking of the perfection of Christ, it will also carry within it the sinfulness of the human race.  It will therefore be a mix of good and bad, sin and grace, wheat and tares, failure and redemption.  But it is the goodness, the grace, the wheat, and the redemption, which will ultimately prevail.

Jesus appointed men who would lead the Church under him, after he had risen from the dead and ascended to the Father.  He called these men "apostles"--"those who are sent."  He gave them authority to shepherd the people in his name--to teach, to rule, and to guide.

"Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. . . .  He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."  (Luke 10:3, 16) 

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."  (Matthew 28:18-20) 

Then said Jesus to them again, "Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."  (John 20:21-23) 

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  (Matthew 18:15-20) 

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" And they said, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  (Matthew 16:13-19) 

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  (Acts 2:41-42)

The apostles were not to let the Church die with them.  They were to form local churches in various places as the gospel spread and appoint elders or bishops to rule over those churches.

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.  (Titus 1:4-9) 

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.  (1 Peter 5:1-4) 

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.  (Hebrews 13:17) 

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. . . . And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.  (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15) 

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.  (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

The Church, as the Body of Christ on the earth, was commissioned by Christ to be the means of the conveyance of God's grace and divine life to the people of the world, as well as to be the official guardian, interpreter, transmitter, and applier of God's revelation.  The Church was given the divine Word to proclaim the saving truth of Christ and the divine sacraments to administer the grace of God to the world and to his people.  She was given the authority and ability to do these things through the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  This power is exercised by all her people (the universal priesthood of all the faithful) and especially through the ordained ministers, the bishops and priests (the ministerial priesthood).  The latter are the successors of the apostles and carry on the authority to lead the Church transmitted to them by the apostles.

The Transmission of Divine Revelation

God had given revelation to his people from the beginning.  This revelation came down to the Church through the Jewish Scriptures--the Old Testament--and the Jewish Tradition which provided the context for those Scriptures.  The Scriptures had been revealed over hundreds of years to many different prophets and writers and had been preserved by the authoritative Tradition of the Jewish people.  The priests were the authoritative interpreters of the revelation of God.

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.  (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) 

And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, "Amen, Amen," with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.  (Nehemiah 8:1-8) 

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."  (Matthew 23:1-3)

The culmination of revelation came in Jesus Christ, who revealed the fullness of the Word of God to humankind and gave it into the charge of the Church.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.  (Hebrews 1:1-4) 

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."  (Matthew 28:18-20)

As we saw earlier, Jesus delegated this authority to his apostles, and they to their successors, the bishops, who were charged with faithfully carrying on the divine revelation entrusted to them, being led by the Spirit to convey and apply it accurately for all the Church and all the world.

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.  (John 16:12-15)

The revelation of God--the Word of God--was entrusted to the Church and has come to be passed down through history in two ways.  The Word of God was written in the Scriptures, starting with the Old Testament and eventually adding to it the New Testament.  It has also been passed down through the Church's teaching, preaching, liturgy and worship, actions, and in everything else the Church does and teaches.  This second way by which the Church conveys down through the centuries the divine revelation is called Tradition.  The word "tradition" simply means "something handed down."  We can use the word "tradition" to refer to the Word of God handed down by the Church in general, whether by Scripture or in other ways.  We can also use the word more specifically to refer to those other ways besides Scripture by which the Word of God is handed down.  The word "tradition" is used in both ways.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.  (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

So Scripture and Tradition function as two legs of a three-legged stool which grounds the authoritative transmission of revelation in the Church.  The third leg is what the Church calls the Magisterium.  This is the teaching authority of the Church.  The bishops of the Church, as the successors of the apostles, have authority, ability, and guidance from God to recognize, gather, preserve, understand, interpret, and apply the Word of God for the benefit of the Church and of the world.  All three legs of this three-legged stool are necessary for the preservation and transmission of divine revelation.  Scripture contains the fullness of the gospel, but it must be interpreted in the light of the Church's Tradition.  (For example, Scripture says that people must be baptized, but it never explicitly discusses whether and how baptism is to be applied to infants.  So in order to know how to apply Scripture's teaching in this case, we must look at the Church's practice, which tells us that infants are indeed to be baptized.  Tradition and Scripture are to be interpreted together and shed light on each other.)  And in order to know where to find the authentic Scriptures and the authentic traditions, and to know how to interpret and apply them, we must rely on the God-guided Magisterium.  This three-legged stool of divine revelation and its authoritative transmission and application has been taught by the Church from the very beginning, as two early Church Fathers, St. Basil of Caesaria (330-379) and St. Vincent of Lerins (died c. 445), testify to.

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in
writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?  (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, section 66. Translated by Blomfield Jackson, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895], revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Retrieved from the New Advent website [embedded links removed] at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm at 2:46 PM on 2/19/18.) 

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.  (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, section 5. Translated by C.A. Heurtley, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894], revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Retrieved from the New Advent website [embedded links removed] at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm at 2:53 PM on 2/19/18.)

We should also note that doctrine in the Church develops over time.  We will have lots of opportunities to observe this as we go through Church history.  In Christ, and through his teaching and the teaching of his apostles, the revelation of God has been brought to completion.  The Church has received from her beginning the fullness of the Word which God has desired to reveal.  However, we are creatures of time and space, and God's interaction with us takes the form of a story.  The Church possesses the fullness of the divine revelation, but her recognition, gathering, preserving, understanding, interpreting, and applying of divine revelation takes place, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who "guides her into all truth," over her entire history.  Thus, the Tradition of the Church grows, not by things being added from without, but by an unpacking from within, as the Church grows in her understanding and application of divine revelation and all its implications over time in light of the new circumstances she faces in her experience--external events, new cultural situations, heresies, newly-encountered philosophical ideas, dialogue with the world, etc.  The Church's growth is analogous in many ways to the growth of individuals as we gain wisdom to understand the nuances of things through our experience gained as we go through life.  St. Vincent of Lerins, from whom I quoted just above, provides the classic description from the early Church of this process of doctrinal development.  Note (in the quotation below) the two things he emphasizes:  The Church's doctrine grows through time, analogous to the growth of an embryo into an adult, but that growth is a logical growth--not mere arbitrary mutation, like a cancer, but a flowering into maturity of what was there at least in seed form from the beginning.  There can be great growth in recognizing nuances, in seeing patterns and implications previously unnoticed, in articulating the specificities and depths of what God has revealed, and all of this can greatly alter in some ways the "shape and form" of the Church's doctrine, but there cannot be contradiction.  The Church's later doctrine will not turn around and attack what she had previously established, or the divine revelation that is at the foundation of all her teaching.

