Ooops!

December 16, 2003

pham,

i messed up the SS entry in the reference section. i'll try to put back together just as it was before, but its gonna be hard considering that these means i have to scour the internet all over again. ggrrrrrrr........

my computer at home makes me cuss :crash:

w/ blood boiling,

phatcatholic

December 16, 2003

phatcatholic, you need anything just holla! ;)

December 16, 2003

lil red and others,

i need more info on how its historically impossible (before the invention of the printing press and b/c of the education of the common people) and on the dubious historical development of SS (how it was not meant to free the people, its not an admirable cause, it was done to rebel and to exert their own authority, martin luther is shady--hehe)

thanks,

phatcatholic

December 16, 2003

http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#5

See the KJV in its earliest forms.

December 16, 2003

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_vi...cnum=4684&print

Left Behind: Any Link With The Early Church

Author: Dwight Longenecker

Description: An explanation of John Henry Newman's tests proving that sola scriptura and Dispensationalism are latter-day, human inventions.

Categories: Catholicism > Faith

Larger Work: This Rock

Pages: 18 - 21

Publisher & Date: Catholic Answers, Inc., San Diego, CA, November 2002

I was brought up in an independent Fundamentalist church in Pennsylvania. The good folks who founded the church had broken away from the mainstream Protestant denominations in the early sixties because of the mainstream's increasingly liberal drift. This little church was young and enthusiastic. The pastor had a bright young family and was zealous to see the church grow. Before long it had outgrown its rented storefront premises, bought some land, and started to build.

This particular brand of American Christianity had no denominational affiliations. The founders called it a "Bible" church, and they claimed to look to only the Bible for their beliefs and practices. Of course, this wasn't true. They didn't start from scratch with only their Bibles. They were really part of a tradition. It was a hodgepodge of traditions, but it was a tradition nonetheless. Their view of salvation was essentially Calvinist, their ecclesiology was congregational tradition, and their sacramental theology was derived from the Baptist tradition. One of this Bible church's traditions that most interests me now was its Dispensationalist system of biblical interpretation.

Dispensationalism has its roots in the teaching of the English Plymouth Brethren preacher John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), but it was made most famous by the American preacher C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), who incorporated the system as part of a Bible translation in the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensationalism teaches that God deals with man in seven dispensations in each of which man is set a specific test. This test continues as an abiding truth for successive generations. So, for example, the life of Christ is included in the period of the law, while we are now in the dispensation of the Church.

Another aspect of Dispensationalism is its highly structured and rather arcane system of interpreting prophecy according to current events. The books of Daniel and Revelation are mined for literal references to events of our age in an attempt to predict and anticipate the return of Christ and the subsequent "tribulation" in which those who don't believe will be tested before the millennium of Christ's rule on earth. To take the temperature of how influential and popular Dispensationalism has become, one has only to check the phenomenal success of Tim LaHaye's and Jerry B. Jenkins' Left Behind series of novels, which are based on a Dispensationalist approach to biblical prophecy.

Because God's work with man is broken down into separate dispensations, certain parts of the Bible are less relevant than others. So, for example, because we are now in the Church Age, we don't have to obey the Law of Moses, which was only good for the Law Age. One of the weird results of Dispensationalist teaching is that the life and teaching of Jesus are made essentially irrelevant for modern man. It works like this: Jesus' life was part of the Dispensation of Law. Now we're in the Dispensation of the Church, so Jesus' life and teachings aren't for us.

As Catholics, the Mass is central to our life and worship. As often as we do this we proclaim his death until he comes again (1 Cor. 11:26). As a result, Catholicism is, by comparison, totally Christ-centered. The modern Dispensationalist Protestant, on the other hand, by following the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura, has a religion where it's okay not to preach from the Gospels because that is "not for this dispensation."

Now that I am a Catholic, I am not sure if the irony of this is sublime or ridiculous. These are the folks who blame Catholics for inventing later, unbiblical, and distorted doctrines. But shouldn't we turn the tables here? Sola scriptura is itself a later, unbiblical, distorted doctrine. The Bible teaches nowhere that the Bible is the only source for truth. Jesus never wrote down his teachings and never commanded or prophesied that a New Testament should be written. Nowhere in the record of the early Church do we find sola scriptura being taught. Instead, it is the teaching authority of the Church that is most emphasized.

If this is true of sola scriptura, it is doubly true of Dispensationalism. Here is a system of biblical interpretation that, in many Evangelical circles, has reached the status of dogma. Inasmuch as it marginalizes the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, it can be called heretical. It was never heard of before the nineteenth century and was devised by one sectarian teacher and promoted by another to its current popular status. Who then is guilty of following later, invented doctrines? The Anglican phrase condemning some Catholic beliefs surely applies to Dispensationalism: "It is a vain thing, fondly imagined."

But we can't be too hasty in throwing out "new" doctrines. The faith does develop, and seemingly new understandings are given by the Spirit. John Henry Newman, in his famous Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (my quotations from Newman's essay are taken from Ian Ker, John Henry Newman [1988], pp. 308-310), confronts the idea that Christianity grows and develops into a fuller understanding of truth. The key is, development is just that — development. There are no new doctrines; the Church only grows into a fuller understanding of existing doctrines. Sola scriptura and Dispensationalism, on the other hand, are novel inventions of single teachers who wished to impose their own ideas. Newman set out seven tests to validate any development in doctrine. Both sola scriptura and Dispensationalism fail all of them.

Unity of type is Newman's first test. In other words, the seemingly new doctrine must be similar to that believed by the whole Church from the beginning, even if the similarity is like that of an oak tree to the acorn from which it grew. By studying both the ancient Church and the "new" development, that similarity — or lack thereof — can be determined. When we consider sola scriptura and Dispensationalism, there are no antecedents. The more one studies the ancient Church the more one realizes that these two concepts are not developments — they are novelties. One was invented in the sixteenth century, the other in the nineteenth.

Principle and doctrine. Newman's second test is complex. He distinguishes between the principle and the doctrine of a belief. The principle is the abstract and general element of belief. The doctrine is specific and relates to events. For example, the principle of revealed religion is that it functions through the people of God. The doctrine of biblical interpretation is a specific expression of revealed religion, and it operates in a way congruent with the principle that God's revelation comes through his people. A true development keeps the original principle and doctrine together. In a false development, one will develop separately and in contradiction to the other. So in the cases of sola scriptura and Dispensationalism, the doctrines are by their very nature cut off from the principle of Church authority with which they should be united. The first contradicts the principle of revelation being linked with the people of God; the other, by being one man's sectarian invention, is by its development alienated from the general principle of revelation.

Absorption and interpenetration. The third test is that doctrines develop by themselves through absorption and interpenetration over a long period of time. In other words, they evolve within the theological and devotional life of the Church. They are not devotional novelties or new theological theories. Dispensationalism and sola scriptura are both novelties, inventions of theological minds and the offspring of political events. They are not the natural, organic result of the Church's worshiping and thinking life over centuries of time.

Development is not a "logical operation." Newman's fourth test for development is that, although it must have an internal logic and must fit logically with the whole of Christian truth, it is not devised by logic. Newman is not saying that a legitimately developed doctrine is absurd; he is saying that it is not something that someone sits down to figure out through logical processes. It is not the result of "conscious reasoning from premises to conclusion." Sola scriptura and Dispensationalism, on the other hand, are precisely that. Sola scriptura is the end of a logical search for a Christian authority other than the Catholic Church, while Dispensationalism is a clever biblical overlay invented by Darby and Scofield.

Hints and guesses. The fifth test is that there should be hints and guesses of the developed doctrine in the early stages of the Church. For example, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined in the nineteenth century, but the idea that Mary was "all holy" was evident from the second century. Its presence in nascent form validates its gradual development into defined doctrine. There are no hints or fragments of sola scriptura or Dispensationalism in the early Church. They sprang whole from the minds of their inventors.

Congruence with the historic faith. Newman's sixth test is that a true development will be congruent with the historic faith. It does not contradict but illuminates the previous body of truth. In Newman's words, it is an addition which "illustrates, not obscures; corroborates, not corrects, the body of thought from which it proceeds." Once again, sola scriptura and Dispensationalism fall. Both contradict the whole trend of fifteen hundred years of Christian thought. Sola scriptura eviscerates the ancient harmony of Scripture and Church authority. Dispensationalism contradicts the age-old belief of the Church that Jesus' life and teachings are for us here and now.

Chronic vigor. The final test is that the developing doctrine needs to have "chronic vigor." Newman is not saying that we test the doctrine according to its popularity or even its longevity. Instead, he is saying that the idea is alive, dynamic, and moving on. It is getting bigger and better as our understanding of the truth grows. By its nature sola scriptura is incapable of this. With the simple word sola — Latin, only — the concept limits itself and cannot develop. Likewise, Dispensationalism is, by definition, a closing down and limiting of biblical interpretation. It is a system that can do nothing but pigeonhole the Bible into different time periods and finish there. As a result both of these invented beliefs are essentially dead. They have no chronic vigor.

In our apologetics work with Protestants we may often hear the charge that certain Catholic doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, transubstantiation, and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary are later, unbiblical, and distorted doctrines. But in each case the Catholic doctrines stand up to Newman's stringent tests. Most of Newman's tests are simple enough to explain. But even if the tests themselves are too complex to weave into a general conversation, it helps to be aware of them. When you are challenged about "later, invented doctrines," ask your Protestant friend where he got sola scriptura and Dispensationalism. Because if any doctrines are latter-day, human inventions, they are.

Dwight Longenecker's books this year include St. Benedict and St. Therese: The Little Rule and the Little Way and Challenging Catholics. He writes from England, where he works for the St. Barnabas Society. Go to his website for more articles.

December 16, 2003

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_vi...cnum=4424&print

A Response to 'Evangelicals, Catholics, and Unity'

Author: Art Kelly

Description: Michael Scott Horton, Ph.D., President and Chairman of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (formerly Christians United for Reformation) and co-moderator of the White Horse Inn radio program, has written a booklet explaining why Protestants cannot be united with Catholics. Art Kelly demolishes his position in this defense of Mary, the Papacy and Purgatory. He proves that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical.

Categories: Institutions > Papacy

Catholicism > Faith > Apologetics

Publisher & Date: Original, 09/04/02

Michael Scott Horton, Ph.D., President and Chairman of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (formerly Christians United for Reformation) and co-moderator of the White Horse Inn radio program, has written a booklet explaining why Protestants cannot be united with Catholics.

The booklet has been praised by Hank Hanegraaff on the Bible Answer Man radio program as the "best booklet that he's ever seen" on the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Dr. Horton says the Catholic Church "proclaims a false Gospel" and "cannot be considered a true visible church, for it has surrendered the most necessary mark of the true church, namely, the Gospel itself, by which alone we pass from spiritual death to new spiritual life."

Among other reasons, he mentions Sola Scriptura, the Papacy, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and Purgatory.

