Pastor Wallace rightly articulates that the Catholic Church holds that the authoritative foundations of our faith are Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium (that is, the teachers) of the Church. He suggest that this means Catholics don't really care all that much about the Bible, but this doesn't follow. The Catholic view is that the Bible contains the teaching of the prophets and the apostles. The message of the gospel is in it. But God has also given us an infallible interpreter and applier of Scripture in the Church. Also, some things (especially certain practices, like the sign of the cross and infant baptism) have been passed down outside of Scripture, in the Church's teaching and practice, and these traditions shed light on how to interpret and apply Scripture. This scheme doesn't make Scripture useless. It gives it the highest importance, but it insists that we use it properly in the context of the Church, the context in which it was meant to be interpreted and applied.
St. Vincent of Lerins, a Church Father from the 5th century, articulates this clearly:
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. (Commonitory, #5)
Vincent articulates the view of the Fathers in general. (I would recommend reading through his
Commonitory in full. You can find it
here.) Again, as I said earlier, it is difficult to get a clear idea of what the Fathers are saying just from short snippets selected for polemical purposes. That is why I put together a larger, more contextualized set of quotations from the Fathers, including quotations used by both sides with fuller context, on the subject of Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. I refer you
there to see for yourself how the Fathers actually thought about these matters.
To see how the Church in modern days has described the relationship between Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority, see the Vatican Council II document
Dei Verbum (The Word of God), found
here, especially Chapter II.
Again, beware of presuppositions without basis. To a Protestant who is used to it and has never seriously considered other ways of thinking, Sola Scriptura might seem like the obvious way to go. But this is not the historic position of the Church. It is a position that was only really embraced in any clear and formal way after the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. The historic way of looking at things handed down by the Church in the providence of God is the Catholic way of the three-legged stool of infallible Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority. Just as with the canon of Scripture, we should not alter this historic view based on subjective and insufficient arguments. We should defer to what God has handed down unless we can prove the contrary. So our default is the Catholic view, and the burden of proof is on the Protestant to justify the novel idea of Sola Scriptura against the historic view of the Church. If we become more historically aware, we will no longer see Sola Scriptura as the natural approach, but as the unnatural approach that has to justify itself. The question is not, "Why should we add traditions and Church authority to Scripture?", but rather, "What justification do we have to tear Scripture out of its historic context as part of a three-legged stool of infallible Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority, in order to treat it as alone infallible and therefore ultimately to be interpreted by ourselves and our own fallible judgment?"
Catholics often point out that Sola Scriptura has trouble with the canon of Scripture. If only Scripture is infallible, and there is no infallible Church or infallible Tradition, how do we know which books belong in the Bible? This is a serious problem that Pastor Wallace glosses over too easily. Without trust in God's guidance of the Church, there is no way to know which books belong in the canon of Scripture. But if we trust God's guidance of the Church (that is, if we take the Tradition of the Church in this matter to be infallibly guided by God to be surely reliable) to know which books are in Scripture, why not trust God's guidance of the Church in other things the Church has taught in its Tradition? But Protestants cannot do that, or they would have to be Catholic. I've dealt with this in
this article, where I ask, How do we know the Book of Jude, for example, ought to be in the Bible?
St. Augustine dealt with this issue in the early Church in his arguments with the Manichean heresy. There is an interesting place in one of his writings where he challenges the Manicheans in this way (I'm paraphrasing): "You claim the gospels support Manichaeus. But the Catholic Church rejects Manichaeus. If I accept that the gospels support Manichaeus, I will no longer have any basis to believe in the gospels, because my reason for believing those books to be divine is because the Catholic Church teaches me so. But that same Catholic Church teaches me that you are wrong. So if I believe the Catholic Church about the gospels, I will have to also believe that you are wrong. But if I believe you are right because the gospels support you, then I lose my reason for believing the gospels, for I can no longer trust the Catholic Church, which is the authority behind why I believe in the gospels."
Here is this argument as St. Augustine himself articulates it:
Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:--"Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain." Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. [267] So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;--If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;--Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, [268] do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; [269] which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. [270] Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichæus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichæus. (St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental, chapter 5)
Pastor Wallace asks, How do we know the Church is infallible, if we must trust the infallible Church to tell us which books are in the canon of Scripture. He suggests that Catholics are guilty of circular reasoning here: "We trust the Church to be infallible because she says she is." But Catholics are not guilty of circular reasoning. We trust the Church to be infallible for this reason: We have good reason to believe that God has given us Christianity as a revelation of himself. (I won't go into this argument now.) If Christianity is a divine revelation, we must know where to find that revelation, how to read it, etc. The only way to know this is to trust that God has successfully handed down true Christianity through history, and this leads to a trust that God has guided the transmission of Christianity through the centuries to be correct. This leads us to the default position: We must default to whatever God has handed down and not change it arbitrarily. Again, God has handed down to us a historic canon, affirmed by the historic Church. We must therefore trust that canon, for any attempt to alter it would be without adequate ground. Similarly, the Church has historically handed down to us a Christianity that is Catholic and not Protestant. The Protestants had to break from this in order to be Protestant. Therefore, we ought to default to the historic view unless the Protestants can prove they are right. They have the burden of proof. If Sola Scriptura were the historic position of the Church, handed down through the centuries, then that would be a good reason to accept Sola Scriptura. But it isn't. Rather, it is the Catholic view that is the historic view. We thus have good reason to accept the infallibility not only of Scripture, but of the Church and its Tradition as well. If Protestants can prove Sola Scriptura, well and good, they win. But they can't, and so their assertion of Sola Scriptura is to be rejected in favor of the historic position of the Church handed down in the providence of God. I deal with this a little more here and here.
Can Protestants prove Sola Scriptura? I've already pointed out that they cannot prove it from the Fathers of the Church. They cannot prove it in any other way either, for there is no biblical evidence for it. I argue this here. Sometimes Protestants attempt to mitigate the practical implications of Sola Scriptura. Ultimately Sola Scriptura means that I must trust my own interpretations of Scripture as the ultimate authority, even over the majority of other Christians and the testimony of the historic institutional Church. Protestants often don't like to hear this stated so bluntly, but it is what it is, as I've argued here.
But perhaps we ought to look at some attempts of Protestants to prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture before we move on.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is often appealed to:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
What does this passage of Scripture say? It clearly affirms that Scripture is inspired by God. It affirms that it's useful for various things—doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction. It affirms that if we make use of Scripture we will be able to become all we should be, ready for all good works.
Catholics agree with all of this. But where does this passage say that Scripture alone is infallible as opposed to the Tradition or teaching of the Church? I don't see it. Protestants sometimes argue in this way: “The passage says that following Scripture makes us perfect, ready for all good works. If Scripture wasn't sufficient without the Tradition or teaching of the Church, then following it wouldn't be enough to make us perfectly ready. Therefore, this passage teaches Sola Scriptura.” In response, at best I'll grant that, if this passage was all we had, it could be conceded that maybe St. Paul had this idea in mind when he wrote the passage. But the idea is certainly not clearly there. Paul is not addressing in this passage the question of whether the Church or its Tradition is infallible, and Sola Scriptura is at best a somewhat flimsy, speculative, and uncertain inference from it. Catholics will grant that Scripture is wonderfully useful for training people up into all good works, provided it is interpreted correctly and taken in the context of the Church's Tradition—as we cited St. Vincent of Lerins saying earlier. However, if Scripture is taken out of its proper context in the Tradition of the Church, it is likely to be useful rather for creating errors and all sorts of strange practices, as history demonstrates (take the infamous snake handlers, for example, who are quite sure they are properly applying Mark 16:18). Does Paul say, or even clearly imply, anything in this passage about the context in which Scripture is to be used? Does he say that Scripture is useful to train people up into all good works when we use it out of the context of reliance on the Tradition of the Church to help us interpret and apply it? No, he doesn't say anything about this. The only teaching we can clearly derive from this passage by itself is teaching that Catholics and Protestants would all agree on. Protestants can only get Sola Scriptura from this passage by going out on a speculative limb without any kind of conclusive justification.
Protestants often appeal as well to Mark 7:1-13, where Jesus accuses the Pharisees of ignoring the word of God to follow their own man-made traditions instead. Jesus says that they are “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” that they are “laying aside the commandment of God” in order to “hold the tradition of men,” that they are “making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered.”
Well, Catholics certainly agree with Jesus on these points. It is a wicked thing to abandon the word of God in order to maintain merely human traditions. That's what the passage is clearly saying. So what does this have to do with Sola Scriptura? “You Catholics are just like the Pharisees here, holding to traditions along with the Word of God.” But wait a minute. Jesus nowhere says here that the word of God is only in the Scriptures, and that there is no such thing as divine as opposed to man-made traditions. Catholics are reminded of the words of St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where he says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” What is that? We are to hold to traditions?! Apparently not all traditions are bad to hold to. And St. Paul even talks about unwritten traditions that ought to be held in addition to written ones! There is simply nothing in Jesus's words to the Pharisees in Mark 7 to justify the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is true. Protestants are reading this into the text rather than getting it out of the text. They tend to see it there because they already believe it. This sort of thing is exactly what St. Vincent of Lerins was talking about when he said that it is dangerous to take Scripture out of the context of the Church's interpretation. As he put it, Scripture “seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.” Therefore, he said, “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.” Protestants would do better at avoiding reading their own ideas into Scripture if instead of trying to make obscure inferences beyond the clarity of the text, they instead took as their rule of interpretation the Tradition of the Church.