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled. 

In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits. 

For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result—there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind— wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.  (St. Vincent of Lerins, Ibid.)

We see everything we have been talking about portrayed profoundly for us very early on in Church history in the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 'After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.' Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner: "The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law": to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.  (Acts 15:1-35)

In the Old Testament, the "people of God" was for the most part synonymous with a particular ethnic group, the Jewish people.  But the coming of the gospel would change this, as the Messiah became, as prophecied, a light to the nations.  Gentiles began to come into the Church.  But was this acceptable?  Should not the Gentiles be circumcised first according to the Law of Moses so they could be properly integrated into the Christian community by becoming Jews?  This was a new issue the Church had not considered before.  The Old Testament never explicitly addresses the question of whether Gentiles, in the times of the New Covenant, would need to be circumcised and made Jews.  Jesus himself had never explicitly addressed that subject in his teaching.  The Church had no official, explicit teaching on this subject.  So what did she do?  She called a council of Church leaders, consisting of the apostles and the elders/bishops.  They looked to the Scriptures to find applicable principles.  They looked to what God was doing in their own day.  And, guided by the Holy Spirit, they came to a conclusion which was then binding on the churches.  The Tradition of the Church had grown, not by adding from without but by unpacking from within, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  We will see this kind of pattern repeated time and time again throughout Church history.

There is one more crucial component that needs to be mentioned with regard to how the Church is guided by God in her faithful transmission of divine revelation--the role of St. Peter and his successors in the bishops of Rome.  When Jesus gave authority to the apostles, he singled out Peter to give him a special authority.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" And they said, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  (Matthew 16:13-19)

All the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, but to Peter in a singular and special way the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given.  The authority that all the apostles would exercise would be exercised also by Peter in particular.  He would be the head of the college of apostles, the one who would strengthen, feed, and guide the apostolic band and the whole flock of Christ.

And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."  (Luke 22:31-32) 

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee." He saith unto him, "Feed my lambs." He saith to him again the second time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee." He saith unto him, "Feed my sheep." He saith unto him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, "Lovest thou me?" And he said unto him, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus saith unto him, "Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not." This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, "Follow me."  (John 21:15-19)

By being given the exercise of the keys of the kingdom in such a unique way, Peter became the guarantor of the unity and orthodoxy of the Church.  All the apostles could exercise authority in the Church, and they should all exercise it together.  But that authority could only be exercised in communion with and under the authority of Peter; for without him, there can be no legitimate exercise of the keys.  Thus, by sticking with Peter, the Church would be grounded in the true faith and in the fullness of unity.  The early Father St. Jerome (345-420) put it this way:

[T]he Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.  (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus [Book I], section 26. Translated by W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893], revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Retrieved from the New Advent website at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm at 10:55 PM on 2/19/18.)

The whole college of bishops--all the bishops throughout the world--became the successors of the whole college of the apostles.  But some sees--that is, some seats of authority held by bishops--became, in the early Church, more prominent and gained more authority than others because of their more direct connection with an apostle who had founded them or because of their practical position in the geography of the Church.  Peter himself ended up dying in Rome during the persecution of the Emperor Nero (more on this below).  When he died, he left his unique authority with the See of Rome.  From that time on, as was pretty much universally acknowledged in the Church from the beginning, the Bishop of Rome took on the role of head bishop of the college of bishops.  Having a special role and thus a special guidance and authority from God, he functioned as the chief shepherd among the human shepherds of Christ's flock, and his teaching and authority became a beacon of the Holy Spirit, a guarantor of the unity and orthodoxy of the universal Church.  The great Eastern Church Father, St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662), put it this way:

All the ends of the inhabited world, and those who anywhere on earth confess the Lord with a pure and orthodox faith, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and her confession and faith as to a sun of eternal light, receiving from her the radiant beam of the patristic and holy doctrines, just as the holy six synods, inspired and sacred, purely and with all devotion set them forth, uttering most clearly the symbol of faith. For, from the time of the descent to us of the incarnate Word of God, all the Churches of the Christians everywhere have held and possess this most great Church as the sole base and foundation, since, according to the very promise of the Saviour, it will never be overpowered by the gates of hell, but rather has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession in him, and to those who approach it with reverence it opens the genuine and unique piety, but shuts and stops every heretical mouth that speaks utter wickedness.  (Footnotes removed--the quotation is from "The Ecclesiology of St. Maximos the Confessor," by Andrew Louth, published in the International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2004, p. 116.)

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html - Dei Verbum ("The Word of God"), a document from the Second Vatican Council outlining the Church's view of the Word of God and its transmission.

https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/the-most-catholic-quotes-of-the-early-church-fathers-on-correct-scriptural-interpretation-authority/ - A selection of evidence from the Church Fathers showing their commitment to the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority divinely guided by the Holy Spirit.

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-church-fathers-sola-scriptura-or.html - A much more thorough collection of evidence for the same.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/the-chair-of-st-peter/ - A selection of evidence from the Church Fathers showing their commitment to the divinely-appointed role of the Chair of St. Peter.

https://archive.org/details/DocumentsIllustratingPapalAuthorityAd96-454Giles/mode/2up - A much more thorough collection of evidence for the same (at least up to the time just after the Council of Chalcedon in the mid-400s).

The Infallibility of the Church

Since we have been talking about the authority of the Church and the guidance of her teaching by the Holy Spirit, it would be appropriate here to spell out a little more specifically how the Church has come to understand the forms of her own teaching and her own infallibility (that is, her protection from error in her teaching).  The Church's articulation of this has been honed down through the centuries, but it is helpful to have a clear idea of how the Church's teaching authority works so that we can recognize and understand better the exercises of that authority amidst the complexities of history.  In an article I wrote up a few years ago, I summarized the Church's infallibility and authority in this way:

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church resides in the "Magisterium," which is simply the body of bishops who govern the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.  God has given what I'll call the "gift of reliability" to the teachers of the Church, so that what they teach in terms of the doctrine of the church (whether of "faith" or "morals") is accurate and does not lead into error.  This gift is not given to individual bishops acting alone, but only to the body of bishops as a whole--so it is possible that individual bishops, or even bishops in groups smaller than the whole of the body of bishops, might teach error, but the body of bishops as a whole can never do so.  Also, the Pope, as the head of the church, has the gift of reliability given to him in his own unique office as well, so that he can never teach error when he is exercising his teaching office. 

