More from Charles Hodge on Accepting Catholics as Christians

That many Roman Catholics, past and present, are true Christians, is a palpable fact. It is a fact which no man can deny without committing a great sin. It is a sin against Christ not to acknowledge as true Christians those who bear his image, and whom He recognizes as his brethren. It is a sin also against ourselves. We are not born of God unless we love the children of God. If we hate and denounce those whom Christ loves as members of his own body, what are we? It is best to be found on the side of Christ, let what will happen. It is perfectly consistent, then, for a man to denounce the papacy as the man of sin, and yet rejoice in believing, and in openly acknowledging, that there are, and ever have been, many Romanists who are the true children of God.

That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think, plain. . . .  If this creed were submitted to any intelligent Christian without his knowing whence it came, could he hesitate to say that it was the creed of a Christian church? Could he deny that these are the very terms in which for ages the general faith of Christendom has been expressed? Could he, without renouncing the Bible, say that the sincere belief of these doctrines would not secure eternal life? Can any man take it upon himself in the sight of God, to assert there is not truth enough in the above summary to save the soul? If not, then a society professing that creed professes the true religion in the sense stated above.

--Charles Hodge

As I mentioned here, Charles Hodge, while being a great critic of the Catholic Church and Catholic doctrine, held that the Catholic Church is a part of the visible church of Christ.  In order to further illustrate Hodge's view of "Romanists" as Christians, I am collecting here a series of quotations which show Hodge's attitude.  You can see in these quotations both Hodge's antipathy to Catholicism as well as his recognition that the Catholic Church is part of the visible church of Christ and that there are brothers and sisters in Christ within it.  May Hodge's ability to be nuanced and careful and charitable in his approach to "Romanists" be a model to all of us in our dealings with those with whom we disagree.

This is just a sampling after about a half-an-hour of research.  There is, of course, much more out there that Hodge has said about "Romanists."  I'll continue to add quotations as I come across them in the future.  Keep in mind that many of these quotations are somewhat "by the way" in that they occur in the context of Hodge's discussion of other subjects.  See the links to find the larger context of each quotation.  Also, keep in mind that I do not, of course, necessarily agree with many of Hodge's characterizations of Catholic doctrine or his criticisms of Catholic doctrine.  But this is not the place to refute his errors in this regard.

The true method in theology requires that the facts of religious experience should be accepted as facts, and when duly authenticated by Scripture, be allowed to interpret the doctrinal statements of the Word of God. So legitimate and powerful is this inward teaching of the Spirit, that it is no uncommon thing to find men having two theologies, -- one of the intellect, and another of the heart. The one may find expression in creeds and systems of divinity, the other in their prayers and hymns. It would be safe for a man to resolve to admit into his theology nothing which is not sustained by the devotional writings of true Christians of every denomination. It would be easy to construct from such writings, received and sanctioned by Romanists, Lutherans, Reformed, and Remonstrants, a system of Pauline or Augustinian theology, such as would satisfy any intelligent and devout Calvinist in the world.  (Systematic Theology, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1940), pp. 16-17 [in the Hendrickson 2003 reprint], taken from the plain text version on the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.)

The first remark which suggests itself on the comparison of these several schemes is, that the relation between the believer and Christ is far more close, peculiar, and constant on the Protestant scheme than on any other. He is dependent on Him every hour; for the imputation of his righteousness; for the supplies of the Spirit of life; and for his care, guidance, and intercession. He must look to Him continually; and continually exercise faith in Him as an ever present Saviour in order to live. According to the other schemes, Christ has merely made the salvation of all men possible. There his work ended. According to Romanists, He has made it possible that God should give sanctifying grace in baptism; according to the Remonstrants, He has rendered it possible for Him to give sufficient grace to all men whereby to sanctify and save themselves. We are well aware that this is theory; that the true people of God, whether Romanists or Remonstrants, do not look on Christ thus as a Saviour afar off. They doubtless have the same exercises towards Him that their fellow believers have; nevertheless, such is the theory. The theory places a great gulf between the soul and Christ.  (Systematic Theology, Vol. III (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1940), pp. 193-194 [in the Hendrickson 2003 reprint], taken from the plain text version on the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.)

Fourthly, the Protestant doctrine is the only one on which the soul can live. This has been urged before when speaking of the work of Christ. It is fair to appeal from theology to hymnology from the head to the heart; from what man thinks to what God makes men feel. It is enough to say on this point, that Lutheran and Reformed Christians can find nowhere, out of the Bible, more clear, definite, soul-satisfying expression of their doctrinal views upon this subject, than are to be found in many, of the hymns of the Latin and Arminian churches.  (Ibid., 194-195)

As all denominations of Christians, Romanists and Protestants, are of one mind on this subject, it is matter of astonishment that these objectionable divorce laws are allowed to stand on the statute-books of so many of our states. This fact proves either that public attention has not to a sufficient degree been called to the subject, or that the public conscience is lamentably blinded or seared. The remedy is with the Church, which is the witness of God on earth, bound to testify to his truth and to uphold his law. If Christians, in their individual capacity and in their Church courts, would unite in their efforts to arouse and guide public sentiment on this subject, there is little doubt that these objectionable laws would be repealed.  (Ibid., 406)

Ritualism is a broad, smooth, and easy road to heaven, and is always crowded. It was much easier in Paul's time to be a Jew outwardly than to be one inwardly; and circumcision of the flesh was a slight matter when compared to the circumcision of the heart. A theory which allows a man to be religious, without being holy; to serve both God and mammon; to gain heaven without renouncing the world, will never fail to find numerous supporters. That there is such a theory: that it has prevailed extensively and influentially in the Church; and that it is prevalent over a large part of Christendom, cannot be disputed. It does not follow, however, that all who are called ritualists, or who in fact attribute undue importance to external rites, are mere formalists. Many of them are, no doubt, not only sincere, but spiritual Christian men. This is no proof that the system is not false and evil, All Protestants cheerfully admit that many Romanists are holy men; but they no less strenuously denounce Romanism as an apostasy from the pure Gospel.  (Ibid., 583)

Dr. John Henry Newman says, that if Protestants insist on making the Church of Rome Antichrist, they thereby make over all Roman Catholics, past and present, "to utter and hopeless perdition." [842] This does not follow. The Church of Rome is to be viewed under different aspects; as the papacy, an external organized hierarchy, with the pope, with all his arrogant claims, at its head; and also as a body of men professing certain religious doctrines. Much may be said of it in the one aspect, which is not true of it in the other. Much may be said of Russia as an empire that cannot be said of all Russians. At one time the first Napoleon was regarded by many as Antichrist; that did not involve the belief that all Frenchmen who acknowledged him as emperor, or all soldiers who followed him as their leader, were the sons of perdition. That many Roman Catholics, past and present, are true Christians, is a palpable fact. It is a fact which no man can deny without committing a great sin. It is a sin against Christ not to acknowledge as true Christians those who bear his image, and whom He recognizes as his brethren. It is a sin also against ourselves. We are not born of God unless we love the children of God. If we hate and denounce those whom Christ loves as members of his own body, what are we? It is best to be found on the side of Christ, let what will happen. It is perfectly consistent, then, for a man to denounce the papacy as the man of sin, and yet rejoice in believing, and in openly acknowledging, that there are, and ever have been, many Romanists who are the true children of God.  (Ibid., 822)