Let's look at another passage: 1 Corinthians 4:5-6:
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
“St. Paul,” says the Protestant, “says that in our thinking we should not go 'beyond what is written.' So that proves that only Scripture is infallible and that there is no infallible unwritten Tradition and no infallible ecclesiastical teaching authority.”
Does it? How, exactly? Whatever the saying means, it can't mean “Don't listen to anything unless it is written down, ignore all further authoritative teaching, especially when it's given orally,” because right as Paul is recounting this saying to the Corinthians, he is giving them more authoritative teaching! Is he telling them here to ignore him if he speaks to them orally, and only to listen to things he's written down? If so, how does that fit with the fact that Christ and the apostles taught orally, and that Paul commands the Thessalonians, as we saw above, to listen to and keep as authoritative all the traditions he gave to them, whether delivered orally or in written form? If “Don't go beyond what is written” means “Don't take anything as authoritative that is not written,” then this contradicts Paul's command to the Thessalonians to follow his oral teaching as authoritative as well as his written teaching. If the saying doesn't mean that—if it doesn't preclude there being additional teaching, and even additional oral teaching, that we are supposed to take as authoritative—then how is it relevant for proving Sola Scriptura?
Let's look at one last passage: Acts 17:10-11:
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
What is this passage saying? That the Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonians, because when Paul preached the gospel to them, instead of just rejecting it they looked into it, examining the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true.
So how does this passage prove Sola Scriptura? When Paul preached the gospel to the Berean Jews, he made arguments to them regarding Jesus being the Messiah from the Jewish Scriptures. The Bereans looked at those Scriptures to check up on what Paul was teaching to see if it held up. So what can we learn from this? That we ought to check up on things before rejecting or accepting them. That if we happen to be Jews having preached to us that Jesus is the Messiah based on our Scriptures, we ought to look at our Scriptures to see if what is being preached is true. Both Catholics and Protestants can accept these ideas. None of this requires Sola Scriptura. Where does this passage teach that the word of God is always found in written Scriptures only? Where does it teach that God has not granted infallibility to the Church and its Tradition? Where does it teach that Scripture is not to be interpreted only in the context of trust in the God-guided Tradition of the Church? I don't see that the passage even remotely addresses any of these questions. Again, Protestants are reading their entire epistemology into passages that just don't address it. Why are they doing this? Could it be they are doing this because there aren't any clear places where Scripture teaches Sola Scriptura, and these are the best kinds of passages they can find?
Aside from appealing to specific passages, Protestants might try to argue for Sola Scriptura from the general flow and themes of the Bible. For example, they might argue that there is no evidence of an authoritative Tradition in Old Testament times, and that Jesus only ever appealed to the Old Testament Scripture as an authority and never to an authoritative Tradition. If Sola Scriptura was practiced in Old Testament times, the argument goes, then we should assume it would be practiced in New Testament times as well.
One problem with this argument is that it is not clear that there was no authoritative Tradition outside of Scripture in Old Testament times. It is true that the Pharisees had invented some man-made and false traditions, but it doesn't follow from this that there were no true and reliable traditions. Jesus didn't appeal to any unwritten traditions, but this is not conclusive. It may be that, as with Catholic Tradition, the Tradition of Old Testament times did not add much independent doctrinal substance to what was written in the Scriptures. It may have mostly overlapped with what was written, and been of use mainly as a help for interpreting the Scriptures. In this case, it would not be surprising to find Jesus finding his references in the written Old Testament Scriptures (just like it is not surprising to find the Church Fathers, or Catholic authors ever since, referring their doctrines back to the written Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments).
How Tradition functioned in relation to Scripture in Old Testament times is a point of interest that I would like to study further. But it is already evident to me that there are signs in the Old and New Testaments that there was some kind of authoritative Tradition in Old Testament times. For one thing, the Jews, by the time of Christ, had a canon of Scripture. There may have been some question about certain books (such as the Deuterocanonical books—what Protestants tend to call the “Apocrypha”), but all Jews accepted certain books as definitely from God—such as the five books of the Torah. As with the New Testament tradition, the existence of a canon implies some kind of trust that the teachers of Judaism had handed down the correct books, led by the providence of God. Also, in the New Testament, we find that Jesus seems to accept the authority of the Pharisees (see Matthew 23:2) to be authentic teachers of God's word, and the Pharisees taught that there was an authoritative Tradition in addition to written Scripture. Jesus opposed some of the traditions of the Pharisees, but he may have accepted other traditions. New Testament writers seem sometimes to refer to extra-biblical traditions as if they were true and reliable (see, for example, 2 Timothy 3:8, 1 Corinthians 10:4, Jude 14-15, and Jude 9).
We must also keep in mind that Sola Scriptura is not just a rejection of an oral Tradition, but also the rejection of any infallible interpretative authority given to the people of God to interpret the word of God. It is certain that the Jewish leaders were not infallible, for Jesus attacked some of their traditions, and also they ended up rejecting Christ, which, of course, could not have happened if they were infallible. But it doesn't follow that there was no infallibility at all working among the people of God in Old Testament times. I already mentioned the issue of the canon, which implies some kind of infallible guidance given to the people of God. Infallibility might have been manifested in other ways as well—for example, in the ability of the people of God to interpret how to carry out aspects of the Law of God, the worship of God, etc., particularly with regard to details not expressly dealt with in the written Scriptures.
The other main problem with this argument is that even if it was the case that there was no authoritative Tradition outside of Scripture in Old Testament times, it doesn't necessarily follow from this that there is no infallible, authoritative Tradition for New Testament times. After all, there are many substantial differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament dispensations. Given such great differences, it is precarious at best to simply assume that a particular feature occurring in one dispensation would necessarily apply to the other. This is especially the case when we keep in mind that the New Testament seems to promise to the New Testament dispensation a greater and more permanent and successful power and authority to follow the will of God (see, for example, Jesus's promise to Peter in Matthew 16 that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against the Church, or the Parable of the Tenants in Matthew 21, which seems to teach that the Church will not fail in the way Old Testament Israel did). It may be that, in giving the Holy Spirit in a new and special way to the Church at Pentecost, God has given to the Church a new ability of discernment to interpret and apply his word, so that what had to be delivered in a more outward form in Old Testament times would come more internally in New Testament times. For example, God gave continual outward revelation (new prophets and new revelations) to his people throughout Old Testament history, but in the New Testament we seem to find the idea that revelation has been completed in the Son (Hebrews 1), and we see new problems being dealt with by the Church not by receiving new outward revelation from God but by the Church's own discernment being aided by the Holy Spirit (as, for example, in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15). So, in conclusion, this argument for Sola Scriptura rests on too many unproven and dubious assumptions to provide any good reason to embrace Sola Scriptura.
It is safe to say, then, that Sola Scriptura cannot be proved from Scripture in any non-question-begging sort of way. Protestants will have to look elsewhere to find a foundation to affirm their epistemology in opposition to that of the Catholic Church. But I can think of no other way in which Protestants might try to prove Sola Scriptura. It cannot be proved from the history and Tradition of the Church, from Scripture, or from reason. Protestants don't claim that it is a divine revelation directly granted to them, as if Luther was a prophet who received his doctrine from a special revelation. They claim to be able to prove it from the sources I've already dealt with. I think the conclusion must be that Sola Scriptura is simply unjustified.
If Sola Scriptura is unjustified, then it cannot provide a justification for the Protestant break with the Catholic Church. The Reformers received as their birthright the Christian faith as handed down by the providence of God through the Catholic Church. This inheritance included the Catholic epistemology. Without an alternative epistemology that could be shown to be correct, the right thing to do was to defer to the epistemology handed down by the Church. They had no basis to reject it. To reject the Catholic epistemology on the basis of their own arbitrary and ungrounded imaginations was to reject the faith as God had handed it down for a reliance, ironically, on man-made tradition. They put themselves in the place of God. We can all agree that it is unjust to break the continuity, authority, and unity of the Church in order to follow nothing more than what our own imaginations have invented without any evidence. It is dishonest to assert that which we have no basis to believe to be true, especially in such a serious matter. As we've established previously, if Christianity is a divine revelation, we have no just alternative but to submit to that revelation as God's providence has handed it down to us, without arbitrarily altering it. We must trust God's guidance of the Church as it has handed down the faith through history. So it turns out that we have just as much reason to trust God's guidance of the Church when it comes to our epistemology as we do when it comes to the question of the canon. Our situation is exactly the same in both cases. Just as we should not arbitrarily reject the Book of Jude because we cannot independently, on our own, establish that it belongs in the Bible but should instead trust in God's guidance of the Church's judgment in forming the canon, so we should not arbitrarily reject the Church's traditional epistemology for a different epistemology grounded in nothing. In both cases, we have ample reason to follow the faith handed down to us by the providence of God.
Has the Catholic Church Been Opposed to People Reading the Bible?
No, but she has regulated the reading of the Bible historically in various ways. There have been times when she has encouraged vernacular translations of Scripture and general reading of Scripture. There have been times when she has discouraged lay reading of Scripture. She has forbidden the circulation of certain vernacular translations of Scripture. She has permitted and encouraged the translation and dissemination of others. The Church has always had a healthy fear of people, without proper training, misuing the Bible by interpreting it themselves wrongly against the correct interpretations of the Church. She has, at times, dealt with this by forbidding certain people to read Scripture directly. Now, if Sola Scriptura were true, it would be hard to see how this could be justifiable. But if the Catholic epistemology is correct, the Church's controls here are understandable, although Catholics are free to argue about the wisdom of particular un-infallible prudential disciplinary decisions of this sort. You can read more about this
here and
here, among other places.