Sometimes the Church teaches a doctrine definitively--that is, it teaches a doctrine as certainly and irrevocably the correct opinion.  This might happen when the bishops come together in an ecumenical council and make definitive decrees or statements, or it might happen as all the bishops in the ordinary exercise of their office agree in teaching a doctrine definitively throughout the world.  The Pope might teach a doctrine definitively either by formally defining a doctrine as a dogma (this is the famed ex cathedra declaration) or simply by affirming that a doctrine is the definitive teaching of the Church.  When the Church teaches something definitively, since it has the gift of reliability, Catholics are obligated to receive and accept it definitively.  Sometimes, however, the Church might teach a doctrine non-definitively--that is, it might teach a doctrine in such a way that it is claimed to be true, or accurate, or good to believe or hold or practice, etc., but not in such a way that it is claimed that the final, unchangeable word on the subject has been given.  The doctrine is not claimed as definitely certain or true or unchangeable in its current form.  For example, the bishops or the Pope might say, "X is the best way to think about this right now," or "We should think X right now," or "So far as we can see at this point, X appears to be true," or "We should do things in this way right now," etc.  There could be lots of ways such a non-definitive teaching could be given and a variety of degrees of certainty in such pronouncements--context would determine how to interpret any particular statement or teaching.  A non-definitive teaching must be accepted and adhered to by Catholics as well.  It must be accepted in the way and to the degree it was intended by the Church--again, interpreted by context.  (Mark Hausam, "The Infallibility of the Church")

In another article, I described the distinction between the Church's definitive teaching and her non-definitive teaching more specifically:

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope, and the bishops as a whole, can teach with various levels of definitiveness, but that Catholics are bound to submit with mind and will to all magisterial teaching according to the intention of the magisterial teacher.  So if the Pope teaches something and intends it to be a definitive pronouncement, Catholics are to submit to it as the final word on the subject and irreformably and forever true.  If the Pope teaches something which he intends the people to believe, but it is not intended as necessarily the final word on the subject, then Catholics are bound to accept that teaching, but not necessarily as the final word on the subject.  All magisterial teaching is to be regarded as inherently reliable, for it all comes with the authority of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  We can never be led astray by following magisterial teaching, although non-definitive teaching can lead us to provisional conclusions that may later turn out to be augmented or even corrected.  The fact that non-definitive teaching is not necessarily irreformable is not contrary to its reliability, for the reformable nature of such teaching does not come from any unreliability in the teaching but in the non-definitiveness of the magisterial intention.  If the Pope teaches us that X is the best position to hold right now and that we ought to hold position X, but that this is not necessarily the final word on the subject, if later on we find that X is false we cannot be said to have been led astray by the Pope's teaching, for that teaching did not teach us that X would never be overturned.  But the reliability of the Pope's ordinary teaching obviously precludes that teaching from including heresy--that is, from including ideas that contradict what the Church has previously affirmed definitively to have been revealed by God.  For we already know that such teachings cannot be true and that we should not hold them.  It would be contrary to the justice and truth of God for legitimate authority appointed by him to legitimately bind us to teaching that it would be wrong to hold.  (Mark Hausam, "Some Thoughts on the Recent Open Letter against Pope Francis")

It is also worth mentioning that bishops and Popes are, of course, still human sinners and so subject to sin as well as to errors in judgment.  The official teaching of the Magisterium is reliable (in either a definitive or non-definitive way) and binding, but bishops and Popes are not protected from sin and error in their own private lives.  They can sin just like any other person, and they can have personal opinions--not part of what they teach officially--that can be erroneous and not to be followed (though we should always treat our shepherds with respect).  Also, bishops and Popes can make practical rulings and decisions that aren't doctrine but are simply rules and procedures to follow.  The divine guidance of the Magisterium does not guarantee that bishops and Popes will always make the wisest practical rulings or follow the wisest courses of action in all that they do and in all the rules they make.

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-infallibility-of-church.html - This is my article quoted from above (the next-to-last quotation).  In addition to my summary of the Church's teaching on her own infallibility, it contains quotations from and links to Church documents showing how the Church herself articulates her infallibility.

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-infallibility-of-ordinary.html - And here is a much more detailed article on the same subject, with additional references as well.

The Roman World

The Church was born into a world that was a mix of many different cultures.  Of course, the Church grew immediately out of Judaism.  But the Jews at this time were not independent.  They had been conquered by the Greeks a few hundred years earlier during the time of Alexander the Great, and Greek culture (Hellenism) spread throughout the territories Alexander had conquered, even after his empire broke up and Greeks no longer ruled in those areas.  (This is reflected, for example, in the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek, which had become an international language in the Eastern Mediterranean world at that time.)  During the hundred years preceding the birth of Christ, the Romans had conquered the land of the Jews, and they had created a cosmopolitan empire that eventually spanned from Britain in the West to the edge of Persia in the East, as well as including much of Europe and North Africa.  The unity brought by the Roman Empire created an international, pluralistic society not unlike the world we inhabit today in many ways.  The Church would be influenced and challenged by all three of these cultures--Jewish, Greek, and Roman--and eventually by many others as well.

The Church's fundamental worldview grew out of Judaism, but her philosophy and ways of thinking, as well as her formal structure, would become heavily influenced by Greek and Roman ideas and culture over her first few hundred years of existence, as we will see.

The unity of the Roman Empire also created an opportunity for the spread of the gospel that was unique in the ancient world.  The sort of missionary journeys we read about in the Book of Acts would have been very different and much harder without the international infrastructure in place due to the Roman Empire.

watch in class - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw3CjmoB3oY - Helpful, half-hour video on pagan life and worship in the Roman Empire.

http://www.centuryone.com/rmnwrd.html - Some maps of the Roman world around our time period (as well as a little afterwards).

show in class - https://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN092MAPS1.htm - Maps of St. Paul's missionary journeys around the Mediterranean world, along with some explanations.  Very nice visual for what we read in the Book of Acts and Paul's letters.

https://aleteia.org/2017/07/21/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles/ - Whatever happened to the Twelve Apostles?  Short, summary article on some of the traditions on how they ended up.