The whole system, so far as it is distinctive, is a system of falsehood, or false pretensions, supported by deceit.  [After the word "distinctive" in the text, there is this footnote:]  This qualification is necessary. Papists of course hold the truths of natural religion; and many of the distinguishing doctrines of the Gospel. This is to be acknowledged. We are not to deny that truth is truth, because held by Romanists; nor are we to deny, that where truth is, there may be its fruits. While condemning Papacy, Protestants can, and do joyfully admit that there are among Romanists such godly men as St. Bernard, Fénélon, and Pascal, and doubtless thousands more known only unto God.  (Ibid., 817)

By the Church doctrine [Hodge refers to the doctrine of the final judgment] is meant that doctrine which is held by the Church universal; by Romanists and Protestants in the West, and by the Greeks in the East. That doctrine includes the following points:  (Ibid., 845)

The doctrine of Romanists on this subject [that is, the subject of works not being the ground of justification] is much higher. Romanism retains the supernatural element of Christianity throughout. Indeed it is a matter of devout thankfulness to God that underneath the numerous grievous and destructive errors of the Romish Church, the great truths of the Gospel are preserved. The Trinity, the true divinity of Christ, the true doctrine concerning his person as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever; salvation through his blood, regeneration and sanctification through the almighty power of the Spirit, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life, are doctrines on which the people of God in that communion live, and which have produced such saintly men as St. Bernard, Fénélon, and doubtless thousands of others who are of the number of God's elect. Every true worshipper of Christ must in his heart recognize as a Christian brother, wherever he may be found, any one who loves, worships, and trusts the Lord Jesus Christ as God manifest in the flesh and the only Saviour of men. On the matter of justification the Romish theologians have marred and defaced the truth as they have almost all other doctrines pertaining to the mode in which the merits of Christ are made available to our salvation. They admit, indeed, that there is no good in fallen man; that he can merit nothing and claim nothing on the ground of anything he is or can do of himself. He is by nature dead in sin; and until made partaker of a new life by the supernatural power of the Holy Ghost, he can do nothing but sin. For Christ's sake, and only through his merits, as a matter of grace, this new life is imparted to the soul in regeneration (i.e., as Romanists teach, in baptism). As life expels death; as light banishes darkness, so the entrance of this new divine life into the soul expels sin (i.e., sinful habits), and brings forth the fruits of righteousness. Works done after regeneration have real merit, "meritum condigni," and are the ground of the second   justification the first justification consisting in making the soul inherently just by the infusion of righteousness. According to this view, we are not justified by works done before regeneration, but we are justified for gracious works, i.e., for works which spring from the principle of divine life infused into the heart. The whole ground of our acceptance with God is thus made to be what we are and what we do.  (Ibid., 135-136)

There is a fourth established meaning of the word church, which has more direct reference to the question before us. It often means an organized society professing the true religion, united for the purpose of worship and discipline, and subject to the same form of government and to some common tribunal. . . .  

All we contend for is that the church is the body of Christ, that those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells are members of that body; and consequently that whenever we have evidence of the presence of the Spirit, there we have evidence of the presence of the church. And if these evidences occur in a society professing certain doctrines by which men are thus born unto God, it is God’s own testimony that such society is still a part of the visible church. It strikes us as one of the greatest absurdities of Ritualism, whether among Romanists or Anglicans, that it sets up a definition of the church, not at all commensurate with its actual and obvious extent. What more glaring absurdity can be uttered than that the Episcopal church in this country is here the only church, when nine tenths of the true religion of the country exists without its pale. It may be man’s church, but God’s church is much wider. Wherever, therefore, there is a society professing truth, by which men are actually born unto God, that society is within the definition of the church given in our standards, and if as a society, it is united under one tribunal for church purposes, it is itself a church. 

The next step in the argument is, of course, the consideration of the question, whether the church of Rome comes within the definition, the correctness of which we have endeavored to establish? It was very common with the reformers and their successors to distinguish between the papacy, and the body of people professing Christianity under its dominion. When, by the church of Rome they meant the papacy, the denounced it as the mystical Babylon, and synagogue of Satan; when they meant by it the people, considered as a community professing the essential doctrines of the gospel, they admitted it to be a church. This distinction is natural and just, though it imposes the necessity of affirming and denying the same proposition. If by the church of Rome, you mean one thing, it is not a church; if you mean another, it is a church. People will not trouble themselves, however, with such distinctions, though they often unconsciously make them, and are forced to act upon them. Thus by the word England, we sometimes mean the country, sometimes the government, and sometimes the people. If we mean by it the government, we may say (in reference to some periods of its history), that it is unjust, cruel, persecuting, rapacious, opposed to Christ and his kingdom: when these things could not be said with truth of the people [4]. 

Though we regard the above distinction as sound, and though we can see no more real contradiction in saying Rome is a church, and is not a church, than in saying a man is mortal and yet immortal, spiritual yet carnal, a child of God yet sold under sin; yet as the distinction is not necessary for the sake either of truth or perspicuity, we do not intend to avail ourselves of it. All that we have to beg is, that brethren would not quote against us the sweeping declarations and denunciations of our Protestant fore-fathers against popery as the man of sin, antichrist, the mystical Babylon, and synagogue of Satan, as proof of our departure from the Protestant faith. In all those denunciations we could consistently join; just as our fathers, as Professor Thornwell acknowledges, while uttering those denunciations, still admitted Rome, in one sense, to be a church. Our present object is to enquire whether the church of Rome, taking the term as Bishop Sanderson says, Conjunctim pro toto aggregato, just as we take the term, church of England, falls within the definition of a church given above. . . . 

That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think, plain. 1. Because they believe the Scriptures to be the word of God. 2. They direct that the Scriptures should be understood and received as they were understood by the Christian Fathers. 3. They receive the three general creeds of the church, the Apostle’s, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, or as these are summed up in the creed of Pius V. 4. They believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. In one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. And the third day rose again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And they believe in one catholic apostolic church. They acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, and look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. 

If this creed were submitted to any intelligent Christian without his knowing whence it came, could he hesitate to say that it was the creed of a Christian church? Could he deny that these are the very terms in which for ages the general faith of Christendom has been expressed? Could he, without renouncing the Bible, say that the sincere belief of these doctrines would not secure eternal life? Can any man take it upon himself in the sight of God, to assert there is not truth enough in the above summary to save the soul? If not, then a society professing that creed professes the true religion in the sense stated above. 5. We argue from the acknowledged fact that God has always had, still has, and is to have a people in that church until its final destruction; just as he had in the midst of corrupt and apostate Israel. We admit that Rome has grievously apostatized from the faith, the order and the worship of the church; that she has introduced a multitude of false doctrines, a corrupt and superstitious and even idolatrous worship, and a most oppressive and cruel government; but since as a society she still retains the profession of saving doctrines, and as in point of fact, by those doctrines men are born unto God and nurtured for heaven, we dare not deny that she is still a part of the visible church. We consider such a denial a direct contradiction of the Bible, and of the facts of God’s providence. It was within the limits of the church the great anti-christian power was to arise; it was in the church the man of sin was to exalt himself; and it was over the church he was to exercise his baneful and cruel power.  (From Is the Church of Rome a Part of the Visible Church?)

Published (at least the first part) on the feast of St. Teresa of Avila.

