Presumptuous Is As Presumptuous Does

Pride

As my recent series on “Common Ground?” has demonstrated, Protestants and Catholics disagree on a great deal. Even when we use the same terminology, we oftentimes use those terms differently. Yet there are scores of issues upon which Protestants and Catholics truly agree. We agree, for example, on the necessity of being born again. We agree that we are saved by grace through faith. We agree that Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, true God and true Man. We agree on the subject of His Virgin Birth, His bodily resurrection and on the fact that He is coming again. We agree that the Bible is the infallible word of God. There are also those in-between subjects, the ones we can agree on in a certain sense, yet profoundly disagree upon at a deeper level. We agree that Jesus established His Church, yet we can’t agree on whether or not to capitalize the “c” in that word – is His “church” merely a body of believers called out from the world by God to live as His people under the authority of Jesus Christ, or is His “Church” also the “universal sacrament of salvation”? You’d certainly get some discussion going on that issue. We agree that Christians are Christ’s body, yet the Catholic understanding of that body as the Church Militant, Church Suffering, and Church Triumphant, with all that the “communion of saints” then entails, gives many Protestants the willies; they find it presumptuous of us to flesh out those doctrines to such an extent. “Presumption,” too, is an issue Protestants and Catholics agree on in one sense – we all believe that it is very wrong to be presumptuous (i.e., audacious, brazen, impertinent, cocky), especially when you are being presumptuous in matters of faith – yet when you get down to the details of that issue, our understanding could not be more different.

Protestants make no attempt to hide the fact that they find the Catholic Church to be somewhat lacking in humility. They find the Catholic Church presumptuous, for example, when she claims that the Holy Father, the pope, can teach infallibly. How can a sinful man claim to be so perfect that he can teach infallibly? How presumptuous to claim that your Church is led by some semi-divine bloke who never makes a mistake!! How awful to call a mere man “Holy Father!”

The Catholic answer to that is that it certainly would be offensively presumptuous to call a mere man “holy” if we meant by that what Protestants think we mean by that. It would be terrible to claim that a man could live without sinning, that he is “semi-divine” and never commits errors. That’s why we don’t do it.

Catholics call the pope “holy” because he is holy in one biblical sense of the word: Scripture speaks of “holy ground,” “the holy mountain,” “holy offerings,” “holy anointing oil,” “holy incense,” “the holy altar” – it even says that “Every cooking pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the LORD of hosts!” This sense of the word “holy” simply means “set apart.” If St. Paul advised the Colossians that they were “God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved,” then it’s not a far stretch to claim that the Pope, too, might legitimately be referred to as “Holy Father.” This in no way claims semi-divinity for him; it is simply a misunderstanding of terms on the part of Protestants. Catholics do not consider the pope to be incapable of making a mistake or incapable of sinning; that is simply not what the doctrine of papal infallibility teaches. Patrick Madrid, in his book Pope Fiction, explains it like this:

At this juncture, we should spell out exactly what papal infallibility is not. First, it doesn’t give the pope the answers to theological questions (as inspiration would), nor does infallibility guarantee that he will be proactive and teach what needs to be taught, when it should be taught, in the way it should be taught. Infallibility doesn’t mean that the pope is prompted by God to do or teach something. It doesn’t even guarantee that the pope, when he does teach, will be as effective or persuasive or clear as he should be in what he teaches. Papal infallibility guarantees none of these things. Rather, it is a guarantee that God the Holy Spirit will preserve the pope from formally teaching error.

Please note that this Catholic understanding of the doctrine of papal infallibility, far from being presumptuous, is actually a model of humility. We don’t believe that the Holy Father receives direct inspiration from God as the authors of Holy Scripture did. We don’t believe that the Holy Father will necessarily be a great evangelist, or teacher, or apologist. We don’t believe that the Holy Father will necessarily be kind, or good, or even smarter than the average bear. All that the doctrine of papal infallibility is claiming is that if the Holy Father is toying with the idea of formally teaching error as truth, or even if he is bound and determined to teach error as truth, God in His mercy will stop him. This is how Catholics know that they can rest easy, never awakening to find that a 2,000-year-old Church doctrine (like the universal condemnation of contraception as a sin and a crime against nature) has been overturned, as Protestants did in the 20^th century. The pope simply can’t overturn the constant teaching of the Church. The doctrine of papal infallibility, rather than granting the pope carte blanche, is severely limiting.

That really doesn’t say much about our Catholic confidence in the guy elected as the successor to Peter, and that’s the point. We are humbly recognizing the fact that human beings like the pope sin and err, yet Jesus PROMISED that “the gates of hell will not prevail” against His Church. Simply put, that means that He’s got to stop the Church from formally teaching error as truth, lest we fallible humans ruin the whole job. Praise God, He has remained faithful to His promise.

Well, it certainly is somewhat lacking in humility to claim to be able to make certain people into “saints” just because they advanced your cause! The Bible says that we are all saints, but the Catholic Church presumptuously claims to know who’s in Heaven and who isn’t!

Again, it would be presumptuous of the Church to claim that she can make or break saints! The process of canonization, though, is a process of discernment. In other words, the Church believes that God makes clear that miracles are being performed through the intercession of a given deceased person, indicating that that person is in the presence of God. The Church in no way “puts” the person in Heaven or “makes” that person a saint. She simply publicly declares what God has made evident: that that person is one of the saints in Heaven. The Church has never, on the other hand, publicly declared that any given person is not in Heaven, just as she has never taught that any given individual or group of individuals is in hell. She just doesn’t know those things.

Well, what’s more presumptuous than claiming that “the Church is the divinely appointed Custodian and Interpreter of the Bible”? That claim makes the church equal, if not superior, to Holy Scripture! Can the Catholic Church claim to possess even an ounce of humility if she continues to press this presumptuous claim??