Church History Companion: Introduction and Table of Contents

Introduction

Church history, and history in general, can be challenging to teach.  Unlike a discipline like philosophy or systematic theology, where the focus is on key ideas that are analyzed and about which arguments are made, teaching history involves the communication of a great deal of factual information--details about what has happened in the past.  And so much stuff has happened in the past!  How does one communicate it all?  How does one organize all the data?  How does one make the presentation of these facts engaging and meaningful?  Church history is fascinating, and it is easy to be enthusiastic about it, but it can be difficult to figure out how to package and convey the facts of history without getting bogged down in detailed minutia or overwhelming one's students.

Much could be said about the challenge of teaching history, but I bring this up here simply as background for explaining this historical narrative I am now publishing in this blog.  I felt that it would help me to organize my own presentation of Church history if I produced a written narrative that I and my students could draw upon, a narrative that reflects my own understanding of that history and its basic structure.  So that is what this is.  This is Church history as I tend to think about it, and it forms the structure of what I want to teach people about it.

I am not a historian.  That is, while I enjoy reading and thinking about history (Church history in particular) and teaching it, I do not consider myself to have the kind of personality, interests, skills, calling, etc., that would draw a person into making history per se a central theme in their life's work.  The central themes of my life's work are theology, philosophy, and apologetics.  So this historical narrative is the work of a theologian, philosopher, and apologist, and it is good to keep that in mind.  Also, of course, I am an individual person with my own idiosyncracies and my own skills, knowledge, and interests.  I have written a narrative that reflects who I am.  I do not claim to have presented a complete history.  For one thing, this narrative, as it will be used in my classes, is intended to be accompanied by a class textbook.  The textbook we are currently using is The Compact History of the Catholic Church, by Alan Schreck, revised edition (Cincinnatti, OH: Servant Books, 2009).  That's one reason I have called this narrative a Church history companion instead of just a Church history.  I've divided up the history into eight units, corresponding to eight different periods of Church history.  (I also plan to add an additional section devoted to keeping up with new events and emerging trends as history continues.)  I've tried to give a basic account of the basic ethos and some of the central themes of each period--that is, what was going on in the world, how the Church developed in that period, how each period fits together with the others in the overall story, etc.  But, like I said, I don't claim that my history is complete.  I suppose no history can ever be complete.  But my history reflects my peculiar interests and knowledge.  So I talk a lot about theological trends and advances and changes in the philosophy of the surrounding culture.  I do a lot of theology, philosophy, and apologetics in these pages.  I take opportunities when I get them to discuss and try to explain theological and philosophical issues--like the Trinity, the nature of Christ, free will and grace, civil law and freedom of conscience, etc.  I analyze ideas and ways of thinking that I find in each period.  I have often had in mind criticisms that are made against Catholicism and tried to address them as the occasion has arisen.  So there is certainly a heavily intellectual cast to my history, though I do throw in matters of human interest when I am aware of them and have found them interesting.  But even when covering areas that are within more central circles of my own interests and knowledge, of course I have not tried to be complete.  This is a companion text for a high school Church history class, not an exhaustive treatise on any particular issue, so I've sometimes stuck to the basics when, in other contexts, I might have been interested in going further and providing more details and more nuance--whether in terms of history, theology, philosophy, or apologetics.

So this history reflects my own interests.  But I have tried to balance that a bit by including lots of references, some of which go in directions I myself was not interested to try to go in, did not have time/space to go in, or did not feel qualified to try to go in in the main body of the text.  And these references also function in general as supplements to my material.  One thing in particular I would encourage readers to do is to look up the lives of some of the saints I mention in each period.  Looking at these lives will very much help to balance out the intellectualism of my focus with the concrete, practical realities of these biographies.  Also, I don't want to give people the impression that Christianity and Catholic history has all been simply about intellectual ideas and theological developments.  These are important, but they are only one part of the picture.  They are the part of the picture that I am best at describing, and so they play a large role in my narrative.  But reading about the saints can help show how Christianity is about loving God and serving one's neighbor in sacrificial love and devotion.  Sometimes I've given specific links to particular saints (and, of course, I have described the stories of several saints in the text of the narrative).  When I haven't, you might start with the Wikipedia article for a particular saint.  Wikipedia is often a good place to start for such things.

I should also note what should already be evident from reading this introduction:  My approach in the narrative is informal.  Hopefully, the whole thing is reasonably well-written, I've cited my sources, etc., but my general tone is informal.

There are tons of references in this narrative.  I have used many sources, some I am aware of and many that I have absorbed information from and forgotten over the years.  I have tried to reference my sources.  Sometimes I have done so by mentioning them in the body of the text as I discuss a subject; other times I have mentioned them at the end of a section in the place where I put additional references.  For basic, uncontroversial factual information (dates, how to spell names, mundane historical details I was not previously aware of or couldn't remember off the top of my head, etc.), I have often made a great deal of use of Wikipedia.  I have not always cited every Wikipedia page I have looked at in any way or to any degree in the course of my reading up on things, but one can generally assume that whenever I don't give a specific reference for some detail, the information most likely either came from my own store of knowledge I already had going into my writing (which was substantial for some areas, since I have been studying some aspects of Church history for some time) or from Wikipedia.  It may also have come from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as I've made significant general use of it as well as I've written this narrative.

(By the way, I know the current academic fad is to dis Wikipedia.  I don't agree with this.  The fear is that people will use Wikipedia uncritically.  No doubt many do.  But if they use Wikipedia uncritically, they'll use everything else uncritically too, which will be just as problematic.  The problem is with the uncritical use of any sources, not the use of Wikipedia.  Of course Wikipedia is not always right.  Of course it can be biased or imbalanced.  But so can everything else.  But Wikipedia has the advantage, with many of its subjects, of being constantly monitored by hoards of nerds who are determined to get every detail perfect.  For a lot of subjects, then, particularly when we are dealing with non-controversial, basically-agreed-upon information, Wikipedia is probably the most useful easily-accessible source out there.  So yes, I use it a lot--though not uncritically--just as everyone else does.  And I'm not afraid to admit it. 😊)

Of course, this history is told from a Catholic perspective.  After all, I am a Catholic writing this primarily as a Catholic high school theology teacher.  But I always strive to be fair and accurate, even if I sometimes draw conclusions on controversial issues that not everyone would agree with.  (But, again, the history is not complete.  There are areas where I've given a basic assessment or summary on some issue without necessarily going into all the nuances and details that would be necessary to truly, fully, do the theme justice.)

As I've said, the primary inspiration for writing this has been my own desire to create a narrative to help in my teaching of Church history at a Catholic high school.  However, since I'm publishing this on my blog, it's safe to assume I'm intending to make this available to the general public as well.  I hope many will find it helpful.