In regard to justification, Dr. Horton is obviously unfamiliar with Chapters 7, 10, 16, 18, 19, 25 of the Gospel of St. Matthew, Chapters 8 and 10 of the Gospel of St. Mark, Chapter 10, 13, and 15 of the Gospel of St. Luke, and Chapter 5 of the Gospel of St. John.

The Catholic Church that has always emphasized the message of the gospels, while some other religions have ignored the clear words of Jesus.

Sola Scriptura is really the blank check that allows Protestants to profess anything they want, no matter how un-Biblical. For Dr. Horton and his followers, it's "every man for himself" in determining what each verse of Scripture means.

This has resulted in a plethora of competing Protestant denominations. As St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 14:33 indicates, Sola Scriptura cannot possible be from God.

Of course, Jesus did leave a teaching authority (Gospel of St. Matthew 28:20) and it is the Church which is "the pillar and ground of the truth." (1st Timothy 3:15)

Of all the various issues mentioned by Dr. Horton, the Papacy is actually the most crucial difference between Catholics and Protestants.

A person who believed the Catholic Church was correct on justification, Purgatory, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and every other issue would still have a good reason to remain a non-Catholic if he or she believed the Church was wrong on the Papacy.

On the other hand, if the Bishop of Rome is, in fact, the successor to St. Peter as the divinely appointed Chief Steward of the Church, then the Reformation should never have happened.

Dr. Horton rejects as "arrogance" Paragraph 882 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says, quoting Vatican II:

"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."

Dr. Horton thinks that papal supremacy is based on "Rome's appeal to tradition" but "is contradicted by much of that tradition."

He's wrong on both counts.

The Papacy is based on Scripture. And history is crystal clear that Bishop of Rome exercised primacy in the Catholic Church from the first century onward.

The Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18-19 (in conjunction with the Prophecy of Isaiah 22:20-22), the Gospel of St. John 21:15-17 (in combination with the 2nd Book of Samuel 5:2 and the Prophecy of Ezekiel 34:23), and the Gospel of St. Luke 22:31-32, among many, many other quotations from the Bible prove that Jesus founded the Catholic Church and made St. Peter the first Pope.

Some examples of how the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was exercised in the first few centuries after Jesus:

Pope Clement (88-97) wrote to the Church in Corinth in the year 96 to tell them to make changes in their attitudes and practices. The Early Church On-Line Encyclopedia (Ecole) Initiative, a cooperative effort on the part of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars across the Internet to establish links of early Church history, says "This letter is important because it indicates that the author was acting has the head of the Christian Church and that it was centered in Rome."

Pope Victor (189-199) ordered Easter to be celebrated throughout the world on Sunday, rather than on the 14th Nisan, whichever day of the week it happen to fall. All of the churches adopted Easter Sunday except those in Asia Minor. Pope Victor then excommunicated all the bishops in Asia Minor. While the Pope eventually relented in the excommunication, no one ever suggested that he did not have the authority.

Pope Calixtus (217-222) overruled those bishops who excommunicated for life all apostates, adulterers, and murderers, regardless of their repentance. The Pope decreed that all sinners with contrition could be absolved and received back into the Catholic Church.

After Pope Cornelius (251-253) was elected, he was faced with an antipope, Novatian, who promptly went about trying to consecrate bishops throughout the world who would be loyal to him. Naturally, this created tremendous uncertainty and confusion wherever Novatian tried to create false bishops over the heads of the legitimate bishops. This unequivocally shows the power of the Pope as the recognized leader of the worldwide Catholic Church.

Pope Stephen (254-257) removed certain bishops in Africa for heresy. Later he overruled a synod of African bishops which wanted to re-baptize lapsed Catholics returning to the faith and those converting to Catholicism from schismatic sects. The Pope made it very clear he was in charge and eventually prevailed in this matter.

Pope Dionysius (260-268) reprimanded Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria for misstatements on the Trinity. The Bishop then followed the Pope's guidance.

Pope Sylvester (314-335) did not attend the First Council of Arles (314), thinking it unbecoming for him to leave Rome. Following Arles, the bishops there commended him for not leaving the spot "where the Apostles daily sit in judgment." He repeated this example at Nicaea, which his successors followed in the councils of Sardica (343), Rimini (359), and the Eastern ecumenical councils. At Nicaea, Pope Sylvester sent two priests as his legates, who helped preside over the sessions and who were the first to sign the cannons.

Pope Julius (337-352) decided that Athanasius, rather than Pistus, should be the Bishop of Alexandria. At the same time, he read the riot act to the Arians in Alexandria.

Because Pope Liberius (352-366) stood firm against Arianism, Emperor Constantius had him kidnapped and replaced with an antipope, Felix, who no one accepted. In captivity, the Pope was tortured until he signed a semi-Arian document, which, of course, was not valid. This episode clearly showed the vital role of the Pope in determining Catholic doctrine. The Pope returned to Rome and continued his fight for orthodoxy. He eventually succeeded in seeing many Arians come back to the Catholic Church.

These examples take us through the first three centuries after Jesus founded the Church. Of course, there are scores of other examples after 366. Dr. Horton's first example of a bishop who he says did not support papal primacy was St. Cyprian, who presided over the Seventh Council of Carthage, Africa in September 258, which responded to Pope Stephen's condemnation of a previous African council which stated that all non-Catholic baptisms were invalid. If the first instance Dr. Horton can find of a bishop who rejected papal primacy is a quarter of a millennium after Jesus, then his case is weak inDouche. But in fact, Dr. Horton's case is not just weak. It's nonexistent.

St. Cyprian clearly recognized the primacy and authority of Pope Fabian (236-250), Pope Cornelius (251-253), Pope Lucius I (253-254), Pope Stephen (254-257), and Pope Sixtus II (257-258).

A convert to Catholicism, St. Cyprian was baptized on April 18, 246. He become Bishop of Carthage in 248. In 251, he wrote, "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

In 252, in a letter to Pope Cornelius informing him of a rival bishop in Carthage, he wrote, "When a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source."

Later, St. Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen asking him to remove Bishop Marcian of Arles, who was refusing absolution to repentant sinners even on their deathbed, and to arrange for a new bishop to replace him.

There's a lot more historical evidence regarding St. Cyprian's belief in the primacy of the Pope. For Dr. Horton to suggest that Catholic tradition did not support that primacy ignores all of the abundant historical proof. It is true that St. Cyprian later got into a dispute with Pope Stephen about re-baptism of persons who enter the Catholic Faith from other Christian denominations or Catholics who had lapsed and returned to the Church.

Dr. Horton quotes the Seventh Council of Carthage in 258 as saying "neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops," but that passage refers to the Council not forcing all bishops in Northern Africa to go along with re-baptisms. Specifically, it was a statement by St. Cyprian that he was not attempting to impose his opinion regarding re-baptism on Bishop Jubaianus.

There is no one who thinks that refers to the Bishop of Rome. In fact, the deliberations of the Council of Carthage were sent to Pope Steven for approval, but he rejected them, making it very clear that Catholic doctrine was once baptized, always baptized. He forbade re-baptisms and threatened excommunication to those who performed them. The Pope emphasized that he was the successor to St. Peter, about whom Cyprian had written about so enthusiastically. He told St. Cyprian he must obey him.

There is no evidence that St. Cyprian, who was martyred shortly after, was ever excommunicated. St. Jerome wrote that, after receiving the Pope's command, the African bishops then corrected their decision to re-baptize and issued a new decree. St. Augustine says the Easterners also followed the Pope's ruling.

Dr. Horton's first case-in-point actually adds to the evidence for the primacy of the Pope.

His second example was from Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea, which he characterized as declaring that each church center was to be ruled by its own bishop and not by one head over all bishops.

But Dr. Horton didn't quote Canon 6. Here's what it actually said: "Let the ancient usage throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be strictly adhered to, so that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over all these; since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, as regards Antioch and the other provinces, let each church retain its special privileges."

There are a couple of different opinions on the exact meaning of the canon, but both views are indicative of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. By looking closely at the Greek, the best interpretation is that, because the Roman Bishop has historically recognized the Alexandrian Bishop's authority in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, that ancient custom should be upheld.

A little background: The long-standing authority of the Bishop of Alexandria over the churches of Egypt and the neighboring provinces had been contested by Bishop Meletius of Lycopoli and his Arian allies. They asked him upon what warrant the claim to rule over and depose his fellow bishops was based.

The Bishop of Alexandria had no written document, so the Council of Nicaea came to his assistance by decreeing that his authority must be respected because it was "archaia" and because it was sanctioned by the Roman Bishop ("epeide kai to en te Rome episkopo touto sunethes estin").

Another interpretation holds that the arrangement for the Bishop of Alexandria to govern Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis is approved because this is the way it is done in Rome. The procedures for doing things in Rome are held up as role models for the Catholic Church throughout the world.

Either way, Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea illustrates the primacy of the Pope.

The next example Dr. Horton provides is the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which he said declared that Rome's rank was based on its political significance, rather than any spiritual superiority. Canon 28 states:

"Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognizing the canon which has recently been read out — the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honored by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her."

However, when all of the information about the Council is considered in context, papal primacy is upheld in the strongest possible manner!

The Fourth Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church met from October 8 until 1 November 451 at St. Euphemia's Church in Chalcedon, in the near vicinity of Constantinople. Its principal purpose was to assert the doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Monophysites.

Due to the invasion of Attila the Hun in Western Europe, very few Western bishops could attend the Council. Of the 520 bishops in attendance (some estimates are as high as 630), only the papal legates and two African bishops represented the West. All of the others belonged to the Eastern Church.

However, the presiding officer was one of the papal legates, Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum. The members of the council recognized this prerogative of the papal legates. When writing to the Pope, they professed that, through his representatives, he presided over them in the council.

From the Acts of Council in the first session:

"Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out.

"Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

"Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions. "Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith. His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome."

In the second session held on October 10, Pope Leo's epistle was read to the members of the Council. When the letter was read, the Acts indicate the members of the Council exclaimed:

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles."

On October 31, the Council passed Cannon 28, which attempted to reinstate Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople in 381, which said, "The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."

However, Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople never obtained the confirmation and consent of Pope Damascus and, thus, was invalid. The Council of Chalcedon tried again with its Canon 28.

At the conclusion of the Council of Chalcedon, the bishops wrote to Pope Leo to inform him of what had been done, thanked him for the exposition of the faith contained in his epistle, spoke of his legates as having presided over them in his name, and asked for his ratification of the Council, including Canon 28:

"We make know you furthermore that we have made still another enactment which we have deemed necessary for the maintenance of good order and discipline, and we are persuaded that your Holiness will approve and confirm our decree. We are confident you will shed upon the Church of Constantinople a ray of that Apostolic splendor which you possess, for you have ever cherished this church and you are not at all niggardly in imparting your riches to your children.

"Vouchsafe then, most Holy and Blessed Father, to accept what we have done in your name, and in a friendly doubt that this good deed should proceed in the first instance from you provident hand. But we, wished to gratify the pious Christian emperors, and the illustrious Senate, and the capital of the empire have judged that an Ecumenical council was the fittest occasion for effecting this measure.