St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre
Pastor Wallace discusses this incident.
Here is the
Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of it. You will be shocked to find that the situation is more nuanced than Pastor Wallace's account suggests.
What is Required of Catholics?
Pastor Wallace says that the Church allows Catholics pretty much to make of the faith whatever they like. Hmmm . . . You might read
here what the Church actually requires of Catholics.
Are Non-Christians OK, and is Non-Christian Worship OK?
From Vatican Council II document
Lumen Gentium, #16 (formatting altered):
16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
The Church has a nuanced approach to its view of non-Christians and non-Christian religions. There are elements of truth in non-Christian viewpoints which God can use for good. But, insofar as they are erroneous, non-Christian religions are evil and harmful. With regard to persons, non-Christians can be in different subjective conditions. Certainly, anyone who rejects God cannot be saved. Anyone who rejects Christ and the gospel cannot be saved. Anybody who rejects any teaching or practice commanded by Christ cannot be saved. As James said, if we keep the whole law and yet fail in one point, we are guilty of breaking all of it. However, human psychology has room for a great deal of confusion. Are there Christians who truly love God and seek to follow Christ but who, at least partly out of confusion, are wrong on some doctrinal point? For example, consider the difference between Presbyterians and Baptists regarding infant baptism. Are there believers in God who have not heard the gospel, but in whom God's grace has been at work, so that they follow Christ subjectively in their hearts even though they have not known his objective name? Are there those who have, outwardly, rejected the gospel, but it is out of confusion and misunderstanding or an erroneous impression of the evidence or something like that, so that, inwardly, they are truly following Christ? Are there those who, outwardly, reject God, out of confusion (perhaps they have been confused by Atheist philosophical arguments, or they are afraid of taking a position without sufficient evidence, etc.), but who truly follow God in their hearts, even though they cannot properly articulate what they are doing? The Church doesn't rule these sorts of possibilities out. However, she warns against presumption. For those who know what they should do and don't do it, no amount of pleading of "confusion" will justify them or excuse their rejection of truth. And the rejection of truth, even if subjectively innocent or relatively innocent, still has objective negative consequences. A person cannot be a moral person unless he loves God and his neighbor, and he cannot love God if he does not believe in God. A person cannot be saved unless he counts himself a sinner and relies on the grace of God in Christ for salvation. A person cannot be a true follower of Christ if he refuses to listen to the teaching of the apostles on any point. So all of these things are fundamental. And yet, people can be true followers of Christ with various degrees of subjective confusion. We must beware of presumption on either side--discounting the importance of objective truth or ignoring nuances in human psychology.
This has always been the Church's approach, although in these days she has tended to emphasize empathetic understanding of where other people are coming from, surely at least partly as a result of recognizing the confused state of our present pluralistic culture. But she does not reject her firm stand on the importance of objective truth and the evils of religious error, schism, and heresy, that she has manifested so many times throughout her history.
We see these sorts of nuances in Scripture. We are told it is a sin to worship God at the high places, and yet God seems to tolerate this to some degree. He even appears to Solomon and grants blessings at a high place. On the other hand, he wipes out Nadab and Abihu for relatively minor changes in how to make sacrifices. False teaching is condemned, and any deviation from the teaching of the Apostles, and yet Apollos is considered a righteous man, though erroneous in serious ways (before being better instructed). We are to treat those who will not listen to the Church as heathen and tax collectors, and yet we are also told at times not to treat those who are put out of the fellowship of the Church as enemies but as brothers. How do all these things fit together? We have great severity and lenient toleration. How do we apply these nuances appropriately? Different groups of Protestants take different approaches. Catholics believe we have the Church's God-guided help to apply these things appropriately in the various circumstances in which we find ourselves.
With regard to worshiping God according to his commands and not human imagination, see here.
Images
Pastor Wallace attacks the Catholic use of images, so let's look at this a bit. Exodus 20:4-6 and Deuteronomy 4:15-19 forbid images in worship. Here is Deuteronomy 4:15-19:
Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, the likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them.
All the pagan peoples round about Israel worshiped false gods, and they often did so by means of images—statues, paintings of the gods, etc. Of course the pagans (at least the more sophisticated ones) did not believe that their gods were actually the statues they directed their worship towards, but the prophets of Israel saw no real distinction there, since the gods the statues symbolized were the creations of men just as much as the statues they used to worship them. Israel is forbidden to make images, apparently, for two main reasons: 1. There would be a tendency to make use of images in a pagan sort of way—to control God, to subject him to the desires and imaginations of the Israelites, etc. Israel needed to make a clear distinction between the worship of the true God and pagan worship. 2. As the passage in Deuteronomy emphasizes, God has no form. His divine nature transcends space and time. That nature therefore cannot be captured in the form of any space-time object, which must, by its very nature, be finite. Thus, the Israelites were prohibited from using images in their worship.
God himself was not bound to this regulation, however. We see him from time to time appearing in human form. The most remarkable example of this, I think, occurs in Daniel 7, where God the Father is described as an old man sitting on a throne:
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire (Daniel 7:9).
We also recall various theophanies in the Old Testament, as God manifested himself in human form. We can also mention that in the building of the tabernacle and the tent of meeting and later in the temple, the Israelites were commanded to make images of cherubim. While these were not images of God, they were remarkably close to the sorts of images used in paganism. God did not trust the Israelites to make their own images based on their own imagination, but he was not averse to giving them his own imagery from time to time.
If this was all we had to go on, it would be hard to see how the Catholic Church could justify using images in worship. However, we also have the New Testament to consider. Did anything important happen in New Testament times that might possibly affect how imagery might be used by the people of God?
Well, for one thing, we know that in New Testament times, God abolished the ceremonial laws of the Law of Moses—the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, various purity rituals, etc. These were necessary for the people of God “under age,” to use St. Paul’s image (Galatians 3:23-4:11), but they were no longer needed in the New Testament era, once Christ had come. Laws necessary for Israel’s earlier state would not necessarily still be required.
Even more noteworthy, however, is the very meaning of the coming of Christ. In Christ, God became incarnate. He entered into the world of space and time. Christ forever stamped the image of the divine on human nature. Could this have had an impact on the use of imagery in worship? It is obvious that it could have. Did it, in fact, have an effect? The New Testament doesn’t directly address the subject. Are there principles there that imply an effect? The historic Christian Church has answered yes to that question. In the Second Council of Nicaea, the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in the year 787, the Church formally and dogmatically affirmed that images are appropriate in Christian worship. Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2129-2132 - footnotes removed, text size altered) on this subject:
2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . " It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works." He is "the author of beauty."
2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.
2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
Here is the Seventh Ecumenical Council itself on the subject:
To summarize, we declare that we defend free from any innovations all the—written and—unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us.
One of these is the production of representational art; this is quite in harmony with the history of the spread of the gospel, as it provides confirmation that the becoming man of the Word of God was real and not just imaginary, and as it brings us a similar benefit. For, things that mutually illustrate one another undoubtedly possess one another's message.
Given this state of affairs and stepping out as though on the royal highway, following as we are the God-spoken teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the catholic church — for we recognize that this tradition comes from the holy Spirit who dwells in her—we decree with full precision and care that, like the figure of the honoured and life-giving cross, the revered and holy images, whether painted or made of mosaic or of other suitable material, are to be exposed in the holy churches of God, on sacred instruments and vestments, on walls and panels, in houses and by public ways, these are the images of our Lord, God and saviour, Jesus Christ, and of our Lady without blemish, the holy God-bearer, and of the revered angels and of any of the saintly holy men. (The Second Council of Nicaea [787], retrieved from the EWTN website at https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/NICAEA2.HTM at 10:11 AM on 3/12/18 [section heading removed]. Translation taken from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner [Georgetown University Press, 1990].)
Some Protestant traditions, particularly the Reformed, interpret Scripture in such a way as to maintain that images of God—including images of the human form of Christ—are inappropriate, even in this New Testament age. They maintain that since Scripture does not clearly teach that the incarnation of Christ implies an allowance of such images, there is no warrant to draw that conclusion. Therefore, the stronger ban on images from the Old Testament is still in force. I think this argument has some plausibility . . . if we assume the Protestant epistemology of Sola Scriptura. But, as we are reminded once again by the comments of the Second Council of Nicaea, Sola Scriptura is not the view of the historic Christian Church that God has handed down to us in his providence.
Pastor Wallace points out that some in the early Church opposed images. That is true. The quotations Pastor Wallace gives are the only ones I know of from the early Church opposing images (that is, opposing images in the orthodox Christian sense, not images in a pagan sense, of course). The issue was simply not widely discussed in the earliest centuries of the Church (at least so far as we know from the historical evidence we possess). However, over the early centuries, images became common. By the time of the iconoclastic Council of Hieria in 754, images were part of the normal and accepted practice of the Church. This council sought to remove them. Later in the same century, the Second Council of Nicaea rejected this earlier council and definitively affirmed images. Unlike the Council of Hieria, the Second Council of Nicaea was recognized by the Bishop of Rome as the authentic Seventh Ecumenical Council, and eventually it was universally received East and West. Once again, we see here the principle of doctrinal development. Gradually, the Church began to make use of images, as opportunity allowed (there was much more opportunity when Christianity became legal and could do more with buildings and art) and as the Church's awareness of this implication of Christ's incarnation grew. Finally, when some bishops challenged this growing awareness, it was made formally definitive in an Ecumenical Council and has been the formal dogma of the Church ever since. Was the Church right or wrong about this? Our answer will at least partly depend on our epistemology--Is Scripture alone infallible and should we follow our own fallible interpretations of it? Or should we interpret Scripture in the context of the infallible Tradition of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
The Sacraments
Pastor Wallace says that Catholics confuse baptism of water with spiritual regeneration.