Which is more presumptuous, to say “I can understand the Bible all by myself,” or “I need help! Lord, send me Your Church as you sent St. Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch, who in his humility insisted ‘How can I understand unless someone explains it to me?'” (Acts 8:31) You see, the Bible must be interpreted, and somebody’s got to do the interpreting. St. Philip didn’t lay hands on the eunuch and pray that God would explain the Scriptures to him – St. Philip, as a representative of the Church, did it himself. God could have made each individual believer an infallible interpreter of Scripture, in which case all Protestants would agree on the interpretation of each verse of the Bible. We all know that is not the case. God chose, in reality, to make His Church the Custodian and Interpreter of the Bible, because without an authorized interpreter, no one can be sure his own personal understanding of a given verse or doctrine is an orthodox one. In other words, God made His Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the Truth” (1 Tim 3:15). Far from being an audacious claim, there is nothing presumptuous about the Church’s claim at all.

Those charges of presumption commonly made against the Catholic Church simply won’t stick. God delegated special authority to certain people not because they or the Church as a whole are so great, but because we’re NOT. We need special help! He has provided it.

While we’re on the subject of presumption, though, Catholics have a few questions of their own:

• The Catholic Church does not claim to know a great deal about the End Times. “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end” is about as much as she’s ever officially stated on the subject. Evangelicals, on the other hand, presume to know a great deal. The Evangelical doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture is made an Article of Faith in some churches; they are leaning on their own understanding, and yet making it binding upon believers. “Prophecy conferences” with self-proclaimed “prophecy experts” draw large crowds, as these men teach doctrines unknown to the early Christians. “We are in the last days!” they pontificate, and have been pontificating for generations now. Yet, no man knows the day nor the hour? How is this not presumptuous?
  

• Catholics do not presume to declare that a given deceased person is not in Heaven. The Church does not claim to possess that knowledge. Yet Evangelicals claim to know that millions upon millions of people who never heard the Gospel are without a doubt in hell, in strange opposition to the teaching of St. Paul:
  

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. …
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. …
for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. (Rom 1:20, 2:12-16, 4:15)

Because this teaching appears to contradict the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone, Evangelicals disregard St. Paul and presume to proclaim that every individual who dies without praying the Sinner’s Prayer will without a doubt go to hell. When one of the Apostles made it clear that “it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,” how can insisting otherwise not be presumptuous?

• Protestants will be the first to tell you that they are not infallible – that no one is. You will struggle to find a Protestant church where the pastor claims that his teaching on a given subject is the only correct understanding (he may hint at this, claiming that his understanding is “the clear teaching of Scripture,” but the majority of pastors will shy away from making claims of infallibility for themselves). That said, many, many Evangelical Bible teachers will claim to KNOW which verses of Scripture are meant to be taken literally, and to KNOW which are meant to be taken figuratively. Genesis 1 and 2, for example, MUST be taken literally (ask Ken Ham!); John 6:41-71, on the other hand, MUST be taken figuratively (ask any Evangelical pastor). How can they know this? Yet their understanding of which verses were meant literally and which verses were meant figuratively has become for them, just like the pre-tribulational Rapture, an Article of Faith. Tell a 6-Day creationist that you don’t believe that the first two chapters of the Bible have to be taken literally. He will tell you that you are not a Christian, because you reject his entirely arbitrary understanding of which verses need to be taken literally. Ask him how he knows that his understanding of this issue is the correct one. He will tell you that it is OBVIOUS to real Christians….
  

When the Catholic Church claims infallibility for her Pope, she is admitting a fault – Catholics are so prone to fail their Lord that He had to build safeguards into the system to prevent His people from sinking His ship. To claim that the Church is protected from error is an act of humility. Protestants who would never claim infallibility for their own private interpretations of Scripture, yet nevertheless assert their own opinions as non-negotiable, are making some pretty cheeky claims. Presumptuous is as Presumptuous does.

 

On the memorial of Blessed Francisco and Blessed Jacinta Marto

Deo omnis gloria!

Is There Any Common Ground?

Do Catholics and Protestants agree on anything? Well, it depends on who you ask. Some folks will tell you that Protestant teaching and the Catholic belief system are 100% incompatible – Protestantism is faith in Jesus Christ, a relationship with a Person, assurance of salvation, and an evangelistic effort to preach the Gospel to the four corners of the earth, while Catholicism is dead liturgy, Mary worship, works-righteousness and rote prayer, in essence, a man-made religion. The difference between Protestantism and Catholicism, they’ll tell you, is like the difference between light and darkness, the living and the dead. We agree on nothing!

The more ecumenically-minded among us may swing in the opposite direction. Common ground? Well, what do you think the Nicene Creed is? It’s a statement of agreement! We believe in God the Father, God the Son (born of a virgin) who died for our sins and rose again, God the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting! By gosh, we agree on everything!

Of course, neither perspective is entirely in line with the truth. The first point of view is predicated upon buying into anti-Catholic propaganda of the worst sort, while the second glosses over some very legitimate differences which should not be ignored. It has been said that Catholics and Protestants hold about 80% of their doctrinal beliefs in common. (Who does the math on these things?) The issues that fall into the 20% category tend to get most of the press, but like all brothers and sisters, we need to give some time to the consideration of what it is that makes us a family. Catholics as well as Protestants are Trinitarians, meaning that we worship one God in three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Our adoption as children of God makes us one family; it behooves us to get to know our relatives.

I’m beginning a mini-series called “Common Ground?” on the doctrines that Protestants and Catholics agree on, as well as points we agree to disagree on. Sadly, many times Catholic teaching has been misrepresented, and even Protestants who are well-disposed towards their Catholic brothers and sisters may not realize to what extent Catholics share many of their beliefs. In many cases where we do hold beliefs in common, I think that the nuances of the Catholic view may be something charitable Protestants might like to take into consideration. Here’s hoping, anyway!

 

On the memorial of St. Marguerite Bourgeoys

Deo omnis gloria!