"Hence, we have made bold to confirm the privileges of the aforementioned city, as if Your Holiness had taken the initiative, for we know how tenderly you love your children, and we feel that in honoring the child we have honored the parent. We have informed you of everything with a view of proving our sincerity and of obtaining your confirmation and consent."

Likewise, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, wrote to Pope Leo, "The holy Synod and I have submitted this canon to your Holiness in order to obtain your assent and confirmation, which I beseech your Holiness not to withhold."

Let their be no doubt about the views of the Council of Chalcedon: As successor to St. Peter as Bishop of Rome, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church! As a postscript, Pope Leo ratified the Council of Chalcedon but item-vetoed Canon 28.

Once again, Dr. Horton's own examples definitely support the primacy of the Pope.

This is true with the last example as well.

Dr. Horton said Pope Gregory I (590-604) rejected "the word 'universal' as it was being used to express an exaggerated claim to authority over others by the pontiff" and purports to quote from "Epistle 18."

This is totally and completely false.

First, the so-called "quotation" Rev. Horton provided is actually pieced together from two completely different Epistles: Book V, Epistle XVIII, and Book VII, Epistle XXXIII.

The truth is that in Book V, Epistle XVIII, Pope Gregory I is strongly reprimanding the Bishop of Constantinople, John the Faster (John IV), from using the title "universal bishop," because he had no authority to do so and because the title implies that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates.

Catholic theology does not affirm this of the Pope or anyone.

Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See.

In 1053, Pope Leo IX (1049-1054) wrote to Bishop Michael Cerularius of Constantinople, "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 894 "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which inDouche they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.

895 "The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church." But the bishops should not be thought of as vicars of the Pope. His ordinary and immediate authority over the whole Church does not annul, but on the contrary confirms and defends that of the bishops. Their authority must be exercised in communion with the whole Church under the guidance of the Pope.

Here's the background:

In 588, Bishop John IV held a synod at Constantinople to examine certain charges against Gregory, Patriarch of Antioch. Of course, Constantinople had no right to discuss the affairs of Antioch, but the Acts of the Synod were sent to Pope Pelagius II (570-590) for approval. The Acts were signed by John "archbishop and ecumenical patriarch."

Pope Pelagius II protested against this title and told Bishop John IV never to use it again. When Pope Pelagius II died, he was succeeded by Pope Gregory I, who was on good terms with Bishop John IV, as Gregory had known him before when he was a legate to Constantinople.

In 593, Bishop John IV tried again to use the title, but Pope Gregory I was as vehement as Pope Pelagius II in disapproving it.

The Bishop had scourged two priests in his diocese accused of heresy. The priests appealed to the Pope — in itself illustrating the role of the Pope in the worldwide Catholic Church.

In the resulting correspondence, John the Faster assumed the title of ecumenical patriarch, "O'ikoumenikòs patriárches," in almost every line of his letter. It is true that Pope Gregory I knew no Greek and read the letter when it was translated into Latin as "Patriarcha universalis," which may have had a somewhat different meaning from what was intended by Bishop John IV. Intended or not, it is plain how the Pope understood it. In Book V, Epistle XVIII (which Dr. Horton failed to include in his so-called quotation), Pope Gregory I wrote to Bishop John IV:

"For, having confessed thyself unworthy to be called a bishop, thou hast at length been brought to such a pass as, despising thy brethren, to covet to be named the only bishop. And inDouche with regard to this matter, weighty letters were addressed to your Holiness by my predecessor Pelagius of holy memory;

"And thou wilt become by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and thou wilt make advance in proportion as thou art not bent on arrogation by derogation of thy brethren.

"Was it not the case, as your Fraternity knows, that the prelates of this Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve, had the honour offered them of being called universal by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren."

In Book VII, Epistle XXXIII, which Dr. Horton incorrectly claims is part of "Epistle 18," Pope Gregory I wrote to Emperor Maurice:

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests."

Likewise, in Book V, Epistle XX, the Pope writes to the Emperor:

"For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord's voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter… Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores"

And in Book IX, Epistle LXVIII, in a message to Bishops Eusebius of Thessalonica, Urbicus of Dyrrachium, Andrew of Nicopolis, John of Corinth, John of Prima Justiniana, John of Crete, John of Larissa and Scodra, and others, Pope Gregory I wrote, "For if one, as he (John the Faster) supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops."

Thus, Pope Gregory I in 593 proclaimed consistent Catholic doctrine regarding the nature of the episcopate and the papacy.

There is no question that, as Bishop of Rome, he exercised a primacy of authority over the whole Church. Protestant historian J. D. N. Kelly, in the Oxford Dictionary of Popes, writes that "He was indefatigable, however, in upholding the Roman primacy and successfully maintained Rome's appellate jurisdiction in the east."

Pope Gregory I wrote that "It is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches…" (Book III, Epistle XXX)

In a letter to Bishop John of Syracuse, Pope Gregory I wrote, "And it is exceedingly doubtful whether he says such things to us sincerely, or in fact because he is being attacked by his fellow-bishops: for, as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it." (Book IX, Epistle LIX)

Furthermore, in Book IX, Epistle LXVIII (the same message to several bishops in which he condemned Bishop John IV's "proud and pestiferous title of ecumenical, that is to say, universal"), Pope Gregory I wrote, "without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force."

Dr. Horton says, "What is the tradition then? Strikingly, the traditions of the ancient fathers of both the East and West, even the Bishop of Rome, is that the very doctrine of papal supremacy, which Rome eventually declared infallibly binding on all Christians, was at best an act of schism and disunity and at worst a claim worth comparing to the arch-usurper of Christ's authority, the Antichrist."

The most charitable thing that can be said about Dr. Horton is that he knows very little about the facts of history.

He is completely unable to prove his statements. Not one of his examples supported his contentions. In fact, each example actually upheld the primacy of authority of the Pope.

Dr. Horton goes on to incorrectly claim that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was based on the Donation of Constantine, which he said was "Forged in the papal chambers under Pope Paul I (757-767)."

He provides no sources for his claims, but historical scholars do not agree with him. Neither the World Book Encyclopedia, the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, the Early Church On-Line Encyclopedia, or the Microsoft Encarta On-Line Encyclopedia make any such statements.

All of them say that the Donation of Constantine was a document, which was composed sometime between 750 and 800, purporting to give dominion over all of Rome to Pope Sylvester I and is successors for curing Emperor Constantine I of leprosy.

It was found in the Frankish Empire around 850. No use was made of until 1054 when Pope Leo IX made reference to it in a letter to Bishop Michael Cerularius of Constantinople. In the 12th century, the document was used to support papal claims of temporal lordship over central Italy. However, Pope Innocent (1198-1216) rejected it. In 1440, Lorenzo Valla published a study proving it was false.

Even if the document had been genuine, neither Emperor Constantine nor any other politician would have authority to make any pronouncement whatsoever regarding the primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the Catholic Church.

So while Dr. Horton once again badly "misses the boat," he eventually does come around to getting a handle on the true role of the Pope. To his credit, he writes:

"Furthermore, the first five centuries witnessed the greatest doctrinal crises in church history. In these debates, the orthodox interpretations of such biblical doctrines as the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, original sin, and the need for grace were frequently defended by Rome. While other bishops were often less trustworthy in their interpretations of Scripture on these crucial points, the bishops of Rome usually took the right stand when truth required resolute confidence."

Bingo!

This is the meaning of Jesus' words that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against" his Church (Gospel of St. Matthew 16:18) and that "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Gospel of St. Matthew 28:20) He would not permit his Church to teach error.

Likewise in the Gospel of St. John 14:16, Jesus says, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever."

Also, in the Gospel of St. John 14:26, Jesus promises, "But the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Furthermore, in the Gospel of St. John 16:12-13, Jesus says, "I have yet many things to say unto you, you ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of trust, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."

To provide leadership to his Church, Jesus gave the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Gospel of St. Matthew 16:19) to St. Peter and his successors. This role as the Chief Steward of the Church can be understood from the Prophecy of Isaiah 22:20-22:

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

In addition, the power of Chief Shepherd was conferred on St. Peter in the Gospel of St. John 21:15-17 when Jesus tells him to "Feed my lambs" and "Feed my sheep." This special role can be understood from the following two verses:

2nd Book of Samuel 5:2 "Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel."

The Prophecy of Ezekiel 34:23 "And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd."

Likewise, in the Gospel of St. Luke 22:31-32, Jesus confers on St. Peter the responsibility to strengthen his fellow apostles, who are the first bishops of the Church:

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

For almost 2,000 years, that is exactly what the Popes have done.

(Art Kelly is a member of St. Veronica's Catholic Church in Herndon Virginia. He can be reached at arthurkelly@yahoo.com)

December 16, 2003

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_vi...cnum=4623&print

In The Lion's Den

Author: Tim Staples

Description: A suggested dialogue to use when in the position to defend the Church's refusal of sola scriptura.

Categories: Catholicism > Faith > Apologetics

Catholicism > Faith > Scripture

Larger Work: Envoy

Pages: 42 - 45

Publisher & Date: Envoy Communications, Inc., Steubenville, OH, Issue #3, 2001

Sola Scriptura: It's an open-and-shut case.

Scenario: You've been talking with Bob, a fellow worker at the office, for weeks about the faith. You can see you've made headway in presenting him your biblical case for Catholicism. So you decide to invite him to an apologetics Bible study you have at your parish.

He agrees to come on one condition: You must first come to a Bible study at his "non-denominational" assembly for four weeks. Then he will come to your meeting for four weeks.

Immediately, you jump at the chance. You're fired up! The Lord has given you an open door for evangelism.

Upon arrival at Bob's assembly, "Church of the Open Door," Bob takes you to a room filled with about forty-five congenial people with Bibles in hand. After drinking punch, eating a few cookies, and talking small talk for a few moments, the leader of the group, Robert, asks everyone to find a seat so the Bible study can begin.

After a short prayer, Robert says the topic of study over the next four weeks will be salvation. But first, he says, "We must begin with the assumption that all present believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. And also that Sacred Scripture is the regula fidei or sole rule of faith for all believers. In other words, the doctrine of sola scriptura."

You immediately raise your hand with a question. "Do you mind if I ask why you believe this seemingly foundational doctrine? I don't believe sola scriptura to be true — in fact, I don't believe that the Bible itself teaches a doctrine at all."

You hear a few subdued gasps and feel the eyes of all turn to you, as Robert quickly responds: "The Bible very plainly teaches sola scriptura in 2 Timothy 3:16: 'All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.' The Bible can't make it any more plain than that!" Robert declares.

You respond to Robert with four reasons why his stated position, sola scriptura, is untenable: It is unreasonable, unhistorical, unbiblical, and unworkable.

Step One: Sola Scriptura Is Unreasonable.

As briefly as possible, you quickly point out that Robert's reasoning is circular, and therefore fallacious: "You cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself. The Book of Mormon, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the Muslim Quran, and other books claim divine inspiration. This doesn't make them inspired. The question remains, how do we know the Scriptures are inspired and canonical using the principle of sola scriptura?"