There are some resources I recommend you might keep on hand as you read through (or read parts of) this narrative, in addition to all the resources mentioned, referenced, and linked to throughout the text of the narrative.  The Bible, of course, is good to have on hand, since it's the Word of God and also of great historical value.  In terms of Church history, you've got the gospels which tell us about the life of Christ, and the Book of Acts is especially helpful for Unit 1 which focuses on the times of the apostles.  I've already mentioned the value of Wikipedia for basic information.  It would also be helpful to keep on hand a list of the Popes through history.  Since the Pope is the head on earth of the Catholic Church, the various pontificates of the Popes through history make for a nice standard to determine where we are in time (just as we help measure periods of English history by reference to the kings and queens of England, or American history by the presidents, etc.).  It's also helpful to keep track of the ecumenical councils going on in each period (see here and here), although I refer to them (in more or less detail) in the narrative as well.  This is a really nice world history map that allows you to put in any year (from 3000 BC to the present day) to see what the political map of the world looks like in that day.  You can scroll in further or move further away.  This is an interesting map that allows you to watch the political changes in the world through time (from 3000 BC, but only, unfortunately, up to 1000 AD).  This is a helpful collection of Church history lectures from Dr. Ryan Reeves of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (he's a Protestant, but he does a good job laying out the facts in an interesting way).  You might also keep on hand the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has many wonderfully helpful articles.  It was written in the early twentieth century, so it's a little outdated in some areas, but it's still a wealth of helpful doctrinal and historical information, and widely respected as such.  You might also keep on hand the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a handy reference to understanding Catholic teaching in various areas.

This is not an apologetics work per se, but I intend it to have apologetic value, so I want to also mention my own background works in apologetics for reference.  I've written up a general apologetic for Christianity in Why Christianity is True.  I've written up an apologetic for Catholicism in particular in No Grounds for Divorce.  Both of these reflect my own approach to why I believe what I believe and how I would explain my own reasoning to others.  Catholic Answers is a good source for Catholic apologetics.  I would also recommend Bishop Robert Barron's work at Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.  And now I must stop myself from recommending a hundred other things that will begin coming to mind.  I think I've given you enough for now to get you going.

So, without further ado, here is the Table of Contents for the narrative.

Table of Contents

Church History Companion Unit 1: Biblical Foundations

Church History Companion Unit 2: The Early Church Before the Time of Constantine

Church History Companion Unit 3: The Church Post-Constantine and in the Early Middle Ages

Church History Companion Unit 4: The Church in the Later Middle Ages

Church History Companion Unit 5: Renaissance, Reformation, and Missions

Church History Companion Unit 6: Enlightenment, Modernity, and the Church’s Response

Church History Companion Unit 7: The Church in the First Half of the Twentieth Century

Church History Companion Unit 8: Vatican II to the Present Day

Published on the feast of St. Vitus.

Is There Really Any Point to Sanctification with the Protestant Doctrine of Justification?

The thing which makes sin hateful, is that by which it deserves punishment; which is but the expression of hatred. And that which renders virtue lovely, is the same with that on the account of which it is fit to receive praise and reward; which are but the expressions of esteem and love. But that which makes vice hateful, is its hateful nature; and that which renders virtue lovely, is its amiable nature. It is a certain beauty or deformity that are inherent in that good or evil will, which is the soul of virtue and vice (and not in the occasion of it), which is their worthiness of esteem or disesteem, praise, or dispraise, according to the common sense of mankind.

- Jonathan Edwards (Freedom of the Will, Part IV, Section 1)

This article will be discussing the Anti-Augustinian interpretation of the Protestant doctrine of justification.  I'll use the term "Protestant" to refer to people to hold this view.

It's difficult to figure out what the point of sanctification is in the Protestant viewpoint.  Protestants emphasize it as if it were very important, but it's hard to see why, considering that they believe that we are constituted entirely righteous before God and his moral law solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, without any input from God's work within us in our sanctification.

As Jonathan Edwards points out in our opening quotation, righteousness is nothing other than the beauty of a morally good will, a will that loves God and its neighbor (as love is the fulfillment of the law and thus the very essence of righteousness).  So when God imputes righteousness to us in justification, in the Protestant view, he is accounting us to have a morally beautiful will.  Protestants believe that this imputation makes us righteous, even apart from any consideration of God's work within us.  Our having a morally beautiful will by God's accounting, in their view, is held to be a completely different thing from having a morally beautiful will in our actual inward condition.  By means of this act of imputation, even without actually changing our will to make it morally beautiful, God credits moral beauty to it and comes to consider it morally beautiful.  This is justification.  He also does indeed change us inwardly, but this is held to have nothing to do with justification or the grounds by which we are accepted by God as having a morally beautiful will.  (And, according to the Protestant view, the moral beauty God works into us inwardly is not actually morally beautiful to God at all, on account that it is mixed with our remaining sinfulness and the sins from our past.  It is like pixie stick dust mixed within a pile of vomit--the whole thing is worthy only of being thrown out.)

Since we have a morally beautiful will by imputation, God is entirely pleased with us and accepts us as fully righteous.  We are therefore worthy of the reward of the righteous, for, as Edwards puts it, "that which renders virtue lovely, is the same with that on the account of which it is fit to receive praise and reward; which are but the expressions of esteem and love."  Thus, our righteousness by imputation gives us a right to be rewarded with eternal life, as God grants us the happiness that naturally follows righteousness (just as misery and punishment naturally follow sin).

So what could possibly be the point of sanctification in such a system?  What could it possibly contribute?  What is sanctification?  It is God's making us holy.  What is holiness in this context?  It is moral virtue, or righteousness.  Sanctification is God making us inwardly righteous.  But once we have imputation, sanctification seems redundant.  By imputation, we already have a complete righteousness.  We already have moral virtue, a morally beautiful heart, a heart that loves God and its neighbor.  Granted, we have it only by imputation and not actually inwardly; but, in the Protestant view, God finds that entirely acceptable.  His moral law--that is, his love of moral beauty and his hatred of moral ugliness--is entirely satisfied with our imputed righteousness.  So, if God is entirely satisfied and finds us totally morally pleasing because of the imputation alone, sanctification can add nothing, because sanctification would simply be a second helping of the same thing--moral beauty.  But justification gives us complete and perfect righteousness, so there is no room for any more.  God's attitude towards us cannot possibly improve from a state of complete satisfaction, pleasure, and acceptance.  So it would seem he would not care at all if we are sanctified or not.