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X gives this definition of a sacrament: "By the word sacrament is meant a sensible and efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ to sanctify our souls." (Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Saint Pius X [1908], "The Sacraments," Question 2, retrieved from the EWTN website at https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM at 3:11 PM on 2/24/18) It goes on to say that "I call the sacraments sensible and efficacious signs of grace because all the sacraments signify by means of sensible things, the divine grace which they produce in our souls." (Question 3)
God gives his grace to us through various means that he has appointed. The sacraments are particular rituals appointed by God through which especially grace is communicated to us. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X provides an example in the sacrament of baptism:
In Baptism the pouring of water on the head of the person, and the words: "I baptise thee," that is, I wash thee, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," are a sensible sign of that which Baptism accomplishes in the soul; just as water washes the body, so in like manner does the grace given in Baptism cleanse the soul from sin. (Question 4)
The sacraments are one way in which God pays respect to our tangible, physical nature. God and grace are invisible to us in this world, but the physical signs and symbols of the sacraments make God's grace more tangible to us.
The sacraments are not magical rites that somehow automatically, of themselves, give special powers. They are simply means that God chooses to use in order to connect us with his grace. Take baptism, for example. There is nothing magical about the water of baptism. Baptism is the sacrament that symbolizes and seals our regeneration, the renewal of our fallen natures by the grace of God. Obviously, however, water itself cannot regenerate us. It is God's grace that regenerates us. And the renewal of our souls is not so tied to the time of the rite of baptism that the hearts of sinners are unchanged before it, as if a rebellious, unrepentant sinner suddenly turns into a God-loving saint the moment water is poured on his head. God gives grace previous to the time of baptism which changes the heart and draws the sinner to baptism. Also, baptism doesn't regenerate a sinner apart from the presence of faith in the person being regenerated. First of all, a person receives grace which leads him to desire to turn to God in faith and repentance. Then, moved by this grace, he seeks baptism, for baptism is the sign and seal of the grace he seeks. In baptism, God seals to him that grace that he has already started to receive before baptism and which will continue to grow after baptism.
I emphasize this point because I have often heard confessional Reformed Protestants quake in fear over the concept of "baptismal regeneration." I think that many of them think the Catholic Church teaches some of the magical sorts of concepts I mentioned above. But this is simply not true. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the working of the sacraments in this way (note how the sacraments are not magical but a means by which the power of the grace of God works in us, and how they do not work independently of our internal dispositions):
Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ himself is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies. The Father always hears the prayer of his Son's Church which, in the epiclesis of each sacrament, expresses her faith in the power of the Spirit. As fire transforms into itself everything it touches, so the Holy Spirit transforms into the divine life whatever is subjected to his power.
This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1127-1128 (footnotes and section number headings removed), retrieved from the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c1a2.htm at 3:38 PM on 2/24/18)
So baptism, for example, doesn't function by itself in a magical way, independent of faith. It is the means by which the grace-wrought faith of the repentant sinner takes hold of the grace offered in the gospel. That is why, although baptism is necessary in the sense of being required, people can be saved without being baptized if they are unable for some reason to receive baptism:
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1257-1259, retrieved from the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a1.htm at 3:51 PM on 2/24/18.
Is this so different from the doctrine of the sacraments found, for example, in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith?
Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.
The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 27, Sections 1, 3 [section number headings and capitalization of entire first word removed], retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Confession_of_Faith_of_the_Assembly_of_Divines_at_Westminster at 7:59 PM on 2/25/18)
Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.
Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. (Ibid., Chapter 28, Sections 1, 5, 6 [section number headings and capitalization of entire first word removed], retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Confession_of_Faith_of_the_Assembly_of_Divines_at_Westminster at 8:03 PM on 2/25/18)
What is the substantial difference between the Catholic and the Presbyterian systems on this point? In both cases, God gives his grace through tangible signs that function as means of grace. In both, the sacraments truly confer grace, but not through a magical power inherent in the elements but through the working of the Holy Spirit which God has connected with the sacraments. In both, grace is tied to the sacraments, but not so that no one can receive grace without them or that anyone who receives them, with whatever disposition, receives effectively the grace conveyed in them. Is there really any substantial difference here?
Mortal and Venial Sin
As does Pastor Wallace, Protestants sometimes object that the Catholic distinction between "venial" and "mortal" sins is problematic. In Catholic theology, a "mortal" sin is a sin in which, with full knowledge and conscious decision, we make a choice which involves our souls turning away fundamentally from the way of God. It is called "mortal" because it is a choice to turn our backs on God and thus to turn our backs on life. It destroys our relationship with God because it involves a turning away from a life of love to God. Mortal sin is equivalent to a state of unregeneracy. Moral sin is contrasted with "venial" sin, which is sin that does not involve a fundamental rejection of a life of love to God. Venial sins are the remaining imperfections of the regenerate soul. They do not destroy our overall relationship with God, though they harm it.
Some Protestants object in this way: "You can't say that some sins are venial. All sins are mortal, for all deserve damnation! There is no such thing as a 'light' sin!" This objection seems to me to be based on a misunderstanding. Yes, all sins deserve damnation, in the sense that all sin, considered in itself and in its own inherent nature, is infinitely heinous because all sin is against a being of infinite value and goodness. (See Pope St. Pius X, The Catechism of St. Pius X [1908], “The Fourth Article of the Creed,” Questions 8-11, found here.) And all sin naturally tends to damnation, because sin in general, by its very nature, involves a state of will contrary to God. The difference between mortal and venial sins lies rather in the place they have in the overall moral condition of the person. Venial sins are sins committed by a person who is, overall, living a life of love to God and repentance, but who is not free of remaining imperfections. (Think, for example, of a person striving by grace to love his neighbor, but who finds that he has trouble at times not being patient with others. It is something he regularly works on.) A mortal sin is an act that involves the fundamental rejection of a life of love to God. (Think of a person who, with full awareness of all that his actions would mean, decides to divorce his wife and run off with another woman, deciding to live his life in a permanent unrepentant sin.) The moral conditions of these persons are very different, not because the first person's sin is not, in itself, a serious matter, but because, given the place it holds in his overall life, it is not fatal to his overall relationship with God. He must struggle against it, and eventually it must be purified, but it does not change the fact that he is on the path towards eternal life, whereas the person who pursues the mortal sin has chosen the path of eternal death.
Sin, Salvation, and Justification
Pastor Wallace has a frighteningly inaccurate view of the Catholic view of sin and salvation. No wonder he hates Catholicism so much!
He paints a dramatic contrast between Catholic and Reformed views of the nature of fallen man, free will, and how we are saved by grace. But he creates divisions where there need be none. Catholic doctrine holds that fallen man is dead in sin. He cannot do any good pertaining to salvation apart from grace, including accept Christ and the gospel. He is an irreformable rebel against God. Only the grace of God in Christ, purchased by the merits of Christ, can change his heart. Man must cooperate with God's grace, but if a man cooperates with God's grace it is only because God has given him that very cooperation as a free gift. Human beings contribute no saving goodness, including any good choice of the will, on their own apart from grace. It is all, from beginning to end, a gift of grace.
Calvinist teaching on the nature of fallen man, free will, the nature of saving grace, and God's predestination is often summarized using the TULIP acrostic. Upon investigation, the soundest Calvinist interpretation of these doctrines, for the most part, agrees with Catholic teaching. Catholics and Calvinists are much closer than many people realize because of difficulties in communication between the two groups. I have examined this thoroughly here.
The Reformed view of the core of the gospel centers on the idea that man, since the Fall, has been an enemy to God, that he cannot save himself, that only God can save him. God sent his Son into the world to save God's people. Christ has taken upon himself human sin, and his suffering has made satisfaction to God's justice for that sin. The satisfaction and righteousness of Christ are given to believers so that as Christ took upon himself their sin, so they might take upon themselves his righteousness. We are saved not by our own righteousness but only by the righteousness of Christ, and so all the glory goes to God. We are given Christ's righteousness as a free, undeserved gift of grace. Having Christ's righteousness made ours, we have the fruit of this in our lives as we are reconciled to God and given the Holy Spirit to sanctify us and make us holy. Thus, through God's grace alone, we are made right with God and made fit for heaven.
This is also the core of the gospel in the Catholic view. We have the same gospel! We differ on many things, but we are one in our central picture of sin and salvation (if not in every specific detail). We don't want to trivialize differences, but in the midst of dealing with differences let us not neglect to notice the great things we have in common!
But what about the specifics of the doctrine of justification? The sticking point for some (particularly historic Reformed and Lutheran) Protestants is that the Church says that justification is “not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.” These Protestants object to this because they want to say that what makes us justified—that is, what makes us right with God and his moral law—is only the forgiveness of sins and the imputation to us of Christ’s righteousness, and not at all God’s making us holy by the power of the Holy Spirit. When they talk about imputation, they mean that Christ’s righteousness is counted ours by a kind of legal declaration. It is not that Christ’s righteousness comes to actually be within us, making us internally righteous, but that we are counted righteous because Christ’s righteousness is credited to our account. So, in this view, God’s acceptance of us as righteous has absolutely nothing to do with our internal moral condition. The righteousness that makes us justified before God is purely a legal righteousness accounted to us, not any righteousness living within us or done by us (even by the power of God’s grace). To describe this, Lutheran and Reformed Protestants will often make use of a striking image from Martin Luther, who compared the process of imputation covering our sins to snow covering a dunghill. What makes the hill pleasant is not that the dung is removed, but that we can’t see it because it is covered with snow. Similarly, in this view, what makes us right with God is not that our sins are removed, but that they are covered by the legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
It should be noted that Reformed Christians are not antinomians. They accept the necessity of being made holy by God’s grace. They simply insist that this process is a process entirely distinct from justification, though it always goes along with it. The basic idea goes like this: We are justified—made right with God—entirely on the basis of the sacrifice and righteousness of Christ imputed to us and not by anything grace does within us, but at the same time we are justified we are also sanctified—made holy by God’s grace within us.