Robert immediately asks if you Catholic. (He could tell by your critiques of sola scriptura). When you answer in the affirmative, Robert responds, "I believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth as Jesus said in John 16:13. The Holy Spirit guided the early Christians and helped them to gather the canon of Scripture and declare it to be the inspired Word of God. God would not leave us without His Word to guide us."

You respond, "The Scripture you quoted from John 16:13 has nothing to do with sola scriptura. While I agree with you that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures, the question is whether they used sola scriptura as their guiding principle. The answer is no.

"They needed Tradition outside of Scripture as their criterion for the canon. This criterion is not found in Scripture itself. They needed Tradition to authenticate the books in question. And they also needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree on the whole matter.

"All of that aside, let's look at the text you quoted. I ask you, what if I made a similar claim to demonstrate to you any of our Catholic dogmas? Imagine that you asked why I believe Mary to be the Mother of God, and I responded, 'We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth.' Would you believe me on this basis? No!

"But all this begs my original question. Not only is the text you used unacceptable from a perspective of sola scriptura; it's also circular reasoning to claim the Scripture as your authority for claiming the inspiration of Scripture."

Robert seems to be intrigued with this dialogue, as are the rest of those gathered. Robert says, "How do you know the Scriptures are inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular: You say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so, and then claim the Scriptures are inspired and infallible because the Church says so!"

"That's a very good question," you reply. "However, the Catholic Church's position on inspiration is not circular. We begin with the Bible as an historical document, not as an inspired one. As any reputable historian will tell you, the New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history. To deny the historical reliability of the New Testament would be to deny the reliability of all ancient history.

"Nevertheless, we cannot deduce from this that they are inspired. There are many accurate historical documents that are not inspired. However, the Scriptures do give us accurate historical information whether we hold to their inspiration or not.

"It is on this basis that we can say it is an historical fact that Jesus lived, died, and was reported to be resurrected from the dead by over five hundred eyewitnesses. This is the historical record. Many of these eyewitnesses went to their deaths testifying to the veracity of what Christ had done (see Lk 1:1-4, Jn 21:18-19, 24-25, Acts 1:1-11, 1 Cor 15:1-8). Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and historians, some of whom were not Christian — such as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus.

"Now, what do we find when we examine the Scriptures as historical documents? The Scriptures record Jesus establishing a Church, not a book, to be the foundation of the Christian faith (see Mt 16:15-18, 18:15-18, Eph 2:20, 3:10, 20-21, 4:11-15, 1 Tim 3:15, Heb 13:7, 17, and others). He said of His Church: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me" (Lk 10:16).

"The many books that comprise what we call the Bible never tell us certain crucial truths: the fact that they are inspired, or who can and cannot be the human author of them, or who authored many of them, or what is the canon of Scripture, just to name a few. But what is very clear is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for Him (see Lk 20:29-32, Mt 10:40, 28:18-20). It was members of this kingdom, the Church, that would write the Scripture, preserve the Scripture, and eventually canonize the Scripture.

"The Scriptures cannot write or canonize themselves. To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle, because we cannot determine what the scriptura is using the principle of sola scriptura."

Step Two: Sola Scriptura Is Unhistorical.

"If I may, I would like to concretize my point by making an argument from history. Let's say you were living in the mid-fourth century before there was a recognized canon of Scripture. As I'm sure you know, the first time a formal canon was arranged and recognized by any council of the Church was in A.D. 382 at a synod in Rome called by Pope Damascus I.

Let's say you were to read The Instructor by Saint Clement of Alexandria (written about 202). In book II, chapter 3, he quotes Baruch 3:16-19 and calls it 'Divine Scripture.'"

After you briefly explain, for those who may not know it, that Baruch is one of the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament accepted by Catholics, but rejected by Protestants, you note: "Saint Clement was the head of the famous catechetical school in Alexandria and one of the greatest theologians of the second and third centuries. Now I could cite scores of examples of other early Christians referring to the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, but for the sake of brevity I will refer just to this one.

"Let's say you then read a book by the greatest historian of the fourth century, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. In his classic Ecclesiastical History (written around 330), book III, chapters 3 and 25, he records the canon of Scripture as understood in the mid-fourth century. He claims that James, Jude, 2 Peter and 2 and 3 John are among 'the disputed writings.' He notes that Hebrews and Revelation are rejected altogether by many.

"My question is this: Many of the early Christians disagreed over which books were inspired. So where do you go to get a definitive answer about the canon of Scripture if you use the principle of sola scriptura?"

Robert responds: "You make some very interesting points that I will have to think about. However, I have to disagree with you when you say the Scriptures do not claim to be inspired and the sole rule of faith. I've already quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 to you. In addition, over and over in Scripture we clearly find our Lord quoting the Old Testament authoritatively, as He does in Matthew 4:4-11. When Jesus was tempted by the Devil, his response was: 'It is written' — three times in a matter of seven verses. Jesus clearly uses sola scriptura as his guiding principle or regula fidei."

This leads you into your third point.

Step Three: Sola Scriptura Is Unbiblical.

"Let's back up," you say, "to the original verse Robert used to prove his case, 2 Timothy 3:16. (You now find yourself addressing the entire Bible study group, not just Robert!) The text itself does not assert what Robert claimed. It does not claim the inspiration of the New Testament. Nor does it claim to be the sole rule of faith for Christians. Let's look at the context of the passage.

"Robert, let's read aloud verses 14-15, which precede 2 Timothy 3:16." (You can't help but notice that you are slowly taking over the Bible study!) Robert then reads aloud: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (emphasis added).

"In context, this passage does not refer to the New Testament at all. None of the New Testament books had been written when Saint Timothy was a child! Further, how does this text tell us whether or not the book of Revelation is an authentic book of the New Testament, since it had not even been written at that point?"

Robert responds: "You keep coming back to the canon and you make an interesting point. As I said, I will have to think more about that, but you cannot escape the unique status Scripture is given in the Bible. Only Scripture is referred to as inspired by God. Therefore, only Scripture can be said to be infallible. And the text says Scripture is all we need to equip us. We certainly do not need any Catholic traditions. In fact, Jesus condemned the use of tradition in Matthew 15:1-6."

"With all due respect," you reply, "I have to disagree with you. You've made three key mistakes I think we can clear up. First, while I agree with you that only Scripture is referred to as inspired (Greek theopneustos), that does not mean the infallible Word of God is limited to Scripture. The text does not say that!

"Inspiration is a technical term used to describe the unique way in which God instrumentally moved the human authors of Scripture to write in such a way that we can say God is the primary author of Scripture. However, this is not the only way in which God communicates His infallible Word. For example, in Deuteronomy 18:20-22 we are told that if a prophet speaks a word that does not come to pass, he is a false prophet and is put to death.

"Why? Because the spoken word of a true prophet is infallible. A true prophet does not hit and miss. And by the way: You don't have to wait until it's written down before it becomes infallible!

"Second, we agree that Jesus quoted Scripture and condemned some traditions. But He did not refer to Scripture alone as His authority, and He did not condemn all tradition. When Jesus condemned a certain tradition of the Pharisees in Matthew 15:9, He qualified exactly what kind of tradition it was. Jesus condemned the tradition of men, not all tradition.

"In fact, Jesus refers to an oral tradition in Matthew 23:2-3: 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.' Jesus both refers to this oral tradition about 'the chair of Moses' Himself, and commands the apostles to believe and obey it."

"St. Paul also mentions oral Tradition as having the same authority as written Tradition in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 and 2:15. The last of these texts says: 'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.' Even further, Jesus not only referred to Scripture and Tradition, but He also gave us teachings on His own authority as well when He repeatedly said, 'You have heard it said . . . but I say unto you . . . ' (Mt 5:21-44).

"Now for my third point: Even if we granted that 2 Timothy 3:16 was talking about all of Scripture, it never claims Scripture is the sole rule of faith. A rule of faith, but not the sole rule of faith. Let me explain what I mean.

"In James 1:4 we read: 'And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.' If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that you applied to 2 Timothy 3:16, we would have to say that all we need is steadfastness to be perfected. We don't need faith, hope, charity, the Scriptures, the Church, or anything else."

Robert immediately says, "That is manifestly absurd!"

"Of course it is," you reply. "Can you see how I would say it is just as weak to claim that 2 Timothy 3:16 is saying Scripture is all we need because it says Scripture serves believers so that they may be 'complete, equipped for every good work'?"

Step Four: Sola Scriptura Is Unworkable.

Realizing you have monopolized the time at this Bible study, and looking for a graceful exit, you conclude your remarks. "If I could leave you with one last biblical text: 'If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone . . . But if he does not listen, take on or two others along with you . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell 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' (Mt 18:15-17).

"The Bible is very clear to me about what to do if we have a disagreement with one another over some issue pertaining to the Faith. And please remember: To lead someone into heresy is a grievous sin against your brother according to Galatians 5:19-21! The Bible tells us that the Church, not the Bible, is the final court of appeal. I believe this is made obvious in the case of the canon of Scripture as I mentioned. It was the Church that declared the truth about the Bible.

"But isn't it also telling that since the 'Reformation' just 480 years ago — a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle — there are now over 26,000 denominations that have derived from that principle? The 1982 World Christian Encyclopedia projected in that year that there would be 22,190 denominations by 1985. 'The present net increase," it noted, is 270 denominations each year (five new ones a week).'1 If we extend that projection to our time, we have well over 26,000 denominations by now.

"It seems to me that for 1,500 years we only had a few enduring schisms, such as the Coptics and the Orthodox. Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be 'one shepherd and one fold' in John 10:16, this is what He had in mind. It seems quite clear to me that not only is sola scriptura unreasonable, unhistorical, and unbiblical — it's also unworkable."

Robert says that he must begin the Bible study even though there is very little time remaining for the class. He says the group would take up this subject again in the future and awkwardly begins his talk. You can tell that he's uneasy as he continues the study, and you decide to be quiet for these last few minutes.

Wow! you think to yourself. I can't wait to come back again next week!

Tim Staples is the director of evangelization for the Catholic Resource Center in West Covina, CA.

Notes

1. David Barrett, ed., World Christian Encyclopedia, 1st ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1982), 15-18.

December 16, 2003

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_vi...ecnum=909&print

Two Great Heresies of the Reformation

Author: Russell Shaw

Description: Russell Shaw gives a brief summary of the two central tenets of Reformation-Era Protestantism, Justification by Faith and Sola Scriptura.

Categories: Issues > Controversies

Culture > History

Larger Work: Catholic Heritage

Pages: 18-20

Publisher & Date: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., January/February 1996

Two Great Heresies of the Reformation

by Russell Shaw

Reading about theological controversies of the 16th century, it's easy to think them dry and irrelevant. But just as these disputes involved the clash of passionately held positions back then, so even today their influence is felt. That is certainly true of controversies focused on two central tenets of Reformation-era Protestantism — "justification by faith" and belief in Scripture alone (sola Scriptura) as the norm of faith.