Some Went Out From Us Without Our Authorization

You’ve got to feel for the Judaizers. If you’ve read the New Testament, you’ve bumped into them; they stirred up the controversy that led to the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul inveighed against them in the book of Galatians. They were the original sola Scriptura Christians, insisting that the Bible alone (which at that time consisted of the books of the Old Testament) should be our guide, along the lines of the whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them…. (Westminster Confession).

In case the events of Acts 15 are a little hazy in your memory, they went like this:

Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with the Judaizers, who were insisting that wannabe Christians enter into the Mosaic Covenant through circumcision. Before coming down too hard on the Judaizers, we should note that they did this with the best of intentions. Read through the Old Testament and see what it has to say about circumcision. In Genesis 17 God established His covenant with Abraham with these instructions:

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.’

In accordance with this, the book of Leviticus instructs that “On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised.” Jesus Himself was circumcised, and He affirmed that “Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers)” (Jn 7:22). There is no Biblical mention of Jesus ever instructing his disciples to forgo circumcising their sons. The Judaizers quite rightly insisted that the Old Testament portrays circumcision as an absolute necessity. When they argued with Sts. Paul and Barnabas, the Judaizers had Scripture on their side!

Yet the Council of Jerusalem, with no Scriptural attestation to the correctness of its judgment, ruled against them. Instead of marshaling Bible verses to prove his case, St. Peter merely gives a personal testimony of what God has been doing in His Church. Peter then formulates his doctrinal judgment concerning how all, Jews and Gentiles alike, are saved under the New Covenant:

After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”

Nary a Bible quote in the whole defense! Paul and Barnabas then second Peter’s testimony, recounting the “signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.” With the entire weight of the Old Testament witness on their side, the Judaizers must have been appalled. But… but… THE BIBLE SAYS!!!

So St. James pipes up, commenting on St. Peter’s doctrinal pronouncement, and thanks be to God, he wants to quote from Scripture:

With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, ‘After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My Name,’ says the Lord, Who makes these things known from long ago.

Huh??

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?? No discussion of Genesis 17? No mention of Leviticus 3? Judges 14:3 or 15:18? 1 Samuel 14:6? Isaiah 52:1? Ezekiel 28:10? St. James quotes from a mish-mash of the prophets Jeremiah, Amos and Isaiah – totally off-topic, by the way – before laying out his pastoral initiative as the head of the church in Jerusalem:

Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

To put it plainly, if Jesus had instructed His followers to rely on the Bible alone, the memo somehow missed the Council of Jerusalem. The Council came to its decision that circumcision was not necessary under the New Covenant without relying on Scripture. As if to reinforce this point, the apostles and elders at the meeting composed a letter to Gentile believers explaining to them, not what the Bible teaches on this topic, but what they, by the authority vested in them as the leadership of the Church established by Jesus Christ, had decided on this issue:

We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

And so that settled things, right? Well, no, it didn’t. The Judaizers kept right on judaizing. We find St. Paul penning his epistle to the Galatians in an effort to keep their influence at bay, and he brings up the issue of circumcision in his letters to the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, the Philippians and the Colossians. The Judaizers just wouldn’t let it die….

“Scripture PLAINLY states…” the Judaizers thundered. Who did these apostles think they were, to discontinue the requirement for circumcision with no Scriptural back-up and no direct command from Jesus?

The apostles didn’t just “think,” they KNEW who they were. They were the leadership of the Church that Jesus had established. They had the authority to make these decisions. As they phrased it, not “The Bible says,” but “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us!”

And most modern-day Bible-alone Christians would have no trouble with that. You see, they explain, the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life had not yet been given to us when the Judaizers were butting heads with the apostles! That’s why God inspired the apostles and their disciples to write the books of the New Testament. Once those were written, however, God discontinued the role of the authoritative Church because it was no longer necessary! Sola Scriptura proponents will tell you that the apostles had the authority to make decisions with seemingly no reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. But they also kept busy writing down everything the Spirit was telling them, because they knew that when they went to be with the Lord, their authority would die with them! When the apostles died, in other words, they were succeeded not by men, but by their own writings! It is now the writings of the apostles and the prophets, i.e., the Scriptures, which have the authority to command Christians.

There are, of course, a few problems with that theory, foremost among them being the words of Jesus Himself. Blogger George Sipe at Convert Journal is writing a fun series called “Not in Scripture.” He hasn’t gotten to Matthew 18:15-17 yet, so I’m taking the liberty:

If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, take it to the Bible; and if he refuses to listen even to the Bible, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Ahem. Of course the passage in question actually reads, “take it to the Church, and if he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” And significantly, the very next verse echoes Jesus’ promise to Simon, whom he renames Peter, in Matthew 16:

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

This is the apostolic authority to bind and loose (Jesus references the rabbinical authority to bind in Mt 23:4 – obviously not merely the authority to excommunicate). So unless Bible-alone Christians want to claim that these instructions to “take it to the Church” in verses 15-17 were only meant to remain in effect while the apostles were alive and able to render authoritative judgments, they’re going to have to deal with verse 18 as well, and that entails admitting that apostolic authority has been handed down even to our day – Catholics would say specifically to the successors to those apostles who form the leadership of the Catholic Church. The Catholic claim of the validity of apostolic succession traces back to the first century, as seen in the epistle St. Clement wrote to the church in Corinth:

The apostles preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe…. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.

And so there is a Church which acts with authority, a Church which can bind and loose. Sadly, though, there are those others even today who go out from that Church without her authorization and disturb believers, troubling their minds by what they say – Christians who will not defer to the teaching authority of the Church Jesus established, and who instead go out proclaiming their own understanding of Scripture, leading people astray. These are our modern-day Judaizers. Circumcision doesn’t interest them; the New Testament passages proclaiming baptism as the new circumcision have cleared that issue up to their satisfaction. Yet there are other verses and other issues; it is upon them that they take their stand.