So Reformed confessional Protestants object to the Catholic view because we include the idea of sanctification by the Spirit in the idea of justification. We hold that we are made right with God not only by Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us but also by its being infused within us and changing our actual lives. In the eyes of many Reformed, to say this is to deny the gospel altogether. It is to mix our works in with God’s grace. It is to replace Christ’s righteousness with our own righteousness. It is to say that we can earn salvation by our own works so that our acceptance with God is no longer a gift of grace.
Honestly, I find this reaction to the Catholic view baffling. I think it stems to a great degree from a kind of rigid prejudice that gets so caught up in words and formulas that it has trouble listening to the meaning and substance of what people are saying. So I would encourage any Reformed readers to give extra special attention to trying to listen carefully to what I am saying here. Is my view, is the Catholic view, really a denial of the gospel?
First of all, note what we have in common: In the Catholic view, we are justified entirely by the righteousness of Christ and not at all by our own righteousness. Whether we think of righteousness as imputed or infused, it is not a righteousness that we have produced from ourselves. It is entirely a gift of grace—an unmerited, undeserved gift. We cannot take credit for it or boast in it. I am reminded of a quotation from Puritan theologian Thomas Watson that I recently came across on a Reformed website:
As God’s mercy makes the saints happy, so it should make them humble. Mercy is not the fruit of our goodness, but the fruit of God’s goodness. Mercy is an alms that God bestows. They have no cause to be proud that live upon the alms of God’s mercy. ‘If I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head,’ Job x 15: all my righteousness is the effect of God’s mercy, therefore I will be humble and will not lift up my head. (Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity (Banner of Truth, 1978), p. 94, quoted by Rev. G. B. MacDonald, “The Mercy of God—A Quote from Thomas Watson,” Sydney FP Church Blog, February 17, 2018, retrieved from https://sydneyfpchurch.wordpress.com/2018/02/17/the-mercy-of-god-a-quote-from-thomas-watson/ at 11:07 AM on 2/23/18)
That’s the Catholic view exactly. So how can this view be categorized as a form of “justification by works” in such a way as to characterize it as a fundamental denial of the gospel of grace? Even if Catholics and Protestants disagree on some aspects of the doctrine of justification—particularly the question of imputation vs. infusion—why does this entail that the Catholic view is a denial of the essence of the gospel? Reformed Christians are used to having all sorts of disagreements with people without saying those people are denying the essential gospel. The Reformed disagree with Baptists over infant baptism. They disagree with Episcopalians over church government. They disagree with each other over such things as whether or not hymns should be sung in worship rather than psalms only. I could go on and on. So even if there is a genuine disagreement with Catholics here, why does this disagreement entail that Catholics don’t have the gospel at all, when they affirm that we are made right with God solely as an unmerited gift of grace through the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ? Isn’t this at least the core essence of the gospel of justification by faith through grace, even if Catholics don’t get the doctrine right in every aspect?
Secondly, how much do Catholics and Protestants really disagree, even in the area of imputation vs. infusion? There certainly seems to be a disagreement. The language is certainly different. But how much of the difference is only in wording and formulation as opposed to real substance? For one thing, although Catholics don’t typically use this language, their doctrine is certainly able to embrace the idea that we are justified by Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. The concept of imputation refers to our legal status. It also relates to the concept of ownership. Since Christ’s righteousness belongs to him essentially and not to us, it only becomes ours by being given to us as a gift. He has to declare it to be ours, or credit it to our account, before we can say it is ours. (Think of how transfer of ownership of a house or a car involves a declaration of a change of legal status.) Even if we go on to add that Christ’s righteousness also comes to be within us (and of course, the language of “Christ in us” is very biblical) and manifests itself in our own holiness of life and our good works, yet it remains ours by imputation, because for all eternity it will only be ours because God freely gave it to us.
For another thing, although Reformed Christians want to say that it is only the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that makes us right with God and not at all any righteousness infused within us by grace, yet they also strongly assert the necessity of internal sanctification and good works. As I said earlier, they are not antinomians. Well, what is the purpose of sanctification? Is it not necessary because God could not find us morally acceptable to stand before him unless not only our status but our actual internal condition is changed? Could we stand before God in perfect acceptance if we were unchanged inwardly? If we could be left in an unregenerate, unsanctified state, at fundamental moral enmity with God, for all eternity, and yet be justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, would that justification be enough to remove the displeasure of God against our condition? Would it not be unfitting for a holy God to treat unregenerate, unrepentant rebels against himself as if they were wholly pleasing children through all eternity? Picture an unrepentant sinner standing before God and spitting in his face, and in response, God smiles and says, “I find nothing morally objectionable about you at all! I’m perfectly pleased with you. Your presence gives me nothing but delight, and there is nothing morally unfitting at all about our relationship.” Surely this situation would be absurd. Reformed Christians will object and say, “But that is not our view! We recognize the necessity of sanctification!” Yes, you do, and that is precisely my point. You recognize as well as I do that God could not find totally morally acceptable a person who has not been inwardly transformed by his grace. We may be justified entirely by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, but if that righteousness does not also bear its fruit within us by sanctifying us, it cannot bring about fully our reconciliation with God. Christ’s righteousness is fully sufficient, but it cannot have its full effect of making us entirely morally acceptable to God and fully fit to stand before him unless it is not only legally credited to our account but also comes to dwell within us, changing us and making us holy. A snow-covered dunghill isn’t enough. God, being absolutely holy and omniscient, cannot ignore the dung underneath, and our reconciliation with him cannot be fully actualized or realized unless the dung is not only covered but actually removed or transformed. This is not merely a side issue to our being made right with God (or the actualization of our being made right with God); it is an essential component of it. That’s what Catholics are trying to say when they include sanctification in the definition of justification. They are not denying that we are justified only by Christ’s righteousness. They are not trying to mix in our righteousness with Christ’s. They are not denying the reality of imputation (that is, that we are justified by a righteousness not ours credited to us as a free gift). They are not denying the utter graciousness of our salvation. All they are doing is recognizing that the process of our being made right with God cannot exclude the moral transformation of sanctification. So is this really a problem? Don’t Protestants agree? Do they really want to say that God has no moral concern regarding our inward moral condition, that he finds equally morally pleasing and acceptable to himself (so long as we think of both as having an imputed righteousness) an unregenerate God-hater and a perfectly sanctified saint? If Protestants recognize that moral transformation is essential, could we perhaps see the Catholic-Protestant difference on imputation vs. infusion to be more of a language and articulation issue rather than a fundamental difference in substantial beliefs? Both sides agree that we are justified solely by the righteousness of Christ and not by our own righteousness. Both sides believe that that righteousness is given to us, credited to our account, as a free gift. Both sides agree that that gift is not complete or fully actualized and realized until righteousness is not only credited to our account but actually bears its fruit within us by making us inwardly holy. So if one side wants to use the term “justification” to refer only to the imputation component and “sanctification” to refer to the transformation component, and the other side includes both components under the term “justification” and uses the terms “justification” and “sanctification” as near synonyms, might this be more of a difference in systematic theological terminology than a difference in the fundamental substance of what is being affirmed? And if so, then is there really a basis here to say that Catholics deny the essence of the gospel?
Here is an analysis of Romans 1-8 on the doctrine of justification. Here is an article making a biblical case for the Catholic, Augustinian doctrine of justification, contrasting it with the Protestant doctrine. (I think we can portray these doctrines as conflicting, but we can also see them as harmonious, depending on how we interpret the Protestant view. Here is a discussion on that.)
Merit
"But," responds the Protestant critic, "the Catholic Church teaches that we can merit God's salvation! Listen to the words of the Council of Trent (the council of the Catholic Church that responded to the Protestant Reformation):
For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting. (J. Waterworth, tr., The Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumenical Council of Trent, Sixth Session [London: Dolman, 1848], p. 43, "Scanned by Hanover College students in 1995," Hanover Historical Texts Project, Hanover College, retrieved from https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html at 9:51 PM on 2/23/18)
Or listen to the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2009, retrieved from the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm at 9:57 PM on 2/23/18 [footnote removed])
You see how crystal clear it is that Catholics teach we can merit salvation and eternal life?"
The Catholic Church has indeed used the term "merit" to refer to the worthiness of the holiness produced in us by God's grace to receive God's favor. The idea of "merit" is simply "fitness." If a matter is important, we say it "merits" our attention--that is, it is important enough to be worth our attention, it would be unfitting for us not to give it our attention.
The holiness God has given to us as a free gift is indeed worthy of God's pleasure and praise. This shouldn't be surprising, because it is his own work in us! Do we think that the work of God's own Spirit would not be worthy of God's pleasure and approbation? God loves holiness and hates sin. If we are holy, by his grace, our condition warrants God's favorable response. If we are in a state of sin, our condition warrants God's displeasure.