Presbyterian Theologian Charles Hodge on Accepting Catholics as Christians

That many Roman Catholics, past and present, are true Christians, is a palpable fact. It is a fact which no man can deny without committing a great sin. It is a sin against Christ not to acknowledge as true Christians those who bear his image, and whom He recognizes as his brethren. It is a sin also against ourselves. We are not born of God unless we love the children of God. If we hate and denounce those whom Christ loves as members of his own body, what are we? It is best to be found on the side of Christ, let what will happen. It is perfectly consistent, then, for a man to denounce the papacy as the man of sin, and yet rejoice in believing, and in openly acknowledging, that there are, and ever have been, many Romanists who are the true children of God.

That Romanists as a society profess the true religion, meaning thereby the essential doctrines of the gospel, those doctrines which if truly believed will save the soul, is, as we think, plain. . . .  If this creed were submitted to any intelligent Christian without his knowing whence it came, could he hesitate to say that it was the creed of a Christian church? Could he deny that these are the very terms in which for ages the general faith of Christendom has been expressed? Could he, without renouncing the Bible, say that the sincere belief of these doctrines would not secure eternal life? Can any man take it upon himself in the sight of God, to assert there is not truth enough in the above summary to save the soul? If not, then a society professing that creed professes the true religion in the sense stated above.

--Charles Hodge

The great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge held the view that the Roman Catholic Church is a part of the visible church of Christ.  (You can read his statement and argument for this position here.)

What does it mean for a church to be part of the "visible church of Christ"?  What is the "visible church"?  Hodge's terminology traces back to classic Protestant usage, and particularly to the classic Presbyterian statement of doctrine, the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Here is how the Confession describes the invisible church and the visible church:

1. The catholic or universal Church which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all. 

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. 

3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto. 

4. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. 

5. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will.  (Westminster Confession, Chapter 25)

The "visible church" is the true church of Christ as far as it can be seen in this world.  It is "the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God."  Its members are "all those who profess the true religion" as well as "their children."  The visible church has the institutions and authority of Christ to do the work of his church.  There are visible churches that are more pure, and some that are less pure.  Hodge regarded the Catholic Church as a much less pure church, but still a part of the visible church.  The alternative to being a visible church is being a synagogue of Satan.  (Consistent with this view of the Catholic Church, according to this source Hodge argued that it was better to support the building of Catholic churches in areas where there was no other church than to have no church at all.)

When Pope Pius IX invited Protestants to sit in on the first Vatican Council (1869-1870), Hodge wrote a letter to him explaining why the American Presbyterian churches must decline the invitation.  Most of the letter consists of criticism of Catholic doctrine and arguments for the Protestant view.  But Hodge ends his letter in an interesting way:

Other and equally cogent reasons might be assigned why we cannot with a good conscience be represented in the proposed Council. But as the Council of Trent, whose canons are still in force, pronounces all accursed who hold the principles above enumerated, nothing further is necessary to show that our declining your invitation is a matter of necessity. 

Nevertheless, although we cannot return to the fellowship of the Church of Rome, we desire to live in charity with all men. We love all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We regard as Christian brethren all who worship, love and obey him as their God and Saviour, and we hope to be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth in saying, ‘Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen’ (Rev. 1:6).

My family and I are on track to become members in full communion with the Catholic Church this coming March.  According to Hodge, once we do so, we will be members of the visible church of Christ, professors of the true religion, brothers and sisters in Christ (at least insofar as such a thing appears outwardly).  I hope that all our Protestant friends and acquaintances will view us and treat us as such, following Hodge.  And I hope in general that Hodge's attitude will continue to spread among Protestants.

ADDENDUM 10/14/15:  Someone wrote to me and offered a criticism of my post:

You are misrepresenting the teachings of Hodge in your latest post.  Your quotes are selective and ignore his clear charges against Rome.  It is one thing to recognize Roman Catholic baptism; it is something altogether different to respect your purposeful abandonment of truth for the superstitions and corruptions of Rome.  You have no basis for arguing that he would accept your embrace of Rome. 

I have no desire to debate anything with you, but I think your post would be more honest if you included Hodge's statement in the same context: "We admit that Rome has grievously apostatized from the faith, the order and the worship of the church; that she has introduced a multitude of false doctrines, a corrupt and superstitious and even idolatrous worship, and a most oppressive and cruel government. . ."

There is no doubt that Hodge was no fan of Roman Catholicism.  I didn't ignore that fact in my post.  I indicated that, according to the Westminster Confession, "[t]here are visible churches that are more pure, and some that are less pure.  Hodge regarded the Catholic Church as a much less pure church, but still a part of the visible church."  I indicated that Hodge spent most of his letter to Pope Pius IX in "criticism of Catholic doctrine and arguments for the Protestant view."  I provided links for those who would wish to read more of what Hodge has said on these matters.

The quotation my correspondent gave above is from the article I linked to in the very second sentence of my post.  Notice the dot dot dot at the end of my correspondent's quotation?  I think it might be instructive to provide the rest of Hodge's sentence (and the next subsequent sentence):

We admit that Rome has grievously apostatized from the faith, the order and the worship of the church; that she has introduced a multitude of false doctrines, a corrupt and superstitious and even idolatrous worship, and a most oppressive and cruel government; but since as a society she still retains the profession of saving doctrines, and as in point of fact, by those doctrines men are born unto God and nurtured for heaven, we dare not deny that she is still a part of the visible church. We consider such a denial a direct contradiction of the Bible, and of the facts of God’s providence.

What my correspondent would see as two contradicting truths are for Hodge complementary truths.  You can read his article for his whole case.  There is no doubt that Hodge was a great opponent of Catholic doctrine.  In fact, I'll go one step further and point out that (unlike my correspondent) Hodge held the view of the Westminster Confession that the papacy is the biblical Antichrist.  But for Hodge, this doesn't imply that the Catholic Church is not part of the visible church.  Rather the contrary.  Hodge actually argues in favor of the Catholic Church being a part of the visible church from the doctrine that the papacy is Antichrist:  "It was within the limits of the church the great anti-christian power was to arise; it was in the church the man of sin was to exalt himself; and it was over the church he was to exercise his baneful and cruel power."

So no, if you want to go to Hodge to find approval of Roman Catholic doctrine, you are not going to find it there.  But what you will find there is the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is a part of the visible church.  In fact, pointing out the strength of Hodge's antipathy to Roman Catholic doctrine makes that point stronger.  Hodge provides a good model of how we can be nuanced in dealing with people with whom we strongly disagree.  Hodge put it this way (in the last paragraph of his article):

[I]t is said we give up too much to the papists if we admit Romanists to be in the church. To this we answer, Every false position is a weak position. The cause of truth suffers in no way more than from identifying it with error, which is always done when its friends advocate it on false principles. When one says, we favor intemperance, unless we say that the use of intoxicating liquors is sinful; another, that we favor slavery, unless we say slaveholding is a sin; and a third, that we favor popery unless we say the church of Rome is no church, they all, as it seems to us, make the same mistake, and greatly injure the cause in which they are engaged.

ADDENDUM 10/15/15:  I have created a new post containing other quotations from Charles Hodge regarding "Romanists" and the Catholic Church being Christian.  It is here.