Well, if God is completely satisfied and doesn't need our sanctification to find us completely morally acceptable, is there any other purpose sanctification might serve?  It's hard to see what it would be.  Again, all that sanctification does is give us righteousness.  But that's exactly what justification does as well.  So whatever sanctification could possibly do for us, justification must be able to do just as well at least.  If all I want is a bathtub full of water, and by some means I've already got that, then if you come along later and try to give me more water for my tub, I'm going to thank you kindly and decline your gift as unnecessary.

Well, someone might say, perhaps God doesn't care if we are sanctified or not, but perhaps sanctification is necessary to make us happy in heaven.  After all, without sanctification, we don't love God, and if we don't love God, we can't be happy enjoying God forever.  So perhaps the purpose of sanctification is to make us fit for heaven by giving us the ability to enjoy it.  The problem with this is that it forgets what we've already established--that sanctification has no more to give than justification does.  We need love to God to be happy in the enjoyment of God, that is true.  But justification gives us total love to God, because that's what righteousness is--love to God and neighbor.  Sure, justification gives us love to God only by imputation and not in our actual inward condition, but God fully accepts this as completely genuine and real.  He sees us as really having, by imputation, real love to God.  That's why he's totally morally pleased with the justified, without any input from any inward sanctification.  So if we need love to God to be happy, well, justification again gives us everything we need, and sanctification ends up having nothing new to offer.  Happiness is a necessary and intrinsic consequence and effect of love for God, just as misery is a necessary and intrinsic consequence and effect of rejection of God.  When it comes to God, there is no ultimate distinction between a "natural consequence" and a "moral consequence," for God is the source of all reality and the one from whom flows the whole plan of history.  And he does nothing without his will, for he is a simple being (that is, a non-compound being, a being without parts), and we cannot ultimately separate his will from any of his activity.  God does all he does willingly.  So misery is equally both a natural consequence of sin and a punishment for sin, and happiness is equally both a natural consequence of righteousness and a reward for righteousness.  There can be, then, no ultimate distinction between having a right to happiness and having a natural tendency to happiness.  Love to God--which, again, is what righteousness essentially is--has both a right and a natural tendency to happiness, for God finds it supremely good and beautiful and worthy of praise and reward.  So, on the Protestant view, if I am justified--if I have imputed righteousness, or imputed love to God, which God regards as completely real and completely mine, even though it is external to me rather than internal within me--I have everything I need to be fully and eternally happy, without any input at all from sanctification.  Indeed, if sanctification has any power to enable me to be happy, it would be because of the intrinsic connection between love to God, which sanctification would bring, and happiness.  But, again, justification has already given us this love to God, so there is nothing left for sanctification to contribute.

So it does indeed seem that sanctification is entirely pointless within the Protestant system.  Protestants insist on it as important, but there doesn't seem to be any logical reason why it would be.

Now, if this whole line of reasoning, and the conclusion it reaches, seems absurd, of course the problem is with the starting assumption of the whole argument--the assumption of the truth of the Protestant doctrine of justification, and particularly the idea that imputation alone, without any input from sanctification, gives us a real righteousness that God counts as fully real and fully ours.  But of course this is absurd, for if righteousness is nothing more nor less than a morally beautiful heart or will that loves God and its neighbor, well, this is not the sort of thing that can be possessed as merely an external commodity.  It is, by definition and in its very essence, an inward thing, something that can only exist inwardly.  I cannot have a morally beautiful heart by a merely external imputation; I can only have a morally beautiful heart by actually having a morally beautiful heart--and that is what sanctification gives me.  To say I can have moral beauty merely by external imputation is just as absurd as to say I can have physical beauty by merely external imputation.  "I'm beautiful!" I cry.  "Sure, my actual face is just as ugly as ever, but now I have a truly beautiful face, because God has imputed a physically beautiful face to me, with no input from any actual change in my face!"  This is, of course, ridiculous.  But it is just as ridiculous to talk of God making my heart morally beautiful--that is, making me righteous--merely by imputing to me a morally beautiful heart without actually making my actual heart morally beautiful.  If we define "justification" to refer to "that which actually makes me righteous in God's sight," then justification can be nothing other than sanctification.  They are one and the same thing.  Righteousness just is sanctification, and it cannot be anything else.  So the Protestant doctrine of justification is fundamentally wrong.

Before we close, it is worth noting that although this form of the Protestant doctrine of justification is illogical and absurd, there is another form it might take that avoids these problems.  I call this other version the "Pro-Augustinian" interpretation of the Protestant doctrine of justification.  In this view, the same Protestant language is used, distinguishing justification from sanctification, imputation from infusion, but the underlying meaning is quite different.  Pro-Augustinian Protestants will say, along with Anti-Augustinian Protestants, that we are justified entirely by the imputed righteousness of Christ, and that sanctification follows this as its fruit.  But, drawing from the rest of our discussion above, we can spell out the meaning of this in this way:  In justification, God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ.  That is, he counts the morally good heart of Christ to be ours.  In principle, this gives us all we need to be right with God, for all God wants from us is a morally good heart.  But, by itself, imputation is insufficient, because it is only a promise.  It takes sanctification to provide the fulfillment of the promise.  Imputation is God's declaration that Christ's morally beautiful heart belongs to us, but sanctification is God's actually delivering that morally beautiful heart to us.  Imputation is like purchasing a book on Amazon.  Sanctification is like actually getting the book in the mail.  The purchase, in principle, gives you what you want, but only because it implies that the book will actually be delivered.  The purchase by itself, without the delivery, is nothing but a promise of that which is not yet fulfilled.  The delivery is the fulfillment.  So we need both, just as we need both justification (imputation) and sanctification (inward change).  (The Anti-Augustinian view would be like purchasing a book on Amazon and receiving a statement saying "The book is now yours!" and being satisfied with that by itself without needing the book to ever be actually delivered.) 

The Pro-Augustinian interpretation of the Protestant doctrine agrees in substance with the Catholic view of justification.  They differ mostly in semantics.  Catholics include both the imputation component and the infusion component under the single heading of "justification" while Pro-Augustinian Protestants use the term "justification" to refer only to the imputation component and "sanctification" to refer to the infusion component.  The Anti-Augustinian view, on the other hand, is the view the Catholic Church condemned at the Council of Trent.