There are Oneness Pentecostals, descended from the charismatic Azuza Street revival, who reject the doctrine of the Trinity formally promulgated by the Holy Catholic Church in 325 A.D., because they can’t find it taught in so many words in their Bible. As the United Pentecostal Church International phrases it:

The UPCI is a Bible-based church. We’re Bible-based in that we seek to base all of our beliefs and our lifestyle on explicit passages of the Bible or on biblical principles. Based on Scripture, we believe the following . . . the Bible does not teach that there are three distinct centers of consciousness in the Godhead or that Jesus is one of three divine persons.

As a conservative Protestant blogger admits concerning Oneness Pentecostalism, “It is a disturbing fact that the most vigorous form of anti-trinitarianism currently on the market is to be found within the sphere of conservative evangelicalism.” A disturbing fact, indeed, but small wonder – Oneness Pentecostals simply take the doctrine of sola Scriptura to its legitimate conclusion, while the writers of that conservative Protestant blog unconsciously rely upon the authority of the successors to the apostles (who decided definitively in council that God is a Trinity of Persons), all the while believing that they get their doctrine “from the Bible alone.”

There are well-known Bible teachers like the late Dr. Walter Martin, who wandered off into a heresy condemned by Church councils long ago, incarnational Sonship – denying the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ. According to Dr. Martin:

The Scripture nowhere calls Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God, and He is never called Son at all prior to the incarnation, except in prophetic passages in the Old Testament. The term “Son” itself is a functional term, as is the term “Father” and has no meaning apart from time. . . . Many heresies have seized upon the confusion created by the illogical “eternal Sonship” or “eternal generation” theory of Roman Catholic theology, unfortunately carried over to some aspects of Protestant theology.

Ignoring the teaching of the Church on this issue (the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. declared in no uncertain terms that Jesus was “born of the Father before all ages”), Martin swam out alone into the deep waters of Bible-only confusion, and lost sight of the coastline. As the Evangelical theologian John Walvoord wrote, “The consensus of the great theologians of the church and the great church councils is to the effect that Christ has been a Son from eternity; and the theory that He became a Son by incarnation is inadequate to account for the usage of the term….” He is right about that, and it is upon these “great church councils” and their decisions which conservative Protestants like Walvoord rely when arguing against heresies like Incarnational Sonship. Although Walvoord goes on to say, “The scriptural view of the Sonship of Christ, as recognized in many of the great creeds of the church, is that Christ was always the Son of God,” Walvoord is actually reading back into Scripture what the great Church Councils taught him to believe, for indeed Scripture does not teach unambiguously on the issue of Jesus’ Eternal vs. Incarnational Sonship. The successors to the apostles, when faced with Scriptural ambiguity on this issue, were guided by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim 1:14) in their discernment, and then wielded the authority vested in them to declare the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship to be the correct understanding of Jesus’ relationship to the Father. They were following in the footsteps of the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem. Yet a sola Scriptura Protestant simply cannot admit that it is the judgment of Church Councils upon which he relies, nor can he admit that Dr. Martin made a compelling case from Scripture that Incarnational Sonship might be doctrinally correct. The belief that those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them must be defended come what may, yet it collapses when well-respected conservative Protestant Bible teachers like Walvoord hold doctrinal positions diametrically opposed to the positions taken by well-respected conservative Protestant Bible teachers like Martin. Trapped by his errant theology, Dr. Walvoord is forced to maintain that Scripture is perspicuous (though it obviously is not) and that all of his beliefs come straight from those perspicuous Scriptures.

Catholics are NOT asked to choose between the Church and the Bible. But when there are “difficulties,” verses which appear to contradict each other, various perspectives on important theological concepts, we are asked to choose the Church’s understanding of those verses. The idea that the individual believer can pick up a Bible and discern subtle but vital theological distinctions all by his lonesome has been proved false over and over again throughout the past 500 years of the sola Scriptura experiment. The Church asks us to interpret the Bible through the “apostolic lens” that she uses, understanding verses not according to our own lights but according to the understanding bestowed upon the apostles by Jesus, the understanding passed down and faithfully guarded by the Church “with the help of the Holy Spirit.”

“Scripture PLAINLY states…” the Judaizers thunder.

“Take it to the Church,” Jesus replies.

 

On the memorial of the Martyrs of September

Deo omnis gloria!

A Flawed Assumption

A Protestant friend of mine considered entering the Catholic Church a couple of years ago. She had a very good grasp of Catholic teaching, and tried to connect this with praxis by attending Mass at several parishes in her part of the country. Sadly, after making the rounds of the local parishes, she became truly confused concerning what the Church teaches in the area of morals, specifically concerning reproduction. A priest told her that she and her husband should continue using contraception. A member of a marriage tribunal told her the same thing, advising her that she needed to make her own decision on the issue of contraception; as long as she did not trespass against the dictates of her own conscience, she was okay. In desperation, she looked online for guidance, and found a supremely unhelpful article by Catholic theologian Daniel C. Maguire, a man with a profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching as it pertains to reproductive issues, who presented the Catholic understanding of “conscience” in a very misleading way, elevating dissenting Catholics to the position of role models:

The birth rates in so-called “Catholic” nations in Europe and in Latin America are close to or below replacement levels and, as Gudorf wryly puts it, “it is difficult to believe that fertility was cut in half through voluntary abstinence from sex.” Such dissent from hierarchical teaching by Catholic laity is actually well provided for in Church teaching. The sensus fidelium, the sense of the faithful, is one of the sources of truth in Catholic theology. This means that the consciences and experiences of good people are a guidepost to truth that even the hierarchy must consult.

The sensus fidelium is “the sense of the faithful” (also referred to as sensus fidei or “the sense of faith”); Dr. Maguire is right about that at least. Pope Benedict XVI described the sensus fidei as “that capacity infused by the Holy Spirit that qualifies us to embrace the reality of the faith with humility of heart and mind. In this sense, the People of God is the ‘teacher that goes first’ and must then be more deeply examined and intellectually accepted by theology.” Maguire’s claims, however, that “dissent from hierarchical teaching by Catholic laity is actually well provided for in Church teaching, ” and “the consciences and experiences of good people are a guidepost to truth” are based on a seriously flawed assumption. Sadly, it is his definition to which multitudes of Catholics cling in their search for a Catholicism that will wholeheartedly endorse the lifestyle they have chosen.