However, this does not imply that we ourselves have earned God's favor. Remember, our holiness is a gift of grace to us. It is not something we have produced for ourselves out of our own resources. Therefore, we cannot boast in it. It is not that we earn God's favor by our works. It is rather that the work of God's Spirit in us, given to us as a gift of grace, merits God's favor and makes us fit for eternal life with God. The Council of Trent put this very beautifully:
Neither is this to be omitted,-that although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good works, that Christ promises, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, shall not lose his reward; and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits. (Council of Trent, Sixth Session (page number removed), pp. 43-44, retrieved at 2:04 PM on 2/24/18
The Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes the same point:
With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.
The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. . . .
The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. . . .
The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2007-2011 [footnotes and section number headings removed], retrieved at 2:05 PM on 2/24/18)
The Bible teaches quite plainly that, at the Day of Judgment, we will be judged according to our works.
Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad (1 Corinthians 5:9-10).
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works (Revelation 20:12-13).
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be (Revelation 22:12).
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works (Matthew 16:27).
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:28-29).
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting (Galatians 6:7-8).
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile (Romans 2:5-10).
What is this biblical doctrine saying except that, at the Day of Judgment, God will treat every person's moral condition, judged by his moral output, according to what it deserves (merits)? How does this fit in with justification by grace through faith? It fits perfectly, because the holiness of life that merits God's favor at the Day of Judgment is nothing other than the gift of God's grace to us, purchased for us by the sacrifice and merits of Christ.
But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me (1 Corinthians 15:10).
The great Doctor of the Church (called by the Church the “Doctor of Grace”) St. Augustine commented on this harmony in his Treatise on Grace and Free Will:
And hence there arises no small question, which must be solved by the Lord's gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: "Then He shall reward every man according to his works:" how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously, as the apostle himself tells us: "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt;" and again: "There is a remnant saved according to the election of grace;" with these words immediately subjoined: "And if of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace"? How, then, is eternal life by grace, when it is received from works? . . .
This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, . . . It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God's grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward;--grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God "shall reward every man according to his works." (St. Augustine, “On Grace and Free Will,” chapter 20 [footnotes removed]. Translated by Peter Holmes and Robert Ernest Wallis, and revised by Benjamin B. Warfield, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 5, edited by Philip Schaff [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887], retrieved from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library website, Calvin College, at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.txt at 2:30 PM on 2/24/18)
But what about priests, penance, purgatory, indulgences, and all of that sort of thing?
Priests and Priesthood
Since the days of the early Fathers, elders ("presbyters" in Greek) in the Church have been called "priests." This bothered Protestants at the time of the Reformation, and they therefore abolished this usage. Having read the previous section, you can guess why. To call Christian elders "priests" seemed to them to take away from the unique priesthood of Christ and to revive the Old Testament priesthood abolished in the New Testament. There was also a fear that Catholic doctrine makes Christian priests intermediaries in a way that is dishonoring to Christ as the "one mediator between God and man" (1 Timothy 2:5).
But these concerns are unnecessary. Christian elders have not been called priests as rivals to Christ as the one High Priest in the ultimate sense. Christian priests do not accomplish our redemption by offering themselves up to death for our sins. They are not the ones who overcome our sins and bridge the gap between fallen humans and God. Only Christ can do this. Christian priests are called priests because they offer up to God on behalf of the congregation the Eucharistic sacrifice (see previous section) and because they represent God to the people in various ways (especially in ministering the sacraments).
The Bible often speaks of the ministerial role of the apostles and leaders of the Church (and of Christians in general towards each other and towards the world). Christ is the one ultimate Mediator, but this does not preclude that Christ uses lesser intermediaries to communicate with his people, to represent himself, to give grace, to govern his people, to evangelize the world, etc.
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me (Matthew 10:40).
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 (Matthew 18:18).
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).
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20).
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).
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins (James 5:14-20).
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Timothy 2:1-6).
Whenever you pray for another person, you become a mediator and an intercessor between that person and God. You are not the Savior of that person. You did not provide an atonement to cleanse their sins. But Christ makes use of you as a means to give his blessings to others. Many times we receive blessings because people pray for us. Though God does not need us, he gives us the privilege of being "co-workers with God" (1 Corinthians 3:9). And God uses the leaders of the Church in special ways as well to represent him, to mediate his presence and grace to his people. I am reminded of the recommended words for pastors when administering communion in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, as I, ministering in his name, give this bread to you. . . .
In the same manner, our Savior also took the cup, and having given thanks as has been done in his name, he gave it to his disciples, as I ministering in his name give this cup to you. (Orthodox Presbyterian Church, "Directory for the Public Worship of God," III.C.6, The Book of Church Order of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church [Willow Grove, PA: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2015], retrieved from https://opc.org/BCO/DPW.html at 2:31 PM on 2/27/18)
Does this Orthodox Presbyterian formula make pastors rival mediators with Christ? No, of course not. And neither does Catholic doctrine. If I grant the privilege to someone to represent me, I do not therefore make that person a rival to me—otherwise all ambassadors would be traitors to those who sent them.
Confession
The Sacrament of Confession is particularly difficult for some Protestants to swallow. In this sacrament, a person goes to the priest to confess sins. The Church requires all mortal sins to be confessed in this way and highly recommends the confession of venial sins. Upon hearing the confession, the priest will prescribe a penance to the person (see the next section for more on this) and then pronounce the absolution (that is, forgiveness) of his sins. Here is the formula of absolution in use in the Latin part of the Catholic Church:
God, the Father of mercies, through the death and the resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1449 [footnote removed and spacing altered], retrieved from the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm at 11:11 AM on 2/28/18)
Sin injures our relationship with God and therefore also our relationship with God’s people. The purpose of the Sacrament of Confession is to help God’s people get back on track and be reconciled to God and to the Church.
“But only God can forgive sins!” replies the Protestant critic. “Catholic doctrine blasphemes Christ by taking a power belonging only to him and giving it to the priests. The priests are taking the place of Christ as intermediaries between God and his people.” But this objection is false, because it is Christ who has delegated the authority to forgive sins in his name and to preside over the process of reconciliation to the pastors of the Church.
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 (Matthew 18:15-18).
It is not a coup against Christ to exercise the power that he himself has delegated. The priest is not forgiving sins by his own personal authority or in his own name; he is pronouncing forgiveness of sins in the name of Christ.
Again, many Protestants should be familiar with this sort of thing. Most Protestants don’t practice individual confession the way the Catholic Church does, but many recognize the authority granted to the pastors of the Church to act in Christ’s name with regard to receiving people into the Church, excommunicating them from the Church, and giving them various disciplinary sanctions (and restoring them from such sanctions). This is, in principle, the same basic idea.
The individual Christian has a direct relationship with God, and he should confess his sins directly to God and receive forgiveness from him. But, as in many other areas, in this area too God works through means. In addition to our direct relationship with God, we relate to God as part of the larger body of the Church and through the ministrations of the Church. We do not give ourselves Communion. We do not excommunicate ourselves or restore ourselves after being excommunicated. We do not declare ourselves to be our own pastors. Nor do we ignore the ministry of the Church when it comes to the confession of sins. In addition to confessing our sins directly to God, we also confess to the priest who is God’s representative. In addition to receiving forgiveness of our sins directly from God, we receive absolution through the ministry of the priests.
Penance
The Catholic Church distinguishes two aspects of sin and its consequences. She speaks of the eternal consequences of sin, and also of the temporal consequences of sin. If I turn away from God fundamentally and choose to live a life without supreme love to God and repentance, this “mortal” (i.e. “deadly”) state of sin leads to the eternal consequence of hell—eternal separation from God under his wrath. If I repent and turn back to seeking to follow Christ and to live a life of love to him, I am forgiven of my sin. I am no longer on the path to hell but am now on the path to heaven. However, although I am fundamentally in a right relationship with God, my relationship with God may not be perfect. I may have certain areas in my life that sinfully contradict my overall attitude of love to God—bad attitudes I haven’t quite let go of yet, smaller actions I know are wrong but can’t quite bring myself to face. And these remaining imperfections and also the past sins I have committed may leave lingering consequences. If I stole from someone in the past, I may still need to return what I stole. It may take time to rebuild relationships with people I have hurt. I may need to make up for my past bad actions in other ways. It may take time to learn good habits of turning away from even the little sins—I may need to undergo painful trials for my continuing sanctification. God may see fit to inflict various consequences on me for my past sins or present remaining imperfections (think of David losing his child after being forgiven for his repented-of acts of adultery and murder in 2 Samuel 12:13-14).
All of these sorts of things Catholics call the temporal aspects or consequences of sin. Indeed, the path to heaven for redeemed sinners is a rocky one. Being redeemed is a painful process. It is not as though Christ suffered for us and so we have no suffering. Rather, as St. Paul said,
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together (Romans 8:16-17).
Catholics use the term penance to refer to actions we do in order to grow in sanctification, to learn to overcome sin, and to make up for the temporal effects of previous sins. The term making satisfaction is also used. Many Protestants will get their hackles up at this point. “How dare you say that we, by our actions, can make up or satisfy for our sins! Only Christ can satisfy for sin!” Yes, of course only Christ provides satisfaction for our sins in this ultimate sense of the idea. When Catholics talk about making up for or satisfying for our sins, they mean it in the way I described above—by the grace of God, living out the redemption purchased for us by Christ’s merits, we struggle forward for greater sanctification, learning to discipline ourselves, making up for the temporal consequences of our sins. We cannot save ourselves from hell. But, by the power of God’s grace, we can suffer with Christ in order to advance in our spiritual growth and in repairing the damage caused by our sins to ourselves, to others, to our relationships with others, etc. That’s what Catholics have in mind here.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).