ADDENDUM 7/19/2016:  As of this past March, we are members in full communion with the Catholic Church--and therefore, according to Hodge, of the visible church, "the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God."

Correcting a Somewhat Distorted Picture

Jason Wallace, our former OPC pastor, thinks I'm very dangerous--before because of my views on the FPCS and my attempts to join an FPCS in Texas, and now because of our conversion to Catholicism.  As a result, he feels a need to warn people about me.  Unfortunately, he seems to think that in order to do this he must discredit me by trying to paint a picture of me as unreliable, and in order to do this he has tended oftentimes to present a distorted picture of my attitudes, beliefs, and actions, and of various historical events (though I do not mean to imply that he has done so intentionally or with bad motives--for all I know, he believes his statements not to be distortions).  Although I get tired of correcting these distorted pictures, I feel that I ought to do it to some degree.

He has done it again recently on his Facebook page, in response to my Facebook announcement of our Catholic conversion.  So what I'll do is paste his comments below, with my own comments (clarifications, corrections, addition of important material) interspersed through them.

I don't really like talking about these things.  I would much rather let the past go.  But I do feel a need to deal with this at least a little bit.  I suppose that Jason will continue to feel a need to present such distorted pictures of me for the rest of his life (unless, as I pray, he comes to see the wrongness of what he is doing), and I cannot correct them all.  So let me make a necessary more general observation:  Over the entire history of our conflict with Jason over these matters, I have observed repeatedly that he has exhibited a tendency to convey a distorted picture of myself and of the situation.  Sometimes he uses words that convey a false impression; sometimes he leaves out important bits of information; sometimes his descriptions lack important nuances; etc.  As I said above, he seems to feel a need to present a negative picture of me in order to warn people away from me, and the result is that instead of simply providing an objective picture of what happened or of his views or of my views, he shapes his narrative into a form that tries to portray me as a negative character.  This makes the whole thing regrettably personal, when really there is no need that it should be.  For me, it is not.  It is really about what the evidence says.

The lesson?  CAVEAT EMPTOR.  Check things out with the other side before you believe what somebody says, especially when it is about other people.  Gossip is a dangerous thing.  (This applies to what I say as well, of course.)  With this general comment, hopefully I will not need to continue to pursue all that Jason will choose to say about me in the future, trusting more in the ability and willingness of his hearers to avoid receiving an evil report without checking it out first.

With that said, here's my commentary on what Jason has said:

For those who have seen Mark Hausam's announcement of becoming Roman Catholic, the elders of Christ Presbyterian Church specifically predicted this last year.  Yes, they did, and they were right.  I suppose it is quite common for people who really try to follow Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion to find out its problems and be directed towards Catholicism or Orthodoxy. We had tried to tell Mark that he did not understand sola scriptura and was moving into an untenable situation.  The only problem here is that I do understand Sola Scriptura. He had no problem with leaving us to join a church that excommunicated women for wearing makeup and pants, but was apparently shocked when they wanted him to give up fiction.  This is misleading.  The issues here are complicated.  In short, I felt that the FPCS had the best claim to being the right denomination to join.  I knew they had positions that were more "conservative," for lack of a better word, than I myself would lean to, in a number of areas, but I felt that I ought not to break from them for another denomination unless they went so far as to have their requirements require sin.  Regarding the fiction issue (see here where I discuss this further in the context of my doctrinal trajectory over the years and my move to Catholicism), the FPCS has no official position on this.  One elder in Santa Fe suggested to us that reading fiction would be a problem for having our child baptized.  There are no doubt others in the FPCS who agree with him, but there are also those who don't.  I had come to understand a good deal about FPCS culture, and I knew that there wasn't a strong chance of having trouble with them in this area.  It was, indeed, truly surprising that we did run into trouble with that one elder over it--it wasn't that I was just stupid, as Jason's account suggests.  Other FPCSers have found this one elder's position surprising or problematic as well.  Also, it should be noted, as I have elsewhere, that the fiction issue was merely a catalyst that prompted a reexamination of Sola Scriptura.  It was not a major factor at all in our ultimate decision to become Catholic.  Mark was arrogantly insisting that even though only a couple of people in the world were supporting his ideas, if people were reasonable they would have to agree with him. Hmm. . . I don't recall ever saying that anybody who is reasonable must agree with me.  I did think I was right, but I always acknowledged that these are complicated issues and that intelligent people of good will can disagree about them.  It is not accurate to say that only a "couple" of people agreed with me.  As I was formulating and arguing for these matters over the years, I interacted with a number of people in the FPCS, and none of those I interacted with ever told me that my theology of church relations was wrong, and a number of them confirmed it.  I admit, however, that there were few people willing to come out and make a lot of explicit support for what I was explicitly trying to argue for (and a couple at times counseled me to stay, for the time being, in the OPC).  This raises a question:  How many people have to agree with you before it is no longer "arrogant" to hold a position?  Was Martin Luther arrogant when he asserted Sola Scriptura in opposition to 1500 years of universal (or very nearly universal) Christian belief to the contrary?  The only people I can think of who might have held Luther's view before Luther were perhaps Wycliffe and some of his followers.  Maybe Jan Hus, I'm not sure.  Perhaps some few others.  Over against the rest of Christendom.  Luther, at the Diet of Worms, said that he would not follow popes or councils, but would only go with his own interpretations of Scripture or reason.  Was this arrogant?  Is it arrogant to go against an established view--whether in theology, or philosophy, or science, or whatever?  Most of what I was arguing for were principles agreed upon by all Presbyterians during earlier periods of history--such as the 1600s.  I wrote an entire book to document this.  At the very least, then, it should be admitted that these issues are quite complicated.  To dismiss me as arrogant in this way is, I think, a bit lacking both in nuance and in proper charity (at least in action, if not in motive).  We told him that since he seemed unwilling to back up from his errors we feared that he would overreact and become Roman Catholic.  Is my conversion to Catholicism an "overreaction"?  How, exactly?  Could it be that it is the result of learning and growing in my understanding, as I think it is? He laughed at us  I have no memory of laughing at them.  That meeting was quite intense (I assume he is talking here about the meeting he mentions explicitly just below).  I certainly didn't feel like laughing.  I rather felt concerned to try to be calm, friendly, and congenial as much as I could.  But more on this in a moment. and quoted Martin Luther's "Here I Stand" speech to us last October when he demanded his family be erased from the rolls of the church.  Some context would be helpful here.  This meeting was the meeting where the OPC session declared that I and my family had "relinquished all rights to be considered Christians" for seeking to join the FPCS in Texas.  (This is described more here.)  They also banned us from attending Christ OPC so long as we held our views and talked to other people (any other people in the world) about them.  And this was after a good bit of previous conflict, in which I tried very hard to get the session to be what I saw as more reasonable in its dealings with us.  Our preference was to not have a dramatic break with the OPC.  But Jason and the session saw us as too dangerous for that.  So we had this meeting at the end of it all, and it was a very tense meeting.  I brought a friend along just for emotional support, because I really hate interpersonal conflict.  I tend to internalize people's attitudes towards me, and I didn't want to get too angry and blow up at them or something (I had blown up at Jason a few years earlier when the conflict had begun).  What I tried to do in this meeting was to remain calm, explain my positions carefully and in a nuanced way once again, work for a peaceful resolution, etc.  I believe I remained quite calm through the whole thing.  At the end, after pronouncing their sentence upon us, Jason said melodramatically, "May God have mercy on your soul!"  Well, since we were onto the melodramatic thing, I responded by saying, "Here I stand.  I can do no other."  Jason replied, "But you're tearing the church apart!"  And I said, "That's what the Romanists said."  (Now I realize that, by following Sola Scriptura, I was indeed tearing the church apart, as also all Protestantism has done for 500 years.  So Jason was right about that.)  One more thing:  I "demanded" that my family be erased from the roles.  What that means is that I said that that is what we wanted, given the options available to us according to the session's ultimatums.  I guess the word "demanded" is meant here to further the impression that I was aggressive and arrogant, or something.   Unfortunately, we have been proven correct. Yes, that is true.  They were correct that we have moved towards the Catholic Church.  Of course, the reasons they think we have done this are different the reasons we think we have done this. Our continued warnings have fallen on deaf ears and been rejected.  Translation:  "We disagreed with him." The man who denounced the pope as the antichrist a year ago is now calling him "holy father."  That is true.  I guess it is possible to learn in life.  (I've noticed that a lot of people I've talked to seem to think that the mere fact that I've changed my mind on some things is somehow a damning indictment in itself.  I guess "progress" isn't a word in some people's vocabulary.  If everyone in the 1500s had felt this way, ironically, there would have been no Protestant Reformation.) Please join us in praying for the Hausam family's repentance.  Yes, please do, if you think we need it.