The doctrinal reality of the sensus fidelium was addressed by the Second Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Note how the Council’s definition differs from Dr. Maguire’s:

The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.

To put it succinctly, Catholics believe that the Church – that is, “the entire body of the faithful…from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” – cannot err in matters of belief. This is the concept of infallibility upon which Catholics insist: God will not allow His Church to authoritatively teach error; if His Church were to teach error as truth, the gates of hell would have prevailed. But we must pay careful attention to the qualifying statement: the ENTIRE BODY of the faithful. This is what keeps the concept of sensus fidelium from becoming a Barna poll with results which uproot Tradition and rewrite Catholic dogma, something which theologians like Dr. Maguire are betting is going to happen. The Church’s understanding of the sensus fidelium serves to affirm the calling of the laity to full participation in the life of the Church, but does not somehow make the claim that it is disaffected laity (or dissenting clergy, for that matter) who from here on out will be steering the Barque.

Benedict XVI emphasized the importance of the sensus fidelium in 2012 in an address to the International Theological Commission:

The Second Vatican Council, while confirming the specific and irreplaceable role of Magisterium, stressed, however, that the whole People of God participates in Christ’s prophetic office, thus fulfilling the inspired desire expressed by Moses, “If only all the people of the LORD were prophets! If only the LORD would bestow his spirit on them!” (Num 11:29).

This gift, the sensus fidei, constitutes in the believer a kind of supernatural instinct that has a connatural life with the same object of faith. It is a criterion for discerning whether or not a truth belongs to the deposit of the living apostolic tradition. It also has a propositional value because the Holy Spirit does not cease to speak to the Churches and lead them to the whole truth.

To give a concrete example of sensus fidei in action, this “criterion for discerning whether or not a truth belongs to the deposit of the living apostolic tradition” came into play in a big way in Venerable Pope Pius XII’s decision to “pronounce, declare and define” the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into heavenly glory – the basis for the solemnity which we celebrate today. The pope knew that the belief in Mary’s Assumption was ancient; in the 5^th century the Feast of the Assumption of Mary was already being celebrated in Syria. According to the writings of St. John Damascene, “St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.” The pope knew that many Church Fathers had professed a belief in the Assumption, including St. John Damascene, St. Germanus of Constantinople, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and St. Gregory of Tours. Great Catholic theologians and saints had championed the doctrine, among them St. Anthony of Padua, St. Albert the Great, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernadine of Siena, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Peter Canisius. Venerable Pius was aware of the absence of any definitive statement in Scripture concerning the completion of Mary’s life here on earth (although no passage in Scripture serves to rule out the dogma of the Assumption); he also was familiar with an important correlated doctrine, the traditional Christian understanding of Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant:

At that time, the Savior coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth His own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested. St. Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236 A.D.)

As Christ our priest was not chosen by hand of man, so neither was His tabernacle framed by men, but was established by the Holy Ghost; and by the power of God is that tabernacle protected, to be had in everlasting remembrance, Mary, God’s Virgin Mother. St. Dionysius of Alexandria († 264 A.D.)

The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification. Arise, O Lord, from the Father’s bosom, to raise up again the ruined race of our first parent. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. 213-c. 270)

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O (Ark of the) Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which Divinity resides. St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296- 373 A.D.)

The Ark would be the type and image of Christ : for if we look back to the way of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, we shall see that it is in the temple of the Virgin, as in an ark that the Word of God took up His abode. For in Him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as the Scripture saith. But the testimonies in the ark were the word of God, and the wood of it was imperishable, and with pure and choicest gold was it beautified within and without. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.)

The prophet David danced before the Ark. Now what else should we say the Ark was but holy Mary? The Ark bore within it the tables of the Testament, but Mary bore the Heir of the same Testament itself. The former contained in it the Law, the latter the Gospel. The one had the voice of God, the other His Word. The Ark, indeed, was radiant within and without with the glitter of gold, but holy Mary shone within and without with the splendor of virginity. The one was adorned with earthly gold, the other with heavenly. St. Ambrose (c. 339-397 A.D.)

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant wasn’t just the theological rhapsody of a few early Church Fathers – the early Christians arrived at the concept by comparing the narrative of the Visitation in Luke 1: 39-45 with the story of the journey of the Ark to Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 6:11-19. The events were separated by centuries, but the geographic locations were quite close; both took place in the “hill country of Judah.” Among the parallels:

• Mary arose and went in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah.
  
• And David arose and went with all the people who were with him to Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God.
  

• And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?
  
• How can the ark of the LORD come to me?
  
• When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb.
  
• Michal the daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD.
  
• And Mary stayed with her about three months.
  
• Thus the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months.
  

The glory of the Lord filled the Tabernacle in the Old Testament. The archangel Gabriel announced to Mary that “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” The early Christians couldn’t help but see the twin “overshadowings” as evidence for Mary as the New Ark. This concept has a direct bearing on the dogma of the Assumption, for the book of Revelation tells us:

And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm. A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.

The early Christians understood this Ark and this Woman to be one and the same. Since Mary was the New Ark, and the Ark had appeared in the temple of God in Heaven, then it seemed clear that Mary had been assumed into Heaven.

And there was strong earthly corroboration of this miracle which should not be overlooked. The early Christians were very, very keen on relics; the “Martyrdom of Polycarp” from the mid 2^nd century makes this clear. Christians risked their lives to secure relics of holy men and women. By the time Christianity was legalized, churches in far-flung areas of Christendom were advertising the relics they possessed, relics of the apostles and other martyrs, relics of the Cross and the manger. Of course, no one ever ventured to claim that they were in possession of a first-class relic (a piece of bone, for example) from the body of Jesus, since it was a non-negotiable tenet of the Faith that Christ was risen and had ascended into Heaven. The apostles, the martyrs, St. Joseph, St. Mary Magdalene – they were all fair game. Yet in all of relic-collecting Christendom, no one EVER claimed to possess a first-class relic (except of her hair) of the Blessed Virgin. There is only one explanation for that – everyone KNEW that she had been assumed bodily into Heaven. Even those tempted to fakery knew that claiming possession of the bones of the Blessed Virgin would never fly.