One of the great blessings of our times concerns the fact that Catholics and other Christians generally are more eager to agree about such matters than fight about them. But agreement is more likely — and will be more firmly founded — if there is a clear understanding of what the original disagreements were all about.

Soon after the Reformation began, Protestantism divided into two main groups, Lutheranism and Calvinism. Belief in justification by faith commonly is identified with Martin Luther (1483-1546) and his followers, sola Scriptura with John Calvin (1509-1564) and his. But that's too simple.

Plainly there are real differences between Lutheranism and Calvinism. Perhaps the most immediately obvious is that Calvin, author of the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" (1536), a volume described as "early Protestantism's greatest theological work," was a clearer, more systematic thinker than the volcanic, changeable Luther,

Still, both Protestant bodies shared similar views about justification and the authority of the Bible. Arguably, the most authoritative account of what early Lutherans held is the Formula of Concord, definitive statement of Lutheran belief published in 1577, 31 years after Luther's death.

Even the hardiest Catholic apologist now concedes that, initially at least, Luther and his followers were reacting against real abuses and excesses in popular Catholic beliefs and practices of the time.

The manner of preaching "St. Peter's Indulgence," which was the immediate occasion of Luther's revolt, was a scandal.

The angry Augustinian professor apparently was correct in writing about Catholic: who "believe that if they buy a letter of pardon they are sure of their salvation" and "that souls fly out of purgatory as soon as money is cast into the chest."

For Luther and Calvin, though, the starting point for the idea "justification by faith" lay elsewhere —in a radical view of human nature as totally corrupted by original sin.

The Formula of Concord attributes to Luther this statement; "Our free will has no power whatsoever in virtue of which man could prepare himself for justice [that is, for the reception of God's redeeming grace] or even seek it out. On the contrary, blind and captive man gives exclusive obedience to Satan's will and perpetrates thereby things offensive to God."

Calvin says that, after the Fall, the divine image is still present in human nature, "yet it was so corrupted that whatever remains is frightful deformity." In these circumstances, so the reasoning went, people can do nothing whatsoever to help themselves. All depends on God and God's grace. And grace is, by definition, a free gift; human beings cannot merit or deserve it. All that is possible — and it is absolutely required — is faith in Christ and confidence in His merits. As the Formula of Concord puts it: "Justification calls for three things, and three things only: God's grace, Christ's merit, and faith." In response to faith, God imputes or attributes Christ's merit to us; but the merit remains entirely His —it is in no way ours.

It would not be accurate, though, to say that the early Protestants were indifferent to good works. They considered good works to be the fruit — the result and evidence — of justification by faith. The point they were at pains to stress was that good works neither preceded nor in any way merited justification.

No doubt some — but hardly all — ways of expressing the doctrine of justification by faith can be squared with orthodox Catholic belief.

As a practical matter, though, the doctrine involves problems. Its logic undercuts the idea of free will. And, as we have learned to our sorrow in the last four centuries, the notion that people are not free and responsible for what they do can pave the way for both despair and presumption. Thus the Catholic historian Philip Hughes writes: "The new religion [Protestantism] introduced . . . a whole series of vital antagonisms to perplex and hinder man already only too tried by his own freely chosen wrongdoing."

Something similar might be said of the doctrine of sola Scriptura. The early Protestants declared the authority of the Bible to .be not only supreme but solitary. They rejected the idea that divine revelation also was contained in a "tradition" outside the pages of Scripture and that both things — Scripture and Tradition — were subject to interpretation by the teaching authority of the Church.

The Formula of Concord declares the Scriptures to be the one and only rule (norma normans) for judging all doctrines and teachers of religion.

The intent, it hardly needs saying, was to exalt the authority of Scripture. But history plays strange tricks. As a Catholic commentator remarks: "After the Reformers had divorced Scripture from the living tradition of the Church, rationalists later began to treat the Scriptures as purely human documents." That is hardly what Luther, Calvin and the rest had in mind, but it happened.

This rationalistic, skeptical view of the Bible is part of the reality with which we now live (even in some religious circles, thanks to the influence of 19th-century "liberal Protestant" ideas about Scripture). But so is something else: biblical fundamentalism, which takes a highly literal reading of Scripture and refuses to accept any article of faith not explicitly stated there — a contradictory position, be it noted, since the Bible does not and cannot testify to its own authority.

Among the continuing requirements for Christian unity, Pope John Paul II points out in his 1995 encyclical on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint ("That They May Be One"), is agreement on "the relationship between Sacred Scripture, as the highest authority in matters of faith, and Sacred Tradition, as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God."

In the lifetime of Luther and Calvin, the Catholic Church responded authoritatively to the new modes of thought. The chief response was the teaching of the great reforming ecumenical council, the Council of Trent (1545-63). Replying to the idea of sola Scriptura, Trent first speaks of the revelation entrusted by Christ to His apostles.

Then it adds:

"The council is aware that this truth and teaching are contained in written books and in the unwritten traditions that the apostles received from Christ himself or that were handed on . . . under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and so have come down to us. . . . With the same sense of devotion and reverence with which it accepts and venerates all the books both of the Old and the New Testament . . . it also accepts and venerates traditions concerned with faith and morals as having been received orally from Christ or inspired by the Holy Spirit and continuously preserved in the Catholic Church."

Four centuries later, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, reaffirmed this teaching, and said: "Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church. . . . The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone."

Turning to justification by faith, the Council of Trent dealt with the question at great length and in a highly nuanced way in its famous Decree on Justification. The decree fully acknowledges the gratuitousness of God's grace — grace is altogether freely given — and the absolute need of human beings for grace in order to be "justified." At the same time, it insists that men and women have a real role to play — they have something to do — in the process of justification, and it underlines the importance of good works in earning merit.

So for example, in one of 33 "Canons on Justification" at the end of the decree, Trent teaches: "If anyone says that justice . . . is not preserved or even increased before God through good works, but that such works are merely the outgrowth and the signs of the reception of justification, not the cause of its increase as well: let him be anathema."

Generally speaking, we have left anathemas behind since then. But some theological and practical questions that exercised Protestants and Catholics of the 16th century remain to be settled. In the spirit of ecumenism, we might pray that, through trusting faith and constant good works, loyally adhering to the Word of God wherever found, we all shall come to see and repose in God's truth together.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell Shaw is director of public information for the Knights of Columbus

December 16, 2003

http://onefaith.freeservers.com/faithalone.htm

Is Salvation by Faith ALONE?

A common belief among Protestants is that the only thing necessary for assurance of salvation in heaven is for a person to turn to Christ in faith and to simply accept Him as his "personal Lord and Savior." After all, St. Paul clearly says "...If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Rom 10:9). St. Paul also tells us that one cannot be saved through works: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is a gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast" (Eph 2:8-9).

The Protestants are very correct in stating that faith is necessary for salvation. Catholics have always believed this! The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. 'Since 'without faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'but he who endures to the end."

However, Catholics do not believe that we can obtain salvation by faith alone. The phrase "faith alone" appears only once in the Bible and it is in the book of James: "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Martin Luther added the word "alone" to his German translation of Romans 3:28, even though the word does not appear in the Greek manuscripts. He even admitted this in a letter to his friend Wenceslaus Link:

"...I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at, as a cow stares at a new gate... It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves, they will not get it out."

Please note the the Catholic Church does not believe that a Christian can "work his way to heaven" or "earn his own salvation" apart from the grace of God.

The Bible clearly shows that faith is much more than believing that Jesus is your Lord and Savior. This is a very important first step, but not enough for salvation. After all, even evil spirits recognize and acknowledge who Jesus is. Many Christians today equate "faith" with a "decision for Christ." Faith is not a major decision that happens once, twice, or a few times in a person's life. Faith is a way of life!

Lets take a look at the word "saved" (Greek: sozo) within the context of the entire New Testament.

Past Tense: The Bible uses the word "saved" [Greek: sozo] in the past tense when it refers to the past event of Jesus' death and resurrection that has redeemed humanity (Redemption is "to return to a person a possession that once belonged to him.").

In Acts 4:12, we read "There is no salvation through anyone else, nor is there any other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved [Greek: sozo]." (see also: Eph 1:7)

Present Tense: The New Testament also refers to being saved [Greek: sozo] in the present tense.

Christians who are baptized have been "clothed with Christ" and can share in the fruits of Jesus' death and resurrection. In 1 Pet 3:21, we read that the experience of Noah and the flood (recounted in the Old Testament)"...prefigured baptism, which saves [Greek: sozo] you now..." (see also Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-5)

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved [Greek: sozo]." (Mark 16:16)

"Through [the Gospel] you are also being saved [Greek: sozo], if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain." (1 Cor 15:2; see also: Phil 2:12)

Future Tense: Being "saved" [Greek: sozo] is also described as being a future event that will be experienced only by those who are found faithful to Jesus at the very end of their lives. (The Bible tells us that a person can lose his salvation if found unfaithful at death):

"...whoever endures to the end will be saved [Greek: sozo]." (Matt 10:22)

"...the one who perseveres to the end will be saved [Greek: sozo]." (Mark 13:13)

Most evangelical Christians use the word "saved" to mean that they have done what Paul asked of us in Rom 10:9: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." After acknowledging their need for God and their faith in Jesus Christ, many fundamentalist Christians believe they have a 100% assurance of salvation. However, the New Testament shows that being saved is not that simple. Among other things, we must:

Profess personal faith in Jesus as our Savior (Rom 10:9)

Serve the Lord and do what he asks of us. The Bible says that faith alone "is dead." (James 2:12, 17, 24; Rev 14:13; 19:8; 20:13)

Be baptized into Jesus's family (John 3:1-5, 22; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:18-21; Gal 3:27; Matt 28:19; Mark 16:16)

Cooperate with God's free gift of grace every day until the very end of our life. The Bible tells us that those who don't persevere in their faith will not be "saved." (Mark 13:13; Matt 10:22; Phil 2:12-13; Heb 3:14; 1 Cor 9:27; 10:12; 2 Tim 2:12; 1 Tim 1:18-19; Rom 11:22)

Regularly confess our sins and receiving God's forgiveness of our post-baptismal sins. (John 20:21-23; Matt 9:1-8; Matt 16:18-19 and 2 Cor 5:10 for the Bible's instructions on how and to whom this confession should be made.)

Regularly receive His Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist (John 6:4, 53-54; Heb 10:23-31; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:24-26).