When a person confesses his sins to the priest, the priest will typically give him a penance—something to do to further his spiritual growth, to make up for what he has done, to repair relationships, to express his repentance, etc.
Purgatory
Talk about raising Protestant hackles! This topic and the next one (indulgences) are certainly among the scariest ones from the perspective of most historic Protestants. But let’s see if they’re as scary up close as they appear from a superficial view at a distance.
Here’s the Catechism on purgatory:
All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1030-1031 [footnote and section number headings removed], retrieved from the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm at 12:16 PM on 2/28/18)
So the idea is that those who are saved but still have some things they need to deal with in terms of the temporal aspects of sins—consequences to undergo, bad attitudes to be purified of, etc.—when they die will deal with those things after death before entering heaven, so that when they enter heaven they will do so fully purified and fit for the enjoyment of God.
“But why should we need purgatory? Christ fully paid for our sins! It is finished! There should be no temporal consequences left to deal with!” Well, that’s just not the case. Christ did indeed fully pay for our sins, but in biblical Christianity that does not mean that we’re just saved in an instant—no sanctification, no trials, no need to make up for or repair any damage caused by sin. That’s not the way God designed the sanctification process to occur. Again, as St. Paul said, we must “suffer with Christ so that we might be glorified together with him.” It is not that there is anything lacking in Christ’s sacrifice, as if we, by our actions and sufferings, were adding to that sacrifice and making up for its deficiencies. It’s simply that God has chosen that Christ’s sacrifice be applied to our lives by means of a long and difficult process of sanctification. Our sufferings and penances are not intended to rival Christ’s sufferings. On the contrary, they are the fruit of Christ’s sufferings applied to our lives by the Holy Spirit. Once all of this is understood, I don’t see why the concept of purgatory should be scary at all. It’s simply the very same process of sanctification we all recognize from our lives in this world brought to completion after death and before we arrive in heaven.
“But purgatory is not in the Bible!” It isn’t?
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire (1 Corinthians 3:10-15).
There are those who are saved but who will arrive at the fullness of salvation only through a process of purification.
“But this passage of Scripture doesn’t refer to purgatory! I don’t see purgatory anywhere clearly in the Bible.” Who is it who has the right to authoritatively interpret and develop the implications of Scripture for God’s people? Is it the individual Christian using his fallible judgment, or is it the Church relying on the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit? The Church has derived the doctrine of purgatory from the deposit of divine revelation. The Protestant, relying only on the unbiblical notion of Sola Scriptura (following the traditions of men!), has no authority or basis to offer an alternative reading.
Indulgences
The doctrine of indulgences was the doctrine that set off the Protestant Reformation. It was the preaching of indulgences by Johann Tetzel that spurred on Martin Luther to write the famous Ninety-five Theses. Not surprisingly, therefore, Protestants have historically retained a strong aversion to this doctrine. But, again, let's look more closely at it and see if it's as scary as some people think.
Here is the Church's definition of an indulgence:
An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1471 [quotation marks and footnote removed], quoting the Apostolic Constitution Indulgentiarum Doctrina by Pope Paul VI [1967], retrieved from the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm at 8:26 PM on 3/2/18)
So here's the basic idea: Christ has authorized the Church to govern the people of God as they move along the path of sanctification, working out the fruit of God's grace in their lives. The Church is the agent which admonishes sinners, pronounces the forgiveness of sins, and prescribes penances in order to aid sanctification. The Church has the authorization both to prescribe penances as well as to lessen them or remit them if she deems it appropriate and prudent. When the Church authorizes the penances or temporal consequences of a person's sins to be remitted or lessened, this is called an indulgence. Indulgences can be partial or total (plenary)—that is, the Church can remit a part of the temporal consequences of a person's sins or all of the consequences.
An indulgence is granted by the Church in light of certain things a person might do, such as saying certain prayers, going to visit a holy place, reading Scripture, or any number of things. If a person does what is prescribed with the right attitude, the Church grants a lessening of the temporal penalties of sin to the person.
Indulgences are also granted in view of the merits of Christ. Jesus merited for us eternal life, and he has also merited for us all that is needed for our complete sanctification. He has authorized the Church to grant leniency to sinners when appropriate in light of his infinite merits.
Indulgences also take into account the merits of the saints. The Bible uses the term "saints" to refer to God's people, made holy by grace. There are many people who have lived lives of holiness through grace who have died and are now in heaven with Christ. These people lived lives that were pleasing to God, and they ask God to grant mercy to those still on earth (or in purgatory) to help them with the difficult process of sanctification. God authorizes the Church to grant indulgences to people in view of the prayers and pleasing lives of the saints. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16). God loves righteousness, and he is especially pleased to grant the requests of the righteous. Indulgences are one example of this.
Now let me give a concrete example to illustrate all of this: Bob is a follower of Christ. He has been converted by grace and truly loves God and seeks to do his will. He is in a right relationship with God. However, he is not perfect. He still sins, and he has sinned in the past. He thus has temporal consequences for those sins coming to him. He must face those consequences and work through them (suffering with Christ so as to be glorified with him) either in this life or in purgatory. Bob knows that God, in view of the merits of Christ and the saints, has authorized the Church to grant indulgences to people under certain conditions. Through things that penitent sinners can do, the temporal consequences of their sins can be lessened or eliminated. Bob decides to seek a plenary (total) indulgence—a complete remission of the temporal penalties of his sins. One thing the Church has said he can do is to pray through the Rosary (a particular, popular Catholic prayer form). In addition to doing this, he is also required to say some other prayers, go to Confession, and take Communion around the same time he prays the Rosary. He must also be free from all attachment to venial sin while doing these things. That is, he must not be holding onto an attachment to even small sins—such as improper attitudes, or small actions inconsistent with holy living. Of course, Bob will not be perfect in this life, but he can choose to fight against even his smaller sins rather than to refuse to face them or to coddle them. The Church says that if Bob does these things with the right attitude and intentions, he will receive a plenary indulgence and will be free of the temporal penalties owed to his sins (at least up to this point). If he dies right after doing this, he will go straight to heaven without going first to purgatory. Basically, taking into account the attitude and efforts of Bob in pursuing the indulgence (which attitude and efforts show Bob's serious pursuit of sanctification), and taking into account the infinite merit of Christ and the derived, grace-wrought merits of the saints, the Church appropriately grants to Bob the remission of the temporal penalties of his sins.
Note that even before Bob sought the indulgence, he was already forgiven of his sins. He was headed for heaven. He was free from the path of hell. With or without the indulgence, when Bob dies, he will die in friendship with God and will be set for heaven. Bob seeks the indulgence not to attain the forgiveness of his sins and freedom from hell but to lessen the temporal consequences of his sins—that is, to make the path to heaven he is already on smoother. Note also that Bob's actions and God's response to them are not something Bob has contributed from himself, as if his actions are a rival to the work of Christ. Bob's entire sanctification, from beginning to end, in both its eternal and temporal aspects, is a gift of God's free, unmerited grace alone. Everything good that Bob does is a product of God's grace—his choice to follow Christ, his repentance from sin, his good attitude and actions in seeking the indulgence, etc. Bob's sanctification and his efforts and progress towards that end are not things that Bob contributes of himself. They are the fruit of Christ's righteousness and satisfaction applied to Bob by the Holy Spirit, and thus part of the gift of grace God has given Bob.
Indulgences can be gained not only for oneself but for others. Just as we can pray for others, and God often grants blessings to others in response to our prayers, so if we seek to help others by gaining indulgences for them, God is pleased with this and will often help others, when appropriate as judged by his will, in view of what we have offered up to him on their behalf. This is yet another example of how, Christ being the one ultimate mediator who has gained salvation for us, God condescends to allow us to be co-workers with him and lesser intermediaries on behalf of each other.
See here for a family analogy I have used to help explain penance, purgatory, and indulgences.
While we're here, let's look at the doctrinal development of the concept of indulgences, just to illustrate that concept further.
The New Testament, of course, says nothing about indulgences. Nor do we read of them in the earliest Fathers. In fact, as the critic notes, we do not find them in their fully modern form until the High Middle Ages. However, the idea is latent in the understanding of penance and the Church's authority in matters of forgiveness of sins and penance that the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, derived from the revelation of Christ in the New Testament. And so we see that even before the full-blown modern concept of indulgences arose in the Church, earlier versions of the idea began to crop up even in the times of the early Fathers.
In the early Church, as is well known, Christians were grievously persecuted by the Roman Empire at various times. During these persecutions, many Christians fell away, giving in to the worship of false gods or other sins in order to save their lives. One of the biggest challenges faced by the early Church was the question of what to do with these lapsed Christians (the lapsi) when they repented and wanted to be received back into the Church. I won't go into this question now, but there were various positions taken by individuals in the early Church, some more, some less severe. The penitential practices of the early Church were often quite severe. It could often be years before a person who had committed serious sin could be received back into full communion; they would have to undergo a long period of penance first.
In the midst of all of this, there eventually developed ways in which these times of penance might sometimes be shortened and the temporal consequences of sins remitted or lessened, either by means of things the penitents themselves might do or (and this is particularly interesting) through the applications of the merits of the martyrs to the penitents. A practice arose in which the martyrs (or, more accurately, those who were about to be martyred) would write certificates (libelli pacis—“certificates of peace”) in which they authorized their sufferings and merits to be applied to the penitents in order to mitigate their sufferings. The bishops could then approve or apply these certificates as appropriate. Of course, we see here an embryonic version of the practice of indulgences.