Add to that the fact that Mary was seen as a “type” of the Church. Did Jesus not promise that each member of His body would be resurrected and caught up to meet Him in the clouds at His return? And was this Assumption not a “down-payment” on that promise? When confronted with the absence of earthly remains, and with the knowledge that this woman had been hailed as “full of grace” and “blessed among women,” remembering that the Old Testament figures Enoch and Elijah had themselves been taken up to be with God, why would the notion that Mary had been assumed into Heaven strike you as implausible?

The belief in Mary’s bodily Assumption into Heaven had been held all over Christendom from antiquity to the 20^th century. According to Venerable Pius, “for a long time past, numerous petitions (those received from 1849 to 1940 have been gathered in two volumes which, accompanied with suitable comments, have been recently printed), from cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, priests, religious of both sexes, associations, universities and innumerable private persons have reached the Holy See, all begging that the bodily Assumption into heaven of the Blessed Virgin should be defined and proclaimed as a dogma of faith. And certainly no one is unaware of the fact that this was fervently requested by almost two hundred fathers in the Vatican Council.” This is truly a case in which “the whole People of God,” not just the laity, nor solely the members of the hierarchy, not just contemporary Catholics, nor merely a handful of Church Fathers hundreds of years ago, but all the faithful concurred in their belief. This was the sensus fidelium upon which Pius XII relied when defining the dogma of the Assumption.

Great! So now that we know that the Vatican takes the sensus fidelium seriously, so seriously that it was a major factor in the 20^th-century promulgation of a dogma, all that Catholics have to do is agitate, dissent, protest, whine, flaunt and rebel, and the next thing you know Pope Francis will do a 180 on contraception! It’s inevitable! So goes modern-day dissenters’ logic.

What’s seldom mentioned about the process that Venerable Pius XII went through before defining the doctrine of the Assumption is that he wrote to his bishops, asking them for input. In his request he wrote the following:

…we earnestly beg you to inform us about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary.

The phrase in red is the key to understanding the slippery concept of sensus fidelium. In other words, Venerable Pius was a just a little bit picky about who had a say in this. According to Servant of God John Hardon, S.J.:

…whether they realize it or not, all who agree on the revealed truth, under the guidance of the sacred magisterium, belong to the faithful.

What are the requirements for a genuine sensus fidelium? To begin with, you have to be one of the faithful. Father Hardon continues:

Their agreement on the truth and allegiance to the magisterium gives them universality, i.e., spiritual unity. The truth interiorly possessed gives them consensus, and not the other way around, as though their consensus on some doctrine made it true.

So, Professor Maguire’s concept of “the consciences and experiences of good people” being a “guidepost to truth” runs into a major roadblock – define “good people!” As he would define them, good people are Catholics who realize that the Church forbids the use of artificial contraception, yet don’t give a fig. In other words, the truth doesn’t really interest them. And that’s the crux of the whole issue. It’s not “truth by majority vote” – it’s Truth, eternal, unchanging Truth that we submit to. It forms us – not the other way around! That’s the secret that people like Professor Maguire don’t get….

Pope Benedict warned:

It is particularly important to clarify the criteria used to distinguish the authentic sensus fidelium from its counterfeits. In fact, it is not some kind of public opinion of the Church, and it is unthinkable to mention it in order to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, this because the sensus fidei can not grow authentically in the believer except to the extent in which he or she fully participates in the life of the Church, and this requires a responsible adherence to her Magisterium.

So, no, the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin isn’t just some goofy “assumption” by biblically ignorant Catholics. Yes, the sensus fidelium did play a part in the definition of the dogma. But, no – the sensus fidelium isn’t going to somehow be instrumental in overturning Church teaching on women priests, homosexuality, abortion or contraception, no matter how many liberal Catholic theologians tell you that it is. Because the sensus fidelium – the REAL sensus fidelium – owes its allegiance to the Magisterium of the Church. So don’t fret – Truth will prevail.

He promised that He would.

 

On the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Deo omnis gloria!

Schmoctrine

“Doctrine”, to many people, is a four-letter word, pronounced \ˈdäk-trən\ but spelled b-o-s-h. They eschew it, and they believe that if you were a real Christian, you would eschew it as well.

This belief originated, as did so many peculiar notions, in the 16^th century. Not that the Reformers wanted nothing to do with doctrine. Luther and Calvin set up complex, mutually conflicting doctrinal systems. But in common they pared down the canon of Scripture and revamped the prevailing Catholic belief system for their own use, meanwhile keeping what some would call “the outward trappings,” i.e., the sacraments and the liturgy. The iron corsets of their respective doctrinal systems remained firmly cinched in place.

Those protesting what they saw as the timid reforms of the Reformers axed the sacraments (keeping only baptism and communion, and renaming them “ordinances” because they regard them as mere signs of one’s faith) and the liturgy. Churches like this fly “no-frills,” but they still have one non-negotiable: doctrine.

Those protesting the timid reforms of those who reformed the reforms of the Reformers have a problem with that. “Doctrine, schmoctrine!” is their battle-cry. They view any interest in doctrine as a symptom of spiritual distraction from the Main Event, the Real Deal. To heck with doctrine! Just gimme Jesus!

And that makes the Catholic Church, packed to the gills with 2,000 years’ worth of doctrine, look suspicious. Unfortunately, when someone like Pope Francis then declares that even atheists are redeemed, Believers United Against Schmoctrine (BUAS, Int’l) holds a (poorly attended) press conference raging against this Catholic travesty of true Biblical teaching, until Lutherans or Methodists or anyone with a little more interest in doctrine points out that Francis didn’t say that atheists are all “saved,” but that they have been “redeemed” by Christ’s death on the Cross, which is what BUAS members also believe if they sit down and think about it – they just never really sit down and think about it. BUAS spokespersons then skulk from the stage invoking their patron, St. Emily Litella: “Never mind….”