For more, see here, here, and here.

Published on Wednesday within the Octave of Easter.  Christ is risen!  Alleluia!

Historical Challenges to the Infallibility of the Church, Part Four: Galileo

For the whole series, see here.

This is a selection from my book, No Grounds for Divorce.

In the seventeenth century, the Church censured Galileo Galilei for teaching, contrary to commands of the Church addressed specifically to him, the truth of the heliocentric theory—that is, the theory that the earth goes around the sun.  More precisely, he was condemned for saying that the sun doesn’t move and the earth moves around it.  The basis of the censure was the idea that the heliocentric theory is contrary to Scripture.

Here is a selection from the official condemnation: 

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine [sic] which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture.  Consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.  We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form we will prescribe to you.[1]

Of course, we know now that the earth moves around the sun (speaking simply—of course, if we take into account that all motion is relative, as modern physics would emphasize, things may become more tricky!).  So it would seem that in this case, the Church was clearly wrong, in some way or another.  If she was right that heliocentrism is contrary to Scripture, then the Scripture is wrong, and so obviously the Catholic position is undermined.  If she was wrong that heliocentrism is contrary to Scripture, then, again, the Catholic position is undermined, for the Catholic Church claims to be given the gift of teaching without error the true doctrines of the faith and the true interpretations of divine revelation.

But’s let’s look at this a little more closely.  The condemnation of Galileo I quoted from above was issued in 1633.  But this happened towards the end of the Galileo affair.  Galileo had had an earlier run-in with the Church on this matter back in 1616, and the 1633 condemnation is reaffirming and drawing on conclusions made by Church theologians in 1616.  Here are the conclusions reached by the Church theologians in 1616:

Proposition to be assessed:     (1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion. 

     Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology. 

     (2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion. 

     Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous [sic] in faith.[2]

Do you notice any difference that might be relevant between the 1633 and the 1616 comments?  Notice the qualification given in the 1616 conclusions:  The idea that the sun is at the center of the world and doesn’t move is “formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology” (emphasis added).  Although this qualification is not repeated explicitly in later Church comments regarding Galileo or in the final official condemnation of 1633, neither is it ever rescinded or contradicted.  Rather, it stands as a qualification that helps us clarify exactly what the position of the Church theologians who condemned Galileo was.  But how is this qualification important?  What is the difference between saying that an idea “contradicts Scripture” and saying that it “contradicts Scripture read literally and in accordance with the interpretation of the Holy Fathers and doctors of theology”?

Actually, there is a huge difference.  To get at this difference, let me quote from a letter written by Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, a Doctor of the Catholic Church who was himself personally involved in the earlier portion of the Galileo affair.  The quotation is from a letter Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to Paolo A. Foscarini in 1615.  Foscarini had also advocated heliocentrism, and Cardinal Bellarmine is trying to dissuade him of this idea.  I have added italics for emphasis on the sections that are particularly relevant to our discussion.

First I say that it seems to me that your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the Earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all of the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself, without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For Your Paternity has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited. 

 Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic”, it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles. 

 Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in the heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers.[3] 

Is it possible that the interpretations of the Holy Fathers regarding Scripture could be wrong?  Yes, according to Cardinal Bellarmine, although we should not deviate from their interpretations unless we have conclusive reasons to do so.  Here we have a major cardinal and Doctor of the Catholic Church, writing at the time of Galileo, writing a letter to a heliocentrist regarding heliocentrism and even mentioning Galileo specifically, saying that the interpretations of Scripture given by the Holy Fathers are not, in every case, necessarily infallible.  (Note that the “consensus of the Fathers” referred to here by Bellarmine is something different from a “consensus of the Fathers” expressed in such a way as to be the official, infallible dogma of the Church.  When the whole Church teaches a doctrine as being the certain, infallible teaching of the Church as a whole, there is infallibility.  But there is not necessarily infallibility simply because all the Scriptural commentators and theologians up to a particular time have tended to interpret a particular passage of Scripture in a certain way, especially when the interpretation may have been partly due to lack of having been challenged in that interpretation by opposing ideas.)

We can apply what Cardinal Bellarmine says here to the condemnation of Galileo.  Galileo was condemned for contradicting Scripture “according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.”  According to the Church, it was wrong for Galileo to do this, because it is wrong to contradict the interpretations of the Fathers regarding Holy Scripture on one’s own authority, against the instructions and permission of the Church.  One of the things specifically mentioned in the 1633 condemnation of Galileo as being a basis for his condemnation was that he was “interpreting Holy Scripture according to your own meaning”.[4]  So the Church was not declaring in its condemnation of Galileo that heliocentrism was certainly false and would never end up being shown to be true any time in the future, but only that the Church did not consider herself at that time to have been presented with sufficient evidence to overturn the prevailing opinion of the Fathers on this topic and that it is not the prerogative of individual thinkers to take it upon themselves to interpret Scripture contrary to the commands and permissions of the Church.

Now, one could certainly argue that it would have been helpful if the Church had been clearer or more careful in expressing her meaning here.  Also, one could argue that the theologians of the Church should have been persuaded of heliocentrism by the arguments made by Galileo and others at that time (although many have argued that, as a matter of fact, at that time Galileo and his contemporaries didn’t actually have sufficient evidence to prove their position actually true; all they could prove, as Bellarmine put it, was that “appearances could better be preserved” by postulating heliocentrism).  One could also argue that Galileo should have listened to the Church earlier instead of promoting what the Church had already commanded him not to promote.  (He could have presented all his findings and evidence without any Church censure if he had only avoided making the claim that heliocentrism was in fact true or probable and without trying to reinterpret Scripture.)  But what one cannot do is claim to show from this case that the Church taught the faith erroneously or taught doctrinal error.  Since the Church's condemnation of Galileo cannot be shown to necessarily imply the claim that heliocentrism would never in the future be demonstrated to be true, any such future demonstration cannot show the Church to have taught false doctrine.  What we have here is an appearance of error, but an appearance that upon closer examination cannot be shown to reflect real error.[5]  This sort of situation should be very familiar to Protestants, who often have to deal with similar arguments regarding the infallibility of Holy Scripture.  There have been all kinds of attempts to show that the Bible has erred or contradicted itself, and many Protestant (as well as Catholic) apologists have responded to these arguments, showing how the appearance of error or contradiction cannot be proved to be the result of real error or contradiction.  Those who have dealt with this sort of thing know that there is a crucial difference between an alleged or an apparent error and a real, proven error.  In order to make a non-question-begging argument against the infallibility of the Bible, it is not enough to simply point out apparent errors (though opponents of biblical infallibility often stop there and act as though their case has been fully vindicated); one must prove an error, which involves showing that there can be no plausible or reasonable interpretation of the evidence that does not involve an error.  Catholics make the same point with regard to the infallibility of the Church.  When proper nuances are recognized and proper care is taken, it turns out that it is often a lot harder to actually prove what one thinks one sees upon a more superficial observation.