Let's take a look at what Scripture teaches about the necessity of performing good works (accomplished by God's grace and assisted by the Holy Spirit):

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." (Matt 7:21)

In Matthew, a rich young man asks Jesus, "...What good must I do to gain eternal life?" Rather than saying that the rich young man needed to have faith alone He tells him: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments ... If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." (Matt 19:16-21) (notice that "being perfect" is required of all Christians in Matt 5:48)

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works [Greek: ergon]? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14)

"So also faith of itself, if it does not have works [Greek: ergon], is dead." (James 2:17)

"...I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works [Greek: ergon]." (James 2:18)

"You see that faith was active along with [Abraham's] works [Greek: ergon], and faith was completed by the works [Greek: ergon]." (James 2:22)

"See how a person is justified by works [Greek: ergon] and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

"...faith without works [Greek: ergon] is dead." (James 2:26)

"...whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins." (James 5:20)

"...if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13:2)

"Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up." (Gal 6:9)

"Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." (Rev 22:12)

"...God, who will repay everyone according to his works [Greek: ergon], eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works [Greek: ergon], but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness." (Rom 2:5-7)

"For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." (Gal 5:6)

At the General Judgement at the end of time, what will distinguish "the sheep" (who will be admitted into heaven by Jesus) from "the goats" (who will be eternally damned by Jesus) will be their loving works (feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the ill, visiting the imprisoned). These loving works will help to exhibit the sincerity and the depth of the Christian's God-given faith life (Matt 25:31-46)

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil." (2 Cor 5:10)

In Revelation we read that the spiritual merits of earthly good works accompany the saints when they enter heaven: "...I heard a voice from heaven say, 'Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.' 'Yes,' said the Spirit, 'let them find rest from their labors, for their works [Greek: ergon] accompany them.'" (Rev 14:13). "She was allowed to wear a bright, clean linen garment, The linen represents the righteous deeds of the holy ones" (Rev 19:8).

The New Testament tells us that Christians will not be judged by their "faith alone" but by their actual deeds and personal conduct that they exhibited while living on earth. "I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds [Greek: ergon]." (Rev 20:12-13)

"Therefore, my beloved brothers, be firm, steadfast, always fully devoted to the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." (1 Cor 15:58)

"For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones." (Heb 6:10)

"...work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work." (Phil 2:12-13)

"...The person who acts in righteousness is righteous..." (1 John 3:7)

"Now if you invoke as Father him who judges impartially according to each one's works [Greek: ergon], conduct yourselves with reverence during the time of your sojourning..." (1 Pet 1:17)

"...we have confidence in God and receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him" (1 John 3:21)

Alan Schrek sums it up very well in his book Catholic and Christian:

"The Council of Trent clearly stated that of the two (faith and works), faith was the primary means of accepting salvation ('the beginning of human salvation' from our perspective). 'Good works' or charity is also important for salvation, but as a 'fruit' of genuine faith."

In other words, Christians are justified by an alive faith that is characterized by loving works and obedience to God. A Christian's good works are his loving response to God's free and gracious gift of faith!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more in-depth study of salvation, please visit the Nazareth InfoWizard.

December 16, 2003

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/necessit.htm

The Necessity of Being Catholic

by James Akin

One of the most controversial papal documents ever released was the bull Unam Sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII. Today the most controversial part of the bull is the following infallible pronouncement: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff."

This doctrine is extraordinarily controversial. Some Catholic extremists claim (contrary to further Church teaching, including a further infallible definition) that this means everyone who is not a full-fledged, professing Catholic is damned. Non-Catholics find the claim offensive, sectarian, and anti-Christian in sentiment.

Most Catholics who are aware of the definition find it embarrassing, especially in today's ecumenical age, and many try to ignore or dismiss it, though even liberal Catholic theologians admit it is a genuine doctrinal definition and must in some sense be true.

Its truth was reinforced by Vatican II, which stated: "This holy Council . . . asing itself on Scripture and Tradition . . . teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. . . . [Christ] himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16, John 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it" (Lumen Gentium 14).

Many moderns explain this doctrine in a way that robs it of its content. In the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, who admitted the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics, lamented that some Catholic theologians were "reducs an exclusivist view of salvation, this teaching does not mean that anyone who is not a full-fledged Catholic is damned. As further Church teaching has made clear, including a further doctrinal definition, it is entirely possible for a person to be saved without being a professing Catholic. Formally belonging to the Church and formally being subject to the Roman Pontiff are normative rather than absolute necessities.

An absolute necessity is a necessity which holds in all cases with no exceptions. A normative necessity is usually required, though there are exceptions. An example of normative necessity in everyday American life is the practice of driving on the right hand side of the road. This is normally required, but there are exceptions, such as emergency situations. For example, if a small child darts out from behind parked cars, it may be necessary (and legally permitted) to swerve into the left hand lane to avoid hitting him. Thus the necessity of driving on the right hand side of the road is a normative rather than an absolute necessity.

Whether it is a normative or an absolute necessity to be united to the Catholic Church depends on what kind of unity with the Church one has in mind, because there are different ways of being associated with the Catholic Church.

A person who has been baptized or received into the Church is fully and formally a Catholic. Vatican II states: "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who -- by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion -- are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops" (Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).

But it is also possible to be "associated" with or "partially incorporated" into the Catholic Church without being a fully and formally incorporated into it. Vatican II states: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter" (Lumen Gentium 15). Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).

Those who have not been baptized are also put in an imperfect communion with the Church, even if they do not realize it, if they possess the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. Pope Pius XII explains that the "juridical bonds [of the Church] in themselves far surpass those of any other human society, however exalted; and yet another principle of union must be added to them in those three virtues, Christian faith, hope, and charity, which link us so closely to each other and to God. . . . f the bonds of faith and hope, which bind us to our Redeemer in his Mystical Body are weighty and important, those of charity are certainly no less so. . . . Charity . . . more than any other virtue binds us closely to Christ" (Mystici Corporis 70, 73).

Understanding this distinction between perfect and imperfect communion with the Church is essential to understanding the necessity of being a Catholic. It is an absolute necessity -- no exceptions at all -- to be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. However, it is only normatively necessary to be fully incorporated into or in perfect communion with the Catholic Church. There are exceptions to that requirement, as the Council of Trent taught (see below), though it is still a normative necessary.

In our discussion below, the word "necessary" will mean "normatively necessary," not "absolutely necessary."

Necessity of Means and Precept

Theologians also differentiate between things that are necessary by precept and things that are necessary as a means. The same example of driving on the right hand side of the road serves to illustrate both. In America driving on the right hand side of the road has a necessity of precept because the law requires us to do so. However, it is also necessary as a means because if one wishes to safely navigate the highways in America then one must drive on the right hand side of the road. If you wish to arrive safely at your destination, the means to that end is driving on the right hand side.

Thus driving on the right side of the road is a normative necessity by precept (because the law normally requires it) and a normative necessity of means (because it is normally necessary to safely arrive at one's destination). However, it is not an absolute necessity of precept (because the law makes exceptions for emergencies) or an absolute necessity of means (because safely arriving at one's destination sometimes requires a swerve into the other lane as an emergency maneuver).

When it comes to the question of being a Catholic, that is both a necessity of precept and a necessity of means. It is a necessity of precept because God commands it, for "the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ," Lumen Gentium 14 (CCC 846). It is a necessity of means because the Catholic Church is the sacrament of salvation for mankind, containing all the means of grace. "As sacrament, the Church is Christ's instrument. 'She is taken up by him also as the instrument for the salvation of all,' 'the universal sacrament of salvation,' by which Christ is 'at once manifesting and actualizing the mystery of God's love for men'" (CCC 776, citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium 9:2, 48:2, and Gaudiam et Spes 45:1).

The Offense of the Gospel

To many this teaching sounds extremely offensive, sectarian, and anti-Christian. But is it really? While non-Catholic Christians balk at the claim one must be a Catholic to be saved, many do not balk when it is said that one must be a Christian to be saved. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are well known for claiming precisely this. Many even say it is an absolute necessity -- no exceptions allowed -- and are critical of Catholics for saying some non-Christians may make it into heaven. They claim that in allowing this possibility the Church has compromised the gospel.

(For a scriptural rebuttal to this, see Acts 10:34-35, in which Peter declares that anyone who fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to the Lord. See also Acts 17:23, in which Paul says some Greeks worshipped the true God in ignorance. And see Rom. 2:13-16, in which Paul states that some gentiles who do not have the law of Moses -- meaning non-Christian gentiles, since they do have the law of Moses -- may be excused by their consciences and declared righteous on the day of judgment.)

Evangelicals and Fundamentalists find the claim that one must be Catholic to be saved offensive, but no more offensive than non-Christians find the Evangelical claim that one must be Christian to be saved. Non-Christians regularly complain that this claim is offensive, sectarian, and even "anti-Christian." Yet Protestants argue that it is nothing of the sort; it is simply true. One must (at least normatively) be a Christian to be saved.

To back this up, they point to verses such as John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12. In the former, Jesus declares, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." In the latter Peter declares that Jesus is "the stone which was rejected by you builders, but which has become the head of the corner. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Both passages teach the (normative) necessity of being a Christian to be saved, and Protestants are right to cite them.

This means the Catholic claim that we must be part of a particular group is no more offensive, sectarian, or anti-Christian than the corresponding Protestant claim. It simply involves a somewhat smaller group -- Catholics -- instead of a somewhat larger one -- Christians (the majority of whom are Catholics to begin with). It is part of the offense of the gospel, since the gospel demands a radical commitment to Christ (and correspondingly to his Church). Non-Christians naturally find this call to a radical realignment and recommitment upsetting, but there is nothing unreasonable about it. It is part of the offense of the gospel.

Similarly, there is no unreasonableness about the gospel's demand for a commitment to Christ entails a corresponding commitment to his Church. When they find this offensive, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are having the same emotional reaction that others have to their own claim. This has nothing to do with whether the claim is true; it is simply part of the offense of the gospel.

The Argument

How then would a Catholic go about proving it is necessary to be a Catholic and subject to the pope? The answer is that both these things are refinements of what it means to be a Christian. To be a Christian it is normatively necessary to be a formal member of the Church Christ founded. This is the Catholic Church. And to be a formal member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be formally subject to the earthly leader Christ established for it: the pope.

A Catholic thus might construct an argument for Unam Sanctam's definition like this:

1) To be saved it is necessary to be a Christian.

2) To be a Christian it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church.

3) To be a member of Christ's Church it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church.

4) To be a member of the Catholic Church it is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

5) Therefore, it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

In this argument, the necessities are all normative necessities and the kind of membership being discussed is formal membership. The argument has a logically valid form (in fact, it expresses a variation on what is known as the "hypothetical syllogism" argument form), meaning that the truth of its conclusion depends only on the truth of the premises it contains.

The first premise we may take as established. The verses quoted earlier, John 14:6 and Acts 4:11-12, show that it is (normatively) necessary to be a Christian to be saved.

Both Protestants and Catholics also agree on the second premise, though they disagree over the nature of Christ's Church. Protestants say it is necessary to be a member of Christ's Church to be a Christian because in their view all true Christians are automatically members of Christ's Church, which they define as the invisible, spiritual communion of all true Christians.

Catholics say that it is normatively necessary for Christians to be members of Christ's Church for two reasons. First, because baptism automatically incorporates one into the Catholic Church (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:27) unless some assault on the unity of the Church -- such as heresy or schism -- prevents one from being or remaining fully incorporated into it (cf. Rom. 11:19-23, Col. 2:18-19). Because baptism is the means by which one becomes a Christian, there is a necessity of means for a Christian to be a Catholic.