I majored in Modern Languages, and taught English as a Second Language for many years. My students in Taiwan were always quick to insist that their language, Chinese, had no grammar. They were used to breaking their brains on the peculiar rules of English grammar, and since the grammar of Chinese was to them as simple as living and breathing, they were blissfully unaware of it – they just spoke Chinese. Speaking English, of course, was an effort – thanks mostly to the convolutions of our evil English grammar. Try as I might, I could not convince them that Chinese, like English and all other languages, has a grammatical system.

Likewise, many Americans would say that I speak English without an “accent.” As a point of reference, I pronounce English words the same way Ronald Reagan pronounced them. Jimmy Carter’s accent (Southern – although there is no one “Southern” accent in the U.S.) and John Kennedy’s accent (Bostonian) were different from mine, but I have an accent. One’s “accent” is merely the particular way in which one pronounces the words of a given language. You simply cannot not have an accent, unless you never speak. Only silence has no accent.

Similarly, it is impossible not to have “doctrine.” Doctrine simply means “A belief or set of beliefs held and taught” by a particular person or group. Got beliefs? You’ve got “doctrine!” Set that to music and you’ll be singing: “I’ve got doctrine, you’ve got doctrine, all God’s chillun got doctrine!”

Some folks just have a real bias against the concept of doctrine. They scorn it. The anti-doctrine contingent consists of folks who basically spend megatons of time “in the Word” and praising God. Their idea is to read the Bible, and then go do it. They are generally ablaze with love for God, and quite vocal about their relationship with Him and your need to have the same relationship. Their worship is exciting! Drop everything and throw your hands in the air! Praise Jesus!!!

Who wouldn’t get carried away? Christians from other denominations are often enchanted when they encounter this heartfelt enthusiasm, which may very well be absent from their church-going experience. It’s easy then to convince yourself that the presence of “doctrine” equals the absence of the Holy Spirit (Who we all know is noisy, boisterous and impulsive). Want to set yourself ablaze for Jesus? Burn the Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum!

Reading Scripture in order to “go do it” is in all reality a fantastic idea. Look at dear St. Francis of Assisi, who when told by Christ “Rebuild my church,” immediately set about sprucing up the chapel he was meditating in. All too often Christians are “hearers of the Word” only. We can tell you all about it, and someday we are definitely going to go out and do some of it… probably… maybe…, like that ever happens. Reading Matthew 28:18-20, and then going out to make disciples, is the ideal response.

But anyone who devotes time to Scripture-reading needs also to become a ponderer, like the Virgin Mary. What do these things I read in Scripture mean? And not just “what do they mean to me?” but what was Jesus trying to make His Church understand when He did things like allowing Himself to be baptized, and then going out to baptize others? If grace cannot be conferred through matter, why be washed in water? Why not just let believers make a declaration of their faith (which is what most despisers of doctrine believe baptism boils down to anyway)? Why get water involved at all? Why allow some woman to be healed when she touches the hem of His garment? Why spit on the ground and rub the dirt paste on the eyes of a blind man, instructing him to go wash it off in a certain pool? Why not just “say the word” and heal the guy? Why heal people through the agency of Paul’s handkerchiefs and Peter’s shadow? Why tell the apostles to anoint the sick with oil? What kind of circus act are Jesus and the apostles putting on, if grace cannot be conferred through matter? What’s going on here exactly, and why?

Connect the dots….

The fruit of all that thought, the conclusions you reach, will be your doctrine of grace working through matter. You see, having doctrinal beliefs just means that you’ve taken the time to think things through, to think things out, rather than just hollering and laughing and crying, and then tripping over your own ignorance because you never bothered to tie together your thoughts about God. Not that the Almighty is a killjoy Who is only happy when you’re getting all cerebral about the Incarnation and the Ascension, but remember, He did ask us to love Him not only with our whole heart and our whole soul and our whole strength, but also with our whole mind. Do that, and you’ll be up to your hallelujahs in doctrine. And that’s a good thing.

Keep doing that, and you may wanna buy yourself another copy of that Enchiridion you burned….

 

On the memorial of St. Augustine of Canterbury

Deo omnis gloria!

Photo credits: Camp worship by Paul M. Walsh

You Won’t Like Me When I’m Protestant

My daughter, who entered the Church as a 10-year-old, is now a senior at the local Baptist university. She has come up against something that all Catholics face sooner or later – dumb-as-dirt anti-Catholic bias. It turns out that she has professors who harbor the wish that she will be saved by rejecting key elements of Catholic doctrine, thus rendering her a Protestant in Catholic clothing. This is not really surprising; she has had some wonderful teachers these past couple of years (including an art professor who took the time to explain to the class the Biblical basis of the Catholic doctrine of relics, and a choir director with some very positive things to say about Pope Francis). Some professors, however, have not been so positive. Those professors would agree with the phrase, “The only good Catholic is a former Catholic.” My daughter, who was offended to have her Christianity called into question, told me sadly, “Mom, if they think I’m not a very good Christian, it’s because I need to be a better Catholic, not a worse one!”

Well put. Protestants often think that what Catholics need to do is to break from the official teachings of the Church, to adopt more Protestant ways of looking at things, more Protestant approaches to theology, more Protestant methods of worshiping God. There’s just one little thing they’ve overlooked – When we Catholics become more Protestant, we simply become part of the problem. To paraphrase the Hulk’s alter ego, David Banton:

You won’t like me when I’m Protestant.