ADDENDUM:  Jason Wallace just sent me a message:

If you're truly concerned about accuracy, you need to be clear that you were insisting on publicly declaring us "idolatrous" and "schismatic," and calling people to renounce their membership in our congregation.

See here for an example of what I was actually saying with regarding to the schism issue.  I was indeed discussing these views publicly, mostly by writing on my blog.  I had avoided bringing up these issues to most of the OPC congregation while we were there (so as not to cause unnecessary confusion or difficulties), so that hardly any of them knew anything about it until after we had that meeting where the OPC session banned us from attending, etc.  More about what we were actually doing is discussed here.  I did use the word "schismatic," but in a very carefully defined and nuanced way, as you can see from looking at actual statements.  (Notice that Jason doesn't like to give actual quotations.  Of course, if he did, he would probably take them out of context, etc.  Sigh.)

Regarding whether people should leave Christ OPC, I never told anyone in the congregation that they should leave Christ OPC.  I did, however, discuss the question of the appropriateness of remaining in schismatic denominations on my blog and perhaps elsewhere from time to time.  See here for an example of this.

Regarding calling the OPC "idolatrous," I don't remember ever using that word in anything I ever said or wrote.  What I preferred to say is that the OPC, by allowing the singing of hymns and some other things, was violating the regulative principle of worship, as would be the view of all Exclusive Psalmody churches and even various well-respected people within the OPC, such as G. I. Williamson.  The only time I remember acknowledging the word "idolatrous" was when Jason tried to press me on the point.  He asked me if I claimed the OPC to be "idolatrous."  I responded that while I believed that the OPC was violating the regulative principle, which is a sin listed under the Second Commandment in the Westminster Catechisms and is thus in a broad sense a form of "idolatry," I did not like the word because it gives the impression that the OPC is doing something worse than it is, like worshipping a golden calf or something like that.  I said I thought of the OPC more like the overall good kings of Judah who obeyed God but "didn't destroy the high places"--a more balanced attitude.  As I recall, Jason kept pressing me, so finally I granted that the word "idolatrous" could be used theoretically for reasons I just mentioned, but that I didn't think I'd ever used it or that I would be likely to use it, at least not without much clarification.  He decided this was sufficient to say I was declaring them "idolatrous."

"They Have So Much Confusion, They Must Be Wrong, Right?" - A Criticism of a Common Argument I've Heard Catholics Make Against Sola Scriptura

If one is familiar with Catholic apologetics, particularly apologetics against Protestantism, one often encounters an argument that goes something like this:

It is obvious that Sola Scriptura doesn't work.  I mean, look at all those Protestant denominations out there!  There are tons of them!  If Sola Scriptura worked, there wouldn't be so much division.  Obviously, the idea of everyone interpreting the Bible for himself is a failure.  We clearly need the infallible guidance of the Catholic Church to get the Bible right.

I have a problem with this argument, and the problem is one I have addressed elsewhere in a more general way.  I call this argument the Good and Intelligent People Disagree Argument (or GIPD, for short).  There are two basic problems with it (I deal with these problems even more thoroughly in the linked article):  1. It just isn't the case that disagreement on an issue must indicate a lack of sufficiently available evidence or a lack of sufficient means to know something.  2. If this argument is a good one, it is just as much a problem for Catholics as it is for Protestants.

1. It isn't the case that disagreement is always indicative of lack of evidence.  In the case of interpreting the Bible, it could be that there is enough objective evidence available to interpret the Bible rightly in a Sola Scriptura sort of way, but the evidence is just hard enough to get at that people who don't put in the necessary effort or care are prone to getting it wrong.  And people can get confused sometimes, even when they are trying hard.  Just because people get confused, it doesn't necessarily prove that something cannot be understood--even if lots of people get confused.  People get confused about all sorts of things.  I've personally encountered many people who get confused about self-evident or logically certain things like whether one can prove conclusively that 2+2=4, or whether logic applies to all reality, or whether things that come into being must have causes, or whether something must either "exist" or "not exist" and there is no third possibility, etc., etc.  When something is not right in front of us in an empirical sort of way, when it is more abstract and requires more careful and disciplined attention, we are more likely to find confusion.  This doesn't prove we can't know the truth in that matter.

And the argument fails to consider biases people have.  Perhaps there are lots of different biblical interpretations not because it is impossible to understand the Bible aright but because people tend to approach the Bible with pre-conceived ideas as to what it must mean, what it can't mean, etc.  People are often very personally (and not always rationally) motivated to hold certain positions and avoid others in religious matters.  Sometimes coming to a certain conclusion would mean social upheaval for a person.  Sometimes it would be very uncomfortable.  Sometimes it would require certain lifestyle choices that are seen as absurd and/or undesirable.  Sometimes people are biased by cultural or family upbringing.  Etc., etc.

So it just isn't the case that even widespread confusion proves a lack of available evidence or proves that something cannot be understood in a certain way.

2. If GIPD is a good argument against Sola Scriptura, Catholics are in a lot of trouble too!  Listen to this argument:

It's obvious that no one can really know that Catholicism is the true religion.  I mean, look at all the religious disagreement out there!  If we could know what the true religion is, there wouldn't be so much disagreement!  This proves that we all ought really to be Agnostic until we really know something more definitely.

I submit that if the earlier argument against Sola Scriptura is a good one, so is this one against Catholicism and for Agnosticism.  It's the same argument--"There is disagreement.  Disagreement shows that something can't be known.  So we can't know what there is disagreement about."  In the earlier anti-Protestant argument, the idea is that no one can really know (using Sola Scriptura, without the Church's infallible guidance) what the Bible teaches, and we can tell this because people using Sola Scriptura can't agree.  In the latter argument, the idea is that we really can't know which religion (if any) is true, and we can tell this because all the people of the world examining the available evidence in such matters have been unable to agree.  So the available evidence must not be sufficient to determine the matter, so we should be Agnostic.  But I don't think this is a good argument for Agnosticism, and for the same reasons I don't think this is a good argument against Sola Scriptura.