The Catholic Encyclopedia discusses some of these early practices:
The lapsi were in the habit of seeking the intercession of the confessors, who were suffering for the Faith; and the latter would address to the bishop libelli pacis petitioning for the reconciliation of the apostates. The libelli were, however, more than mere recommendations to mercy; the confessors were understood to be petitioning that their own merits should be applied to the excommunicated, and procure them a remission of the temporal punishment due to their defection. And this indulgence was not simply a remission of the canonical penance; it was believed that it availed before God and remitted the temporal punishment that would otherwise be required after death (Cyprian, "De Lapsis", ad fin.). This custom does not seem to have been established in Rome, but it was particularly prevalent in Carthage, and was not unknown in Egypt and Asia Minor. Even in the time of Tertullian, the lapsi of Carthage were in the habit of thus appealing to the intercession of the confessors ("Ad Mart.", I; "De Pudicitia", xxii). (James Bridge, "Libellatici, Libelli," The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 9 [New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910], retrieved from the Catholic Answers website at https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/libelli-and-libellatici at 7:13 AM on 2/21/18)
After the persecutions had ceased, the penitential discipline remained in force, but greater leniency was shown in applying it. St. Cyprian himself was reproached for mitigating the "Evangelical severity" on which he at first insisted; to this he replied (Ep. lii) that such strictness was needful during the time of persecution not only to stimulate the faithful in the performance of penance, but also to quicken them for the glory of martyrdom; when, on the contrary, peace was secured to the Church, relaxation was necessary in order to prevent sinners from falling into despair and leading the life of pagans. In 380 St. Gregory of Nyssa (Ep. ad Letojum) declares that the penance should be shortened in the case of those who showed sincerity and zeal in performing it—"ut spatium canonibus praestitum possit contrahere" (can. xviii; cf. can. ix, vi, viii, xi, xiii, xix). In the same spirit, St. Basil (379), after prescribing more lenient treatment for various crimes, lays down the general principle that in all such cases it is not merely the duration of the penance that must be considered, but the way in which it is performed (Ep. ad Amphilochium, c. lxxxiv). Similar leniency is shown by various Councils—Ancyra (314), Laodicea (320), Nicaea (325), Arles (330). It became quite common during this period to favor those who were ill, and especially those who were in danger of death (see Amort, "Historia", 28 sq.). The ancient penitentials of Ireland and England, though exacting in regard to discipline, provide for relaxation in certain cases. St. Cummian, e.g., in his Penitential (seventh century), treating (cap. v) of the sin of robbery, prescribed that he who has often committed theft shall do penance for seven years or for such time as the priest may judge fit, must always be reconciled with him whom he has wronged, and make restitution proportioned to the injury, and thereby his penance shall be considerably shortened (multum breviabit poenitentiam ejus). But should he be unwilling or unable (to comply with these conditions), he must do penance for the whole time prescribed and in all its details. (Cf. Moran, "Essays on the Early Irish Church", Dublin, 1864, p. 259.) (William Kent, "Indulgences," The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7 [New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910], retrieved from the Catholic Answers website at https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/indulgences at 7:17 AM on 2/21/18)
Edgardo Mortara
Pastor Wallace brings up the case of Edgardo Mortara. You can read about the case in some detail here (I've not done my own research to verify everything that is said in the article, but, on a glance, it looks pretty thorough from what I do know).
It is true that the Catholic Church teaches that when a baby is baptized, he is regenerated by the Spirit. He also comes to be considered a member of the Church. The Church had developed through the ages a policy in which baptized persons are considered to have the rights of members of the Church. They are not considered the same as those outside of the Church. So, in the Middle Ages, for example, if a Jewish family, say, were to have a child, that child would not be considered to have the rights and responsibilities of a Catholic, and the Church would not see itself as having a responsibility to ensure the child's Catholic education, etc. But if a child is baptized, he becomes a member of the Church and thus the Church has responsibility to ensure his Catholic education.
This was the basis of Pope Pius IX's actions in the Mortara case. I understand why Pius IX did what he did. Edgardo Mortara himself seems to have come to wholeheartedly agree with Pius IX, as you can read about in the article. But this is a matter of potentially variable discipline, not unchangeable divine doctrine. The Church is free to reconsider whether her application of her discipline in such matters is adequate, and to change it if it is not. In such a case, therefore, Catholics are free to dispute whether the discipline of the Church is being applied in the right or best way. This is not an issue I have spent a lot of time thinking about, so I hesitate to be dogmatic; but my current thought is that I can't see how Pius's actions in the Mortara case are justifiable or make sense. Surely, it seems to me, in such a case, even though the child is baptized, the rights and responsibilities of his parents should have precedence over any responsibility the Church might have to give the child a Catholic education.
The Sacrifice of the Mass
Many Protestants object to the Catholic idea that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. "There is only one sacrifice which can take away sins," they say, "so the idea that the Eucharist is also a sacrifice that takes away sins is blasphemous towards the one sacrifice of Christ!"
Let's first get a clear understanding of what the Catholic doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass really is. As usual, the Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us a nice, succinct definition (this time quoting from the Council of Trent):
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1366 [footnotes removed], retrieved from the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm at 2:25 PM on 2/26/18)
So Catholic doctrine agrees (with both Protestants and with the Bible) that there is only one sacrifice that can take away sins—the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The Eucharist is not an additional sacrifice; rather, it is a ritual that makes present the fruit of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. In the Eucharist, Christ makes himself and the fruit of his sacrifice on the cross present to us, and we receive him and his grace when we partake of it. Also, in the Eucharist the Church offers up to God the one sacrifice of Christ, memorialized in the Eucharist.
The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: (Ibid., #1366)
The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X makes the same point:
Q. Is not the Sacrifice of the Cross the one only Sacrifice of the New Law?
A. The Sacrifice of the Cross is the one only Sacrifice of the New Law, inasmuch as through it Our Lord satisfied Divine Justice, acquired all the merits necessary to save us, and thus, on His part, fully accomplished our redemption. These merits, however, He applies to us through the means instituted by Him in His Church, among which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. (Pope St. Pius X, Catechism of Saint Pius X [1908], "The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass," Question 8, retrieved from the EWTN website at https://www.ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/PIUSXCAT.HTM at 9:32 PM on 2/26/18)
It is common in some Protestant (confessional Reformed, for example) circles to accuse the Catholic Church of teaching that in the sacrifice of the Mass Christ is re-sacrificed over and over again because his sacrifice on the cross was not sufficient. We can see that this is a false caricature of Catholic teaching. Evangelical Protestant theologian Gregg Allison recognizes this and calls on Protestants to cease to make this inaccurate claim:
Certainly, Jesus Christ as High Priest died on the cross once, and only once. Indeed, evangelical theology urges its adherents not to misunderstand Catholic theology on this point: Catholic theology does not teach that Christ is re-sacrificed each and every time the sacrament of the Eucharist is celebrated. Today, at a Catholic mass, Jesus is not dying for the 2,503,693,176th time. He died once, and both evangelical and Catholic theology affirm this truth. (Gregg R. Allison, Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014], 235)
Conclusion
And that's it! We've reached the end of the video. One more thing before I close. I would like to recommend the work of St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, who took up a mission to a Protestant area near Geneva in the late sixteenth century in an attempt to help bring the Calvinists there back to the Catholic faith. Here is the description of his mission from Catholic Online:
During the time of the Protestant reformation, Francis lived close to Calvinist territory. He decided he should lead an expedition to bring the 60,000 Calvinists back to the Catholic Church.
For three years, he trudged through the countryside, had doors slammed in his face and rocks thrown at him. In the bitter winters, his feet froze so badly they bled as he tramped through the snow.
Francis' unusual patience kept him working. No one would listen to him, no one would even open their door. So, Francis found a way to get under the door. He wrote out little pamphlets to explain true Catholic doctrine and slipped them under the doors. This is one of the first records we have of religious tracts being used to communicate the true Catholic faith to people who had fallen away from the Church.
The parents wouldn't come to him, so Francis went to the children. When the parents saw how kind he was as he played with the children, they began to talk to him.
By the time Francis returned home, it is believed he brought 40,000 people to the Catholic Church. . . .
In 1602, Bishop Granier died and Francis was consecrated Bishop of Geneva, although he continued to reside in Annecy. He only set foot in the city of Geneva twice -- once when the Pope sent him to try to convert Calvin's successor, Beza, and another when he traveled through it. ("St. Francis de Sales," Catholic Online, found here)
His tracts have been collected and made available in a book called
The Catholic Controversy. You can find it
here, or buy a hard copy online
here. His work does a superb job of hitting the nail on the head in terms of confronting the problems with the Protestant break with the Catholic Church. He is especially good at challenging the alleged authority of the Reformers to break with the Church and the viability of Sola Scriptura. He presents a clear call to Calvinists to come back home to the Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church. I highly recommend it.
I'll close with a couple of quotations, the first from St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the second from St. Augustine:
But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated. And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children. (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 18, section 26, translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894], revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Found at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310118.htm [with embedded links and added Scriptural references removed] at 11:12 AM on 8/13/15)
For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)— not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion. (St. Augustine, Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, Chapter 4, section 5, translated by Richard Stothert, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 4, edited by Philip Schaff [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887], revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Found at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm [with embedded links removed] at 11:15 AM on 8/13/15)
May God bless this response to all who read it, that it might help them to see more clearly the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church that Christ founded, so that they might embrace Christ and all that he has for us. Amen.
Published on the feast of Sts. Anthony Mary Zaccaria and Elizabeth of Portugal
Posts