Second, because Christ also commands his followers to be subject to the Church leaders he has established (including the pope). This means it is also a necessity of precept for a Christian to be a member of the Catholic Church (1 Thess. 5:12-13, Heb. 13:7, 17; cf. Matt. 16:18, Luke 10:16, Acts 20:28).

The Nature of the Church

When a Protestant objects to the above argument, it will be to the third proposition -- that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. Both sides agree on the other three points. While it is beyond the scope of this article to give a full proof of the third proposition (this is one of the major tasks of Catholic apologetics), we can offer a limited proof.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Christ founded some Church and that this Church will remain forever (Matt. 16:18). The question is whether this Church is a visible communion that can be identified or whether is it a purely spiritual communion made up of all the saved. If it is a visible communion, the Catholic Church is the only plausible candidate, since only this Church extends back far enough (the Eastern Orthodox communion did not finally break with Rome until the 1450s, a mere sixty years before the Protestant Reformation). We can thus give a limited argument for the third proposition by showing the Church Christ founded is a visible communion.

This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ's own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 -- the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. inDouche, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as "a gentile or a tax collector" (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church's members are in heaven and Christ's heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

Union with the Pope

This leaves us with the fourth proposition -- that to be a Catholic one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Two lines of evidence show this proposition.

First, if one is a member of any formal organization, one is by nature subject to its leader (if it has one). The boundaries of formal organizations are established by who is united with the leader. If one is not in formal union with the leader, one is not a formal member of the organization. This holds regardless of the group in question. If one is not subject to the king, one is not a citizen of the kingdom. If one is not formally under the chairman, one is not a member of the committee. Since Jesus made Peter the leader of the Church, one who is a member of the Church is necessarily subject to the pope.

All Catholics have at least formal submission to the pope by their very membership in the Church. In practice, however, many do not live out the obligation of giving real submission, and may even declare that they find the notion of "submission" to anyone repulsive. This is similar to how political radicals may disavow the President of the United States, even though they are formally subject to him by their American citizenship. If a person disavows submission to the pope, he is automatically excommunicated by having gone into schism, which is defined as "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CIC 751, CCC 2089.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. Keys are used to open and close doors or gates through which people enter. Jesus thus gave Peter the power to admit and exclude from the Church. This power is often exercised in the name of the pope by his priests, who by baptism or profession of faith bring new members into the Church, but power is the pope's. When one is admitted to the Church, it is by exercise of the keys of the kingdom. The keys also can potentially exclude one through excommunication. Both the gaining and loss of membership are functions of the power of the keys, which is held by the pope.

Scripture thus shows that all four of the above propositions are true. It is normatively necessary for salvation to be subject to the pope. This is not because of any special quality of the pope himself, but because he is the leader Christ appointed for his Church, and because full membership in his Church is normatively necessary for being a Christian, which is normatively necessary for salvation.

Exceptions to the Rule

It is possible in some instances for a person to be saved without fulfilling these obligations. If a person is innocently ignorant of his obligation to join the Church then God will not hold this against him, but will make it possible for him to be saved anyway.

One is innocently ignorant if he has not seen sufficient evidence for the truth of the Catholic faith (given his mental faculties and any opposing evidence he has been given by anti-Catholics). But if one has seen sufficient evidence, or if he has seen enough evidence that he should investigate further but has failed to do so, his ignorance is not innocent.

Even for those who are innocently ignorant, salvation is not achieved without some union with the Church. As Catholic teaching makes clear, one can be united with the Church in a way that does not involve full incorporation into it. Only Catholics are fully incorporated, though non-Catholics who are in a state of grace are linked with it (to use Vatican II's terminology), even if they are unaware of this.

Vatican II stated: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. . . . But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:16) takes zealous care to foster the missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).

Some radical traditionalists are not satisfied with the teaching of Vatican II and demand more proof that some who are not in formal union with the Church can be saved. We could cite the works of any number of popes prior to Vatican II to show this (for example, Pius IX's allocution, Singulari Quadem, given the day after he defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854, or his 1863 encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, or Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Mystici Corporis), but to make short work of the matter, let us look at an infallible definition from the Council of Trent, whose teachings were formulated in one of the most bitterly polemical and least ecumenical periods in history, and which to radical traditionalists is an absolutely unimpeachable source.

Trent on Desire for Baptism

Canon four of Trent's "Canons on the Sacraments in General" states, "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluous, and that although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them . . . men obtain from God the grace of justification, let him be anathema [excommunicated]." This is an infallible statement because anathemas pronounced by ecumenical councils are recognized as infallibly defining the doctrine under discussion.

Trent teaches that although not all the sacraments are necessary for salvation, the sacraments in general are necessary. Without them or the desire of them men cannot obtain the grace of justification, but with them or the desire of them men can be justified. The sacrament through which we initially receive justification is baptism. But since the canon teaches that we can be justified with the desire of the sacraments rather than the sacraments themselves, we can be justified with the desire for baptism rather than baptism itself.

This is confirmed in chapter four of Trent's Decree on Justification. This chapter defines justification as "a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the sons' of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior." Justification thus includes the state of grace (salvation). The chapter then states that "this translation, after the promulgation of the gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God' [John 3:5]." Justification, and thus the state of grace, can be effected through the desire for baptism (for scriptural examples of baptism of desire, see Acts 10:44-48, also Luke 23:42-43).

Only actual baptism makes one a formal member of the Church; baptism of desire does not do so. Since justification can be received by desire for baptism, as Trent states, justification and thus the state of grace can be received without formal membership in the Church. The desire for baptism is sufficient.

Implicit Desire

Later Catholic teaching has clarified the nature of this desire and shown it can be either explicit or implicit. One has explicit desire for baptism if he consciously desires and resolves to be baptized (as with catechumens and others). One has an implicit desire if he would resolve to be baptized if he knew the truth about it.

How does implicit desire work? Consider the following analogy: Suppose there is a person who is sick and needs a shot of penicillin to make him better. He tells his physician, "Doc, you've got to give me something to help me get well!" The doctor looks at his chart and says, "Oh, what you want is penicillin. That's the right drug for you." In this case the man had an explicit desire for a drug to make him better -- whatever that drug might be -- and the appropriate one was penicillin. He thus had an implicit desire for penicillin even if he had not heard of it before. Thus the doctor said: "What you want is penicillin." This shows that it is possible to want something without knowing what it is.

A person who has a desire to be saved and come to the truth, regardless of what that truth turns out to be, has an implicit desire for Catholicism and for the Catholic Church, because that is where truth and salvation are obtained. By resolving to pursue salvation and truth, he resolves to pursue the Catholic Church, even though he does not know that is what he is seeking. He thus implicitly longs to be a Catholic by explicitly longing and resolving to seek salvation and truth.

Papal and conciliar writings in the last hundred years have clarified that those who are consciously non-Catholic in their theology may still have an overriding implicit desire for the truth and hence for Catholicism. Pope Pius XII stated that concerning some of "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer" (Mystici Corporis 103).

How does this work? Consider our example of the sick man who needs penicillin. Suppose that he thinks that a sulfa drug will cure him and he explicitly desires it. So he tells the doctor, "Doc, I'm real sick, and you've got to give me that sulfa drug to make me better." But the doctor notices on his chart that he has an allergy to sulfa drugs, and says, "No, you don't want that; what you really want is penicillin." In this case the person's primary desire is to get well; he has simply mistaken what will bring that about. Since his primary desire to be well, he implicitly desires whatever will cause that to happen. He thus implicitly desires the correct drug and will explicitly desire that drug as soon as he realizes the sulfa would not work.

As papal and conciliar writings have indicated, the same thing is possible in religion. If a person's primary desire is for salvation and truth then he implicitly desires Catholicism even if he is consciously mistaken about what will bring him salvation and truth. He might be a member of some other church, yet desire salvation and truth so much that he would instantly become a Catholic if he knew the truth concerning it. In this case, his primary desire would be for salvation and truth -- wherever that might be found -- rather than his primary desire being membership in a non-Catholic church.

However, the situation could be reversed. It is possible for a person to have a stronger desire not to be a Catholic than to come to the truth. This would be the case when people resist evidence for the truth of Catholicism out of a desire to remain non-Catholic. In this case their primary desire would not be for the truth but for remaining a non-Catholic. Thus their ignorance of the truth would not be innocent (because they desired something else more than the truth), and it would constitute mortal sin.

Even though some radical traditionalists are disobedient to the papal and conciliar documents which teach the possibility of implicit desire sufficing for salvation, the Church has still taught for centuries that formal membership in the Church is not an absolute necessity for salvation. This was the point made by Trent when it spoke of desire for baptism bringing justification. The issue of whether desire for baptism saves and the issue of whether that desire can be explicit or implicit are two separate subjects which radical traditionalists often confuse. If we keep them separate, it is extremely clear from the Church's historic documents that formal membership in the Church is not necessary for salvation.

Justification and Salvation

To avoid this, some radical traditionalists have tried to drive a wedge between justification and salvation, arguing that while desire for baptism might justify one, it would not save one if one died without baptism. But this is shown to be false by numerous passages in Trent.

In the same chapter that it states that desire for baptism justifies, Trent defines justification as "a translation . . . to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God" (Decree on Justification 4). Since whoever is in a state of grace and adopted by God is in a state of salvation, desire for baptism saves. If one dies in the state of grace, one goes to heaven and receives eternal life.

As Trent also states: "Justification . . . is not merely remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby an unrighteous man becomes a righteous man, and from being an enemy [of God] becomes a friend, that he may be 'an heir according to the hope of life everlasting' [Titus 3:7]" (Decree on Justification 7). Thus desire for baptism brings justification and justification makes one an heir of life everlasting. If one dies in a state of justification, one will inherit eternal life. Period. This question of whether formal membership is necessary for salvation is thus definitively settled by Trent. It is not. Informal membership, the kind had by one with desire for baptism, suffices.

This was also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. He stated that those who have no desire for baptism "cannot obtain salvation, since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained. Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate; but he did not lose the grace he prayed for'" (Summa Theologiae III:68:2, citing Ambrose, Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian [A.D. 392]).

The question of whether desire for baptism needs to be explicit or implicit is a separate issue which was not raised by Trent, but which has been dealt with repeatedly by popes and councils since that time. Still, Trent alone shows that the statement in Unam Sanctam teaches a normative necessity for formal membership, not an absolute one. Those who desire but do not have baptism are not formally members of the Church, yet they are linked to the Church by their desire and can be saved.

What is absolutely necessary for salvation is a salvific link to the body of Christ, not full incorporation into it. To use the terms Catholic theology has classically used, one can be a member of the Church by desire (in voto) rather than in actuality (in actu).

In A.D. 400, Augustine said, "When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body . . . All who are within in heart are saved in the unity of the ark" (Baptism 5:28:39).