Now, let me add that I do in fact think that there are serious problems with Sola Scriptura.  More particularly, I do think that the Bible alone, without further infallible guidance, provides insufficient means for deciding between controverted denominational teachings.  I think this because, upon examination, it seems to me that there is simply not enough evidence in the Bible to decide all sorts of things that Christians need to know.  For example, the Bible simply doesn't give us enough information, I think, to decide what to do about infants and baptism (unless we add in extra-biblical assumptions--but if we do that, we have to justify them on grounds outside of the Bible, and I don't think we can do this with the assumptions we need).  We can guess at what, say, Paul would have said if we could have asked him about it.  But we really don't have enough information to know with any significant degree of confidence what he would say based on what he has actually said.  (Baptists and Paedobaptists, of course, will have responses to what I've just said, but this is not the place to get into this more fully.)  But notice that my argument here against Sola Scriptura is not based merely on the fact that people trying to use it disagree, but on a substantial examination of what the Bible actually says.  I think that, perhaps, sometimes Catholic apologists have good reasons to oppose Sola Scriptura but mix those good reasons up with not-so-good ones.  You can see how it would be easy to do this.  "Sola Scriptura is not feasible, because it doesn't provide enough information to decide important issues.  Because it is not feasible, people using it aren't able to agree.  Therefore, their disagreement is evidence of Sola Scriptura's non-feasibility."  The fallacy here is that while it is true that widespread Protestant disagreement should be seen as a symptom of Sola Scriptura's non-feasibility, it is not the case that this means that widespread Protestant disagreement by itself proves Sola Scriptura's non-feasibility, as if there couldn't possibly be any other explanation for such disagreement worth considering.

ADDENDUM:  Here's an article raising some similar issues from an Eastern Orthodox point of view.

ADDENDUM 3/6/24:  In another article, I've discussed another reason why Sola Scriptura naturally tends to lead to division:

For one thing, even if Scripture is perfectly plain and clear in its teachings, the lack of a human supreme doctrinal court tends to contribute to a significant amount of anarchy and division among Protestants.  It is evident why that would be the case, when we understand human nature.  A church may have come to the correct understanding of Scripture, and enshrined that understanding in their confession of faith.  A church member comes along and opposes that teaching.  The church attempts to discipline that member, but the member says, "I have the right and duty to conduct my own investigation into the meaning of Scripture.  I have done so, and I find your interpretation incorrect.  So, since Scripture is a higher standard, a higher court of appeal, than you are, and since you disagree with Scripture, I have a right and a duty to refuse to submit to your discipline and to continue to promote what I see Scripture as teaching.  We must obey God rather than men."  There is no human court to which both sides in this dispute can turn to adjudicate this difference over the proper interpretation of Scripture, so this controversy must end at an impasse, practically speaking, unless one side changes their view.  The two sides will go their separate ways, both insisting that they are right because they are in accord with the true supreme standard--the Scriptures.

Here is a statement of this problem coming, not from a Catholic, but from an Atheist Libertarian author:

The likelihood of conflicting interpretations of special revelation did not pose as much of a theoretical problem for Catholics as it did for Protestants. In the Catholic Church the pope was the ultimate arbiter of doctrinal controversies. His function was rather like that of the Supreme Court in American law; what the pope said was final, and that was the end of the matter (at least in theory). But Protestants, in rejecting papal authority and in maintaining that each person should use his or her own conscience to understand Scripture, generated a serious problem for themselves. Hundreds of Protestant sects arose, and their conflicting interpretations of the Bible frequently spilled over into politics. Thus Catholic critics of Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers were basically correct when they predicted that the Protestant approach to the Bible would result in a type of religious anarchy, as each individual viewed himself as the supreme authority in religious matters. Reverting to my previous analogy, the result was similar to what would happen if America had no Supreme Court, or judicial system of any kind, and each American was free to interpret and implement law according to his own judgment.

What's in a Name?

If the early church fathers were suddenly picked up out of their own times (when they were alive) and dropped into our time, what would be the first question they would ask in order to find out where the true church is in our time?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Augustine give us one possible answer to that question (embedded links and added biblical references removed):

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) 

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)

While the name "Christian" distinguishes the true religion from false religion, so the name "Catholic" came to distinguish orthodox Christianity from heterodox Christianity.  Interesting!

The Infallibility of the Church

There is sometimes some confusion with regard to how the Catholic Church's infallibility works, so I thought I'd try to provide a summary and some helpful resources for understanding it better.  Actually, the doctrine in general is not that terribly complicated, but it can come to seem so because the Catholic Church is so precise in its language and definitions (which is a good thing!) and because a lot of people have said inaccurate things about it, muddying the waters.

My Summary

Let me first provide a brief summary of the doctrine in my own words, and then I'll paste some quotations and links to show the foundations of my summary.  I'm not going to try to incorporate every single detail that could be elaborated upon in my summary, but only summarize the main body of the idea of infallibility in the Church.

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

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

The short of it is that what the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches is to be received as reliable and followed accordingly.  We can see that one popular idea about the Church's infallibility is quite wrong--the idea that Catholics are only obliged to accept a teaching of the Church if it is proposed by a Pope in a definitive, formal, ex cathedra statement.  Catholics are not at liberty to ignore or reject any teaching on doctrine or morality given to them by the Church.

Quotations and References

One of the most complete and helpful statements on this subject given by the Church recently is found in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, section 25:

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. 

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*) 

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*) 

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416 

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417 

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms: 

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421 

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

In the document Humani Generis, section 20, Pope Pius XII warns against those who would ignore the ordinary teaching authority of the Church:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Further helpful information regarding the Church's understanding of her own infallibility can be found in this document, written up by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which contains further elaborations on what sort of assent is required to the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Fr. John Trigilio has provided a helpful summary of the various categories mentioned in the document here.  [This last link is broken, but what appears to be the same, basic article, under the name of Colin B. Donovan, can be found here.]

The Code of Canon Law also provides a helpful summary of the Church's teaching on these matters.

Finally, this article provides text from some documents which show how the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium of the Church has been exercised in practice regarding the issue of women's ordination.

For more, see here.

Thomists, Molinists, and Calvinists - Oh My!

[NOTE:  Due to further research, I am reconsidering the view of Molinism presented in the following article.  I am no longer convinced that Molinism is contrary to the fundamental Augustinian viewpoint also affirmed by the Dominicans.  See here for more.  Also, see here for a more up-to-date version of my view of predestination, etc., in the Catholic Church, and here for an overview of the Catholic doctrine of salvation in general.]

I wrote up a brief statement outlining some of the central ideas in the Catholic doctrine of salvation:

Adam and Eve, at their creation, were given a supernatural gift of grace (original holiness and justice/righteousness) by which they were able to love God supremely and obey him. However, they were tempted and fell into sin, rebelling against God, preferring their own ways to him. As a result of this, Adam and Eve entered into a state of mortal sin, which consisted of the guilt of their rebellion and consequent desert of eternal damnation, as well as a new fallen condition in which, without a new grace given, they would be unable to love God supremely and would forever prefer inferior goods to him. Their basic human constitution (consisting of natural human characteristics such as reason and will) were not destroyed by their fall, but their faculties were bent away from God and their will became inclined to sin. Since their will was not destroyed, they were still responsible for their choices, but they were so bent towards sin that they would never be able to be reconciled to God or turn back to him as their chief good (and nor would they be able to overcome the other effects of sin, such as alienation within themselves and with others and with the rest of creation) without new grace from God. Nothing in their human nature, without grace, could at all remedy this situation. 