---

[1]The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#conreport at 11:53 on 3/15/18.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The Galileo Affair. A Documentary History, edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989), 67-69, retrieved from http://inters.org/Bellarmino-Letter-Foscarini at 12:22 PM on 3/15/18.

[4]“Sentence (22 June 1633)”, found at https://web.archive.org/web/20070930013053/http://astro.wcupa.edu/mgagne/ess362/resources/finocchiaro.html#conreport at 9:41 AM on 1/17/19, quotation taken from The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).

[5]We could also add that the Church's understanding (and Galileo's own understanding) of what Galileo was proposing was not clearly the sort of heliocentrism we know today in every respect.  Did Galileo think that the sun was one star among many which itself moves through space at great speed?  And what does it look like exactly for the earth to go around the sun, when that is interpreted in the context of a cosmology that doesn't understand the sun's relationship to the other stars, etc.?  How would Church theologians have responded had they been presented with a more accurate and complete account of cosmology (as we know it today)?  Were they reacting against a true picture of reality presented to them, or a somewhat confused picture mixing accurate elements with not-so-accurate elements?  When we get into the nitty-gritty details, the issue here becomes more and more complicated.

ADDENDUM 4/4/20:  As we saw above, the Church condemned Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism because it was contrary to the traditional understanding of Scriptural teaching about the earth which had come down from the Fathers (the great teachers) of the Church through her history, and the Council of Trent had forbidden people to interpret Scripture contrary to the consensus of the Fathers.  The Church never declared heliocentrism definitively wrong, however.  The door was left open for the Church to allow heliocentrism if it could prove itself scientifically and so warrant a challenge to the Fathers' consensus on Scriptural interpretation.

The Church banned books advocating heliocentrism until 1758.  Once heliocentrism had proved itself to the scientific community's satisfaction, the Church had no more problems with it.  However, the Church never got around to making an explicit statement about whether heliocentrism was allowed until she was challenged on this subject again in 1820 by another heliocentrist who tried to publish a book advocating heliocentrism.  The book was opposed by the Church's chief censor for its advocating of heliocentrism, but the author (Giuseppe Settele) appealed to Pope Pius VII, who approved the overturning of the censor's decree and allowed the publishing of the book.  Here is the Church's decree on this matter from 1820:

The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.  [Original Latin source: W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl, eds., Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: The End of the Controversy (1820), Acts of the Holy Office (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp. 300-301, taken from the website of the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science on 4/4/20.]

Note how this decree indicates that there were "difficulties that existed in times past" over approving Copernicus's ideas which were no longer difficulties in 1820, because of "the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred."  Here we see the Church confirming what Cardinal Bellarmine had said back in the 1600s--that heliocentrism was not definitively condemned, but the door was left open for a challenge to the consensus of Scriptural interpreters on this subject coming from future scientific discoveries or demonstrations.

A Question for Protestants about Justification

Dear Protestants:

You say (or at least those of you who hold to the historic Reformed doctrine of justification say) that our acceptance with God as righteous in his sight is based solely and completely on the imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ to us, and not at all on anything God does within us in our sanctification.  I want to ask for further clarification as to exactly what you mean by this.

Do you mean by this that imputation alone makes us actually fully right with God, considered completely apart from anything sanctification might contribute?  Or would you rather say that imputation gives us all we need to be right with God, but that the full actualization of that state requires also that imputation bear its fruit in us in our sanctification?

Perhaps an analogy will help.  At the creation, God said, "Let there be light!", and there was light.  There was God's command or decree, and then there was the actualization of that decree.  In principle, God's decree contained everything needed, for that decree in itself brought into existence the light.  And yet the decree was not fulfilled or actualized until the light actually came into existence.

Is this comparable to how justification works?  The imputation of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ gives us everything we need to be right with God and his moral law, but the full fulfillment and actualization of that new relationship requires that imputation bear its fruit in us in our sanctification, as we are regenerated and then further sanctified by God's grace.  If (which is impossible) we were to have imputation without sanctification, we would have the promise of a right relationship with God but not the full actualization of that relationship, because we would remain enemies to God in our actual attitude and behavior, and God would continue to be morally displeased with our moral condition.  Just like if God said "Let there be light!", but no light actually came into existence.  In such a case, the decree and the imputation would be nothing more than a legal fiction, declaring a reality that never actually fully comes to fruition.

Or would you instead say that imputation, by itself, not only contains all we need in principle but also carries with it without consideration of sanctification the full actualization of a right relationship with God and full acceptance before him and his moral law as perfectly righteous?  In this case, if (which is impossible) we could imagine having imputation without regeneration or sanctification, we would still be fully morally acceptable to God and his moral law.  The absence of sanctification would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to our complete acceptance with God as fully righteous.

Your answer to this question is crucial, for the two different answers here constitute two very different doctrines of justification.  This is a very serious matter in itself, since justification is a central doctrine to the Christian faith.  It is also a serious matter with regard to Catholic-Protestant dialogue, since Catholics would agree with the first answer to the question but would strongly object to the second answer (on the grounds that it destroys the moral importance of sanctification and restricts righteousness to being a purely legal and not also an experiential reality).  The question between Catholics and Protestants is not over whether we are justified by Christ's righteousness or our own righteousness.  We all agree we are justified by Christ's righteousness.  The question is not whether the imputation of Christ's righteousness gives us everything we need to be right with God.  We all agree that it does.  The question is rather over whether our moral acceptance with and moral relationship with God is a purely legal matter or whether it also has an essential experiential component, so that it is not fully actualized without being realized in God's work inside of us as well as God's legal work outside of us.

So what is your answer?

To explore this issue more fully, see this fictional dialogue between a Catholic and a Reformed Protestant.  Also, see here for a sermon I wrote up as a Reformed Protestant where I laid out my own view of the relationship between justification and sanctification.  My view was the same as the view I label as the reasonable view above.  I hold the same view today as a Catholic.

Published on the feast of St. Patrick