Those Evangelicals tend to want to overlook the points of
agreement between orthodox Catholics (meaning those faithful to the teaching of the Church) and conservative Protestants. As a faithful Catholic, I am bound to confess my belief:

–    in the Trinity, with God as the Creator of the universe

–    the Incarnation of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, conceived miraculously by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, Who literally suffered, died and rose from the dead before ascending to be seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to resurrect the dead

–    in the Holy Spirit Who is the third Person of the Trinity

–    in the evil one who is a being we call the devil

–    in salvation by grace through faith

–    in the inspiration and infallibility of Holy Scripture

and in many other doctrines to which an Evangelical can only respond with a hearty “Amen!” These points of agreement are very often overlooked by people who want to tar Catholics with the same brush that they use on non-Christian cults, despite the fact that an excellent case can be made from a Protestant standpoint that anyone who worships the Triune God cannot be considered a non-Christian.

The root of the word “Protestant” is the verb “to protest.” Hoping that Catholics will begin to “protest” the authority of the Church might not turn out the way that you had hoped, my Evangelical friend. I know that you are hoping that we will embrace sola Scriptura and sola fide, 7-Day creationism and the doctrine of the secret rapture as you do when we protest the authority of the Church – but you realize that other results might be forthcoming, don’t you? Remember Victor Frankenstein? He too meant no harm, but experiments with multiple variables can be hard to control….

There are Catholics who are doing exactly what you think you want Catholics to do – breaking from the official teachings of the Church. That, in essence, makes those Catholics “protestant” because they reject the exclusive authority of the Catholic Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church) to interpret Holy Scripture. Those folks have got “a better idea,” just as Martin Luther did when he decided to teach that justification is NOT by faith (as the Church teaches), but rather by faith ALONE. They’ll tell you, just as Luther insisted, that they won’t let the Catholic Church do their thinking for them! They think for themselves! Just what you are hoping Catholics will say!

Cue the sinister music, because this is where things start to get ugly. You think Catholics should reject the authority of the Church, just as you do? Well, these folks agree with you completely; they reject any claims the Catholic Church makes to the exclusive authority of interpreting Scripture. They therefore deny the Virgin Birth, the literal Resurrection of Jesus from the dead as well as our own future resurrection, the existence of Satan, and the infallibility of Scripture, while proposing a host of other doctrinal novelties that will curl your Protestant hair! In this they are not alone; there are plenty of liberal Protestants who will gladly join hands with them in insisting that God is whatever they happen to believe She is. This scary little group will merrily deconstruct the narrative of salvation history, disassemble the canon of Scripture, and decry the belief in a future life as a holdover from medieval foggery. They will agitate for abortion, euthanasia and same-sex everything and anything. These men and women will be only too happy to join with Protestants in affirming the one and only doctrine all Protestants can agree on – the Catholic Church is WRONG!

But they are NOT your friends, dear Evangelical. Trust me. They are your worst nightmare.

The Catholic Church teaches that Protestants are our fellow Christians, our separated brethren. Might you come to the point where you can consider us your friends in Christ? Just remember, inciting protest can backfire. Some very volatile chemicals react in that mix. I would rethink that wish that Catholics might become more Protestant, if I were you. Because sometimes wishes come true…

… and you might be creating a monster!

 

On the memorial of St. Paschal Baylon

Deo omnis gloria!

Photo credit: The Incredible Hulk by Jeremy Thompson

Nøkken by Theodor Kittelsen

We Agree!

As Reformation Sunday approaches, most of us will be dwelling on the issues that divide Catholics and Protestants. “Catholics believe one thing, and Protestants believe something completely different!” – this is where the emphasis will be. I think it is beneficial to try to be fully aware of the many, many areas in which Protestants and Catholics are in agreement, and then go from there in explaining our differences. The following is a partial list of some of those areas:

WE AGREE that we as Christians have been saved! (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8)

We also believe, in accordance with 1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12, Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15, Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13, Mk 13:13, Lk 21:19, Rev 2:26, and Phil 2:12 , that we who are working out our salvation with fear and trembling are being saved and will be saved if we persevere to the end.

WE AGREE that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works, that none should boast! (Eph 2:8-9)

We also believe, in accordance with James 2:17 and 2:24, that we are justified by our works, and not by faith alone, because faith without works is dead.

WE AGREE that there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus! (1 Tim 2:5)

We also believe, in accordance with 1 Tim 2:1, James 5:16 and Heb 12:1, that the saints in Heaven and on earth can intercede for us.

WE AGREE that only God can forgive our sins! (Mt 9:2-3, Mk 2:7)

We also believe, in accordance with John 20:22 and 2 Cor 5:18, that God forgives sins through His priests.

WE AGREE that the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness! (2 Tim 3:16)

We also believe, in accordance with 1 Timothy 3:15, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

WE AGREE that Jesus Christ is the Foundation of the Church! (1 Cor 3:11)

We also believe, in accordance with Eph 2:20, Acts 1:15-26, and 2 Tim 2:2, that the Apostles are also the foundation, and that they passed on the authority of their office to their successors.

WE AGREE that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth! (Gen 1:1)

We also believe, in accordance with 2 Peter 3:8, that one need not embrace 6-Day Creationism to be a real Christian.

WE AGREE that relics possess no magical powers!

We also believe, in accordance with 2 Kings 13:21, Acts 19:11-12 and Acts 5:15-16, that God can and does use relics to effect miracles.

WE AGREE that marriage is a very, very good thing! (1 Cor 7)

We also believe, in accordance with Mt 19:12 and 1 Cor 7, that celibacy is even better.

WE AGREE that it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment! (Heb 9:27)

We also believe, in accordance with Heb 12:14, that after death comes purification (Purgatory) so that we can see God.

WE AGREE that the writings of the Church Fathers were not divinely inspired nor were they infallible!

We also believe that they are the best witness to the earliest Christians’ understanding of the teachings of the Apostles.

WE AGREE that the Church of the 16th century was in need of reform!

We also believe that the Reformers introduced novel doctrines that have led many Christians into serious error.

WE AGREE that Jesus Christ suffered, died and was buried, rose again on the third day, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom will have no end.

AMEN!

Deo omnis gloria!