When Adam sinned, he lost his state of original justice and holiness and entered into a fallen condition, but his sin did not affect him alone. As father of the human race, his fallen condition was passed down from him to all his natural descendants. As a result, all humans are naturally conceived and born in a state deprived of original justice and holiness and subject to all the disorders this state naturally brings. Because of the fact that this fallen condition inevitably (without grace) inclines to sin and damnation, it came to be called the state of "original sin." In those (such as very young children) who are incapable of engaging in moral activity of their own (due to lack of ability to reason abstractly, etc.), this fallen condition does not result in personal sin and guilt immediately (because they are not capable of it), but it will inevitably lead to a personal state of mortal sin once an adequate capacity to reason and engage in moral actions develops (such as when children reach such a capable age). Thus, we can distinguish between "original sin" which is the condition that leads to sin and "personal sin" which inevitably results from it in those capable of such. As a result of the Fall, then, grace aside, all human beings who have reached the age of reason and personal moral actions are in a state of mortal sin that it is impossible they should emerge from and which will lead inevitably to eternal damnation (the worst part of which consists of the infinite loss of God and his blessedness and the fullness of misery that accompanies this). 

This fallen condition can only be overcome by the supernatural grace of God, merited by the sacrifice and righteousness of Christ and applied by the Holy Spirit. God offers his grace to all men, and so all are without excuse for not turning back to God in reliance on that grace, and yet no one will ever have the will to turn back unless they are moved by grace to do so. When God's grace converts a soul (looking specifically at the soul of an adult), he applies actual grace to the will, turning it back to God so that the person comes to repent of his sins, love God above all else for who he is, and sincerely and fully receive Christ and his mercy. Thus, moved by grace, the convert leaves his state of mortal sin and enters into a state of grace, into a state of forgiveness of sins and holiness. While this transition occurs by means of cooperation between God's grace and the man's will, yet the entire transition, including man's very change of will, must be ultimately attributed to the grace of God, for man's good will is itself a result of grace and without grace man can do nothing. There are some to whom God gives grace only temporarily, without the gift of final perseverance, and so they only taste of Christ temporarily and do not ultimately attain to eternal salvation. But to God's elect, chosen from eternity, God gives the fullness of his grace, including the gift of final perseverance and the full fruition of eternal salvation in the enjoyment of God. God's grace also often works on infants, who are rescued from original sin (though the inclination to sin is not wholly removed from them, or from adults in this life) and restored to a state of justice, though the personal moral fruits of this will only appear later in life. 

In the next life, the saved will be fully purified of all sin permanently, but in this life Christians still must struggle by the power of grace against their remaining inclination to sin, and they often fall into various sins. Sometimes God allows them to fall out of a state of grace entirely (mortal sins), and then moves them by his grace to restoration. Other times he allows them to fall into sin to a lesser degree, such that while they experience a sinful disorder it is not to the extent that it disrupts or destroys their overall relationship of love to God (venial sins). All sin by nature is in opposition to God and its natural fruit is alienation from God and misery, and yet not all sins are such as to remove one from a habitual state of grace. (To use an analogy, think of the difference between a fatal infection and a non-fatal infection. By its very nature, all infection tends to death, but not all infection actually infests the body in such a way as to bring destruction to the body overall and therefore bring death.) 

God's grace works above and beyond his sacraments (such as his prevenient grace that moves the will to resort to the sacraments in the first place), and yet God's habitual communion with his people takes place (ordinarily) not in a condition of isolation from Christ's church but in communion with the rest of it and through the reception of the sacraments. For example, when a person is moved by grace to repent and turn to Christ, his reconciliation with Christ is liturgically enacted in his baptism (or in the Sacrament of Reconciliation if he has already been baptized). This is not to say that the grace of God is tied to the sacraments--for example, a person who has turned to God and desires baptism but is not able to receive baptism (perhaps he dies before this is possible, or he is kept from it by some external obstacle) is still saved by the grace and Spirit of God (this is usually called "the baptism of desire")--but that God's grace and his communion with man is ordinarily facilitated largely through the sacraments. 

Along with the eternal consequences of sin and grace, such as eternal damnation and its forgiveness and the fundamental conversion of the soul, we must also take into account temporal consequences of sin and grace. Those who are forgiven of their sins and have entered a state of grace are not always necessarily freed from all the temporal consequences of their sins, and God's grace works not only to grant eternal salvation but also to wean man from sin through various trials and penances in this life (and also oftentimes in purgatory after death, which completes the purification of the regenerated soul so that he is fully fit for the full enjoyment of God). 

Those who belong to the Augustinian and Thomist traditions within the Catholic Church go on to develop what they see as certain biblical and logical implications of the above doctrines: If the converted man's good will is entirely the result of God's grace, so that God works in us "both to will and to do" his good pleasure, then it follows that those who have come to God have done so because they have been given a special grace not given to those who refuse to come to Christ. And those who persevere to the end must likewise have been given a special grace that is not given to those who fail to persevere. Thus we must distinguish between the sufficient grace given to all men (which makes men inexcusable for not turning to Christ in reliance on his grace but which does not in itself turn man from sin to God) and the special efficacious grace which, of its own efficacy, actually turns men to God. From all eternity, God has chosen some out of the mass of fallen humanity to bring to eternal salvation. These are not chosen for any goodness they have over and above the rest, but solely by God's good pleasure and mercy. To these elect, God has chosen freely to give the efficacious graces that will lead not only to conversion but also to eternal salvation. To the rest, the reprobate, God has chosen to pass over them and not give them all the same graces (which is not unjust, for no one deserves these graces; they are an unmerited, gratuitous gift), and therefore they do not actually come to Christ, or, if they do temporarily, they do not persevere to the end. All of this follows from the fact that God's grace is the ultimate source of all good in man, and it also follows from the full sovereignty of God over all the creation, both fundamental doctrines of the Catholic faith.

The last paragraph alludes to a controversy between a couple of different schools of opinion in the Catholic Church regarding the doctrines of predestination and efficacious grace.  One of the schools (and I'm defining "schools" broadly here) is the Augustinian/Thomistic school, whose view is described in the paragraph above.  The other school is the Jesuit/Molinist school, whose views on predestination and efficacious grace are similar to those of the Arminian Protestant school.  I talked a bit about the relationship between these two schools and how the Catholic Church has dealt with this controversy here:

The RC church is absolutely clear on the core of the gospel. Particularly, as part of this, the church affirms two things (among other things): 1. Free will. That is, the existence of true, voluntary choice, including in connection with salvation and damnation. 2. The absolute graciousness of salvation. Even the response of faith in the gospel is explicitly affirmed to be a work of grace in the heart. There is nothing we have that we have not received. (See, for example, here, and throughout this section of the Catechism.) The church allows both the Jesuit and the Augustinian positions on predestination and grace to be held by people in the church, and for people on both sides to argue with each other and support their own system, but they cannot deny these core elements of the gospel. The Jesuits think (wrongly) that the Augustinian position, taken to its logical conclusion, destroys free will. The Augustinians think (rightly) that the Jesuit position, taken to its logical conclusion, destroys the graciousness of salvation (and the supremacy and sovereignty of God, another point affirmed clearly by the RC church). Looking at things from the Augustinian point of view (that is, the right point of view), what the church has done is allow people who are confused on predestination and efficacious grace to continue to live in the church, but it does not allow them to affirm the full logical consequences of their position, thus showing care and charity for individuals while maintaining the graciousness of the gospel and the sovereignty of God. Looking at things from the Jesuit point of view (that is, the wrong point of view), the church has likewise shown charity and tender care by allowing those confused Augustinians to continue to live in the church while forbidding them to take their position to its logical conclusions, thus preserving the doctrine of the true voluntariness of human actions, including in connection with receiving or rejecting the gospel. If the RC church condemned the Jesuit view, the Jesuits would be forced to conclude, looking at things from their theological perspective, that the church had condemned voluntary human agency. If the RC church condemned the Augustinian view, the Augustinians would conclude that in rejecting these ideas logically bound up with and implied in the gospel, the church had rejected the gospel (and they would be right). So the church balances the purity of the gospel with charity towards individuals.

If you want to read more about the basic Catholic doctrine of salvation from official Catholic sources, see especially here, here, and here.

If you want to see something on the Thomist view of efficacious grace from a Thomist, see here and here.  You can read more of the complete book here, or find it here.  (Father Garrigou-Lagrange gives a good description of some of the history of the church's dealings with predestination, efficacious grace, etc., in these chapters and in his whole book as well.)

In this article, Jimmy Akin does a good job showing how much of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace can find a home in the Catholic Church.

Finally, in this lecture (don't miss where you can click to download the mp3s), Professor Lawrence Feingold does a good job discussing the controversy between the Thomists and the Molinists (though be aware that he writes from a Molinist point of view).  The text of (I believe) the same talk can be found here.  See here and here for a couple more good articles from Fr. John Harden on the controversy (he too seems to be a Molinist or close to it in his views).  The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on the controversy here.

ADDENDUM 7/28/15:  I have the impression (new to the Catholic Church though I am) that a lot of Catholics do not have a clear awareness of the Thomist/Augustinian position within their church, and they sometimes describe what sounds something like the Molinist position as if it were THE official Catholic point of view.  They condemn as "Calvinist heresy" ideas that Thomists/Augustinians hold as well.  Related to this, I think a lot of Catholics, even Thomists/Augustinians, have a somewhat distorted view of what Calvinism is.  They paint it as fatalistic, denying free will, etc., when Calvinism at its best is not that way I think (and I was a Calvinist for around eighteen years, so it's possible I might know something about it :-) ).  There are certainly Calvinists who are that way, but that is not the mainstream Calvinism I came to know.  I think we need to work on creating a more charitable, accurate understanding of Calvinism in the Catholic community (as Jimmy Akin has done in the article linked to above).

ADDENDUM 7/28/15:  I thought I'd paste a couple of selections (with footnotes added into the text itself) from Fr. Hardon's summary (from here) of how the controversy has been decided (thus far) by the Holy See and thus what the current official attitude towards the various parties is:

Representatives for the two orders met before the papal commission in the Congregation De Auxiliis, so called because the auxiliary function of grace was under dispute. Three series of meetings were held between 1597 and 1607. In the first series, the decisions were highly critical of Molina and the Jesuits, urging the Pope to condemn their teaching. The final process was conducted under Paul V who dissolved the Congregation on September 5, 1607. His decision was to leave the final judgment to the Holy See while enjoining charity on the contending parties.

The De Auxiliis was unique in theological history. Each debate lasted several hours. At the first meeting, Alvarez (Dominican) and Valencia (Jesuit) disputed for a full four hours. The report for July 27, 1602, states that the disputation lasted uninterruptedly for seven hours on end. Sixty-eight distinct meetings took place under Clement VIII; at thirty-seven of these the theologians disputed, while the cardinals and consultors deliberated at the others. All told eighty-five congregations were held under Clement VIII and Paul V. What raised these discussions to a historic level was the personal assistance of the Pope at the various meetings, and the sincere effort made by the Holy See to settle the issue in one or the other direction, while finally deciding, in the words of Paul V, that “in treating of this question, neither side may condemn the position opposite to his own or charge it with any censure. Even more he desires that they abstain from using harsh epithets that betray animus towards one another.” [3--DS 1997.] . . .

When Benedict XIII in 1727 reconfirmed the privileges of the Order of Preachers, he forbade anyone to say that the doctrine of St. Thomas or his school was impugned by the condemnation of Jansenism. He than added that, “having discovered the mind of our predecessors, We do not wish either by our own or their praises conferred on the Thomistic school, which we approve and confirm by our repeated judgment, that there be any disparagement of the other Catholic schools which think differently from the same in explaining the efficacy of divine grace, and whose merits are also clear to the Holy See.” [6--Ibid.] He renewed the decrees of Paul V and forbade anyone “to brand with any mark of theological censure the schools that have different opinions” from the Thomistic position.

His successor, Benedict XIV, in 1748 came to the defense of the Molinists in a detailed statement to the Grand Inquisitor of Spain. It is the latest, authoritative declaration on the subject, which briefly summarizes the various schools of thought permissible in Catholic theology on the efficacy of grace.

You know there are manifold opinions in the schools on the famous questions about predestination and grace, and on the manner of reconciling human liberty with the omnipotence of God. The Thomists are said to be destroyers of human liberty and followers not only of Jansenism but of Calvinism. However, since they meet the charges with eminent satisfaction, and since their opinion has never been condemned by the Holy See, the Thomists carry on without hindrance in this matter, and it is not right for any ecclesiastical superior in the present state of affairs to force them to change their opinion.

The Augustinians are reported as the followers of du Bay and of Jansenism. They represent themselves as defenders of human liberty, and strenuously answer their critics. Since their opinion, too, has not been condemned by the Holy See, no effort should therefore be made to compel them to give up their theory.

The followers of Molina and Suarez are condemned by their adversaries as Semi-Pelagians. But the Roman Pontiffs have not passed judgment on the Molinist system, which they presently defend and may continue to do so. [7--DS 2564.]

ADDENDUM 10/15/15:  See here for another post which discusses further the relationship of Catholicism to Calvinism and some of these other issues.

ADDENDUM 1/18/16:  See the comment section in this article for further discussion of the toleration of both Molinists and Augustinians/Thomists in the Catholic Church.  Let me here very briefly clarify that the Catholic Church has not formally approved either the Augustinian/Thomist nor the Molinist theological positions.  It has simply refrained, until now, from passing judgment one way or the other on them.  If the Church ever positively approved Molinism, that would be a serious problem for me, for it would logically imply an endorsement of the logical implications of that system (which I hold to be evidently contrary to the core of Christianity and to reason).  As it is, Augustinians cannot usurp the Church's authority and take the initiative personally to formally condemn Molinism as heresy and eject Molinists from the Church (nor would we all necessarily wish to do so or think this the best or right course of action), but we are free to point out what we see as the truth that Molinism, taken to its logical conclusions, implies heresy and a denial of the core of the gospel, and to affirm that the Church's official theology, taken to its logical conclusions and applied to this matter, excludes these logical conclusions of Molinism.