And in the thirteenth century, Aquinas stated a person can obtain salvation if they are "sacramentally [or] mentally . . . incorporated in Christ, through whom alone can salvation be obtained," and that "a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity' [Gal. 5:6], whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly" (ST III:68:2).

Private Judgment?

What the radical traditionalists have forgotten is that they are not the interpreters of previous papal statements; the Magisterium is, and their personal interpretations may not go against the authoritative teaching of the current Magisterium.

The idea that they can by private conscience interpret centuries-old papal decrees puts them in the same position as Protestants, interpreting centuries-old biblical documents. The radical traditionalist simply has a larger "Bible," but the principle is the same: private interpretation rules! This completely defeats the purpose of having a Magisterium, which is to provide a contemporary source that can identify, clarify, and explain previous authoritative statements, whether from the Bible, Apostolic Tradition, or itself.

Much of the current flap over Feeneyism could be avoided if conservative Catholics would remind themselves of the fact that it is the Magisterium, not them and their private judgment, which is the interpreter of previous Magisterial statements.

The Necessity of Evangelism

The same is true of those who misuse papal and conciliar statements on the other side, privately interpreting them in a way -- contrary to what they explicitly state -- that all religions are equal, that every religion leads one to God, and that there is no need for evangelism. The Church teaches the exact opposite!

While elements of truth may be found in other religions (for example, the truth that there is a supernatural world), elements of truth do not make equality in truth.

Also, the mere presence of elements of truth does not mean a religion is leading one toward God. Though it is rare, full-blown Satanism contains elements of truth (there is a supernatural world, God exists, Satan exists, Satan is in rebellion against God, using consecrated Hosts in a Black Mass is offensive to God, etc.), but this religion definitely does not lead one toward God!

In fact, it can be the presence of elements of truth which make a counterfeit believable and lead one away from God. A lie is not credible if it bears no resemblance to reality, as illustrated by the serpent's lie to Eve, which most definitely contained elements of truth -- Adam and Eve did become "as God, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:5, 22) -- but it was the believability of the serpent's lie that led Adam and Eve away from God.

So though it is possible for a person to be led toward God by elements of truth that are found in a false religion, this does nothing to diminish the need for evangelism.

Vatican II may teach that it is possible for "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church" to receive salvation, but it immediately follows it up by stating that, despite that fact, "very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (cf. Rom. 1:21 and 25). Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, 'preach the Gospel to every creature' (Mark 16:15) takes zealous care to foster the missions" (Lumen Gentium 16).

And Pope Pius XII stated concerning "those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church . . . we ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in he Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the society of glorious love" (Mystici Corporis 103).

These quotes show the Church's insistence on people's need to receive evangelization -- to hear the good news -- but most fundamentally evangelism is necessary because Christ calls us to dispel all ignorance concerning him and the means of salvation he has established (including the Church), for Christ commands, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20). We are to dispel all ignorance, including innocent ignorance, for we are to "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15).

Those who represent, even through silence, the Magisterium as not requiring and stressing the urgent need for world-wide evangelism are distorting the teaching of the magisterium as much as those who represent it as saying absolutely no one who is not formally a Catholic can be saved.

(For a look at what the early Church Fathers believed, and how they supported both the necessity of being Catholic and the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics in some circumstances, see "The Fathers Know Best: Who Can Be Saved?", This Rock, Nov. 94.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 16, 2003

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_vi...cnum=3423&print

Fallacy About Our Brother, Martin Luther

Author: John J. Kelly

Description: In this article John J. Kelly explains the nature of Martin Luther’s break from the Catholic Church. He states, "… it is a fallacy to say that Luther went awry from attacking abuses in the Church; rather, the obvious conclusion from his own testimony is that he followed an evolutionary path trying to find for himself and his followers a way of salvation different from that taught with authority by the Catholic Church."

Categories: Persons > Religious Figures

Larger Work: Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Pages: 61-64

Publisher & Date: Ignatius Press, April 1984

Fallacy About Our Brother, Martin Luther

By John J. Kelly

In 1517 when Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the collegiate church of Wittenberg University, most people thought he was attacking abuses connected with the preaching of indulgences, which helped to rebuild St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Not entirely so; for example, theses six and thirty-eight denied the authority of the Church to forgive sins; eight, ten, and twelve denied the doctrine of Purgatory; eighty-six was a personal insult: The Pope is a rich man, let him build St. Peter's himself. Brother Martin, bedeviled by his own scruples and doubts, simply used that occasion as a springboard to denaturalize and eviscerate the doctrinal structure of the Catholic faith, and bring thereby the thinking of the Catholic Church into line with his own!

How could the Augustinian Friar inveigh against some 1500 years of Catholic Magisterium? His scruples and doubts betrayed him into overt attacks on the faith he professed, because he could not have the certainty that God forgave his sins. So in desperation he devised his own doctrine of salvation: "Faith alone" in the saving merits of Christ. For him that was salvific doctrine, and contrary to Catholic teaching.

Already in 1512 he had voiced his anger at the official teaching of the Catholic Church with which he was in disagreement. "The crime and scandal of sexual failings, drunkenness, gambling, and other reprehensible conduct" says Fray Martin, were as nothing compared to the official teaching of the Catholic Faith.

Luther was so convinced of his own erroneous interpretation of Romans 1-17, "…The just man lives by faith," (justification by faith alone, as Luther saw it), that he insisted on his own novel doctrine for all men. Logically then the Catholic Church was wrong, and could not interpret Scripture properly; interpretations had to be left to the individual, (except when the Scriptures were used to refute him). No ecclesiastical authority, nor his Augustinian Superiors, nor the Magisterium of the Church, nor anyone could convince him otherwise.

Luther's so-called reformation was then simply hard-headed rebellion against the teaching authority of the Church, founded by Christ, to lead men by her doctrine on a guaranteed path to salvation. Fray Martin knew more than his Augustinian brethren, more than the Church, more than the university faculties of Louvain and Paris. His heresies were soon refuted and would have fallen useless, except that the ambience in Germany was particularly propitious for rebellion. Favorable to his revolution were: German nationalism, aversion to Rome and other things Italian, a Catholic Emperor elsewhere occupied with the invasion of the Turks and petty wars among Catholic princes, the materialist secular enlightenment, breakdown in morality, and some abuses found in the preaching of the indulgences.

A Revolutionary, Not A Reformer

Martin Luther was tried for heresy since he refused to change his stance, was condemned by excommunication, and would have been silenced except that Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony, adroitly sequestered him and protected him. Although isolated in the Wartburg, where he translated the Bible into German, his teachings spread rapidly and were accepted. In his aggressive writings, Luther contended that celibacy was no longer meritorious or necessary, that vows were an abomination; that the Pope was a monster and therefore he and his popish institutions should be eliminated. As a direct result of his misguided teachings, many priests and religious threw off their habits and vows, peasants revolted against their masters, secular princes seized Church properties; unrest, disorder, and violence became widespread.

So it became clear that our brother, Martin Luther, was not interested in reforming abuses; he was much interested in radically changing the Catholic Church to fit his own personal mold of salvation. His perfervid preaching was directed to destroying the very soul of Catholic doctrine, which was intended by Christ to teach men truth and lead them securely to salvation. This may seem too critical of Luther's doctrine so let us permit Brother Martin to speak for himself. In his revolutionary manifesto, To The German Nobility on The Reform of The Christian State, he explains the reforms, which he decided were necessary for Christianity:

1. Abolish the distinction between laity and priesthood, since all Christians are priests from their Baptism;

2. Eliminate the Supreme Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, since there should be no other norm than the Bible, interpreted subjectively by each individual;

3. Deny the right of the Pope to convoke General Councils, since that was the competency of the secular princes and the Christian people.

In the abrogation of these three essential bulwarks of the Catholic Faith, resides the authentic revolution of our brother, Martin Luther.

Many Other Factors Played A Part

Fray Martin expatiates: "I do not impugn immoralities and abuses, but rather the substance and doctrine of the Papacy." Again, "I am not like Erasmus and others before me, who criticized only the morals of the Papacy; I, contrariwise, never ceased attacking the two bases of the Papacy: monastic vows, and the sacrifice of the Mass." "Among us, life is not godly, just like among the papists; we do not accuse them of immorality, but of doctrinal error. Neither Wycliff nor Hus knew how to do this… This is my vocation."

He further avers: "Even though the Pope were as saintly as St. Peter, we would still consider him as impious." "The Pope has convened his Council against the pestiferous Lutheran heresy. We oppose him with the Our Father and the Creed, but not the Ten Commandments, because in the question of morality we are too deficient." "Even if the Faith and discipline of the early Church flourished in the Roman Papacy, even then we would have to struggle against the papists and tell them: if you have no more than apostolic sanctity and purity of life, you still merit to be expelled from the kingdom of heaven."

In preaching and writing of this kind, Fray Martin evidences that he is a revolutionary, not a reformer. He does not condemn Roman immorality, or the abuses of the Curia, but he boldly anathematizes the Catholic teaching of salvation, of the Magisterium, of ecclesiastical hierarchy, of the Sacrifice of the Mass, of celibacy, of vows. Was his friend, the humanist Wilibrord Pirckheimer, right when he remarked that, "Fray Martin Luther was guided by dementia and an evil spirit?"

Another friend, Philip Melanchthon, who collaborated much with the codifying of the Lutheran faith at Wartburg (December, 1521), humanized the teachings of Luther into a rule of faith and philosophy of life. However, truth demands that we clarify that Luther had a type of messianic complex, rebelled not against the abuses of the Church, but rather against the authority of the Catholic Church and the Augustinian Order, and thereby disfigured, deformed, and emasculated the faith revealed by Christ … the faith, which Fray Martin professed as a Catholic and an Augustinian.

So as we celebrate Luther's birthday, on his 500th anniversary we hope to keep the record straight: that it is a fallacy to say that Luther went awry from attacking abuses in the Church; rather, the obvious conclusion from his own testimony is that he followed a revolutionary path trying to find for himself and his followers a way of salvation different from that taught with authority by the Catholic Church.

Reverend John J. Kelly, O.S.A., has spent most of his priestly life working in Cuba and South America. Currently he is assigned to the Augustinian Mission in Morropon, Piura, Peru. He earned his Ph.D. at the University of Havana and then served as president of the Catholic University of Havana, 1950-1959, when he was forced to leave by the Castro regime. Fr. Kelly is a well-known lecturer and a council member of the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation.

December 16, 2003

cmom,

thanks for all the articles. some i can use now. others i will use later.

"good lookin out,"

phatcatholic

December 17, 2003

lil red and others,

i need more info on how its historically impossible (before the invention of the printing press and b/c of the education of the common people) and on the dubious historical development of SS (how it was not meant to free the people, its not an admirable cause, it was done to rebel and to exert their own authority, martin luther is shady--hehe)

thanks,

phatcatholic

What's the SS?

December 18, 2003

sola scriptura

Ooops!

Recommended Posts

phatcatholic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Lil Red

Link to comment

Share on other sites

phatcatholic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

phatcatholic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

frozencell

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in