One of the puzzles of Roman Catholic claims about the primacy of the papacy is that the biblical support for this view rests almost entirely on Matt. 16:18. Theologians and church members (at least of Protestant derivation) should always beware of so little biblical support. In addition, when you read the New Testament (if you do), Peter largely fades from view. In Acts Peter does not show up after the fifteenth chapter (according not to superior biblical knowledge but to a word search — “advanced,” mind you — at ESVBible.org). The rest of the book is really Paul’s story. And the rest of the New Testament is really Paul’s teaching. Yes, Peter, John and James write epistles but they are short compared to Paul (leaving aside Revelation in page count totals).
What is also striking about the New Testament is the interaction among the apostles. Galatians 2 proves to be a particularly difficult text to square with claims about Peter’s primacy, not to mention his infallibility, since it records Paul publicly rebuking Peter for caving to the Judaizers. Here first is Calvin’s rendering of Paul’s order of James, Peter, and John in Galatians 2:9:
I have already stated, that James was the son of Alpheus. He could not be “the brother of John” who had been lately put to death by Herod, (Acts 12:2,) and to suppose that one of the disciples had been placed above the apostles would be absurd. That he held the highest rank among the apostles, is made evident by Luke, who ascribes to him the summing up and decision of the cause in the council, (Acts 15:13,) and afterwards mentions his having assembled “all the elders” of the church of Jerusalem. (Acts 21:18.) When he says, that they seemed to be pillars, he does not speak contemptuously, but quotes the general opinion, arguing from it, that what was done by such men ought not to be lightly set aside. In a question relating to diversity of rank, it is surprising that James should be mentioned before Peter; but the reason perhaps is, that he presided over the church at Jerusalem.
Calvin follows with these remarks on Paul’s rebuke to Peter:
Now, as I have said, he goes further, and asserts that he had blamed Peter for leaning to the other side; and he proceeds to explain the cause of the dispute. It was no ordinary proof of the strength of his doctrine, that he not only obtained their cordial approbation, but firmly maintained it in a debate with Peter, and came off victorious. What reason could there now be for hesitating to receive it as certain and undoubted truth?
At the same time, this is a reply to another calumny, that Paul was but an ordinary disciple, far below the rank of an apostle: for the reproof which he administered was an evidence that the parties were on an equal footing. The highest, I acknowledge, are sometimes properly reproved by the lowest, for this liberty on the part of inferiors towards their superiors is permitted by God; and so it does not follow, that he who reproves another must be his equal. But the nature of the reproof deserves notice. Paul did not simply reprove Peter, as a Christian might reprove a Christian, but he did it officially, as the phrase is; that is, in the exercise of the apostolic character which he sustained.
This is another thunderbolt which strikes the Papacy of Rome. It exposes the impudent pretensions of the Roman Antichrist, who boasts that he is not bound to assign a reason, and sets at defiance the judgment of the whole Church. Without rashness, without undue boldness, but in the exercise of the power granted him by God, this single individual chastises Peter, in the presence of the whole Church; and Peter submissively bows to the chastisement. Nay, the whole debate on those two points was nothing less than a manifest overthrow of that tyrannical primacy, which the Romanists foolishly enough allege to be founded on divine right. If they wish to have God appearing on their side, a new Bible must be manufactured; if they do not wish to have him for an open enemy, those two chapters of the Holy Scriptures must be expunged.
Of course, defenders of the magisterium need not trust Calvin since he is writing out of a position of disobedience to the papacy. That is why it is intriguing what a Roman Catholic biblical commentary has to say about this passage:
St. Paul says that he withstood St. Peter to the face “because he was to be blamed,” inasmuch as, whereas he had hitherto eaten openly with Gentiles, he was now led by fear of the Judaizers to refuse to do so, “fearing them who were of the circumcision.” “To his dissimulation,” adds the Apostle, “the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.” St. Jerome maintained that the whole scene was a “dissimulation,” Peter was not “to be blamed” by Paul, but solely by those brethren whom he had offended by withdrawing from their table; the scene, therefore, was meant to appease both parties, viz. those who believed in circumcision—for they could follow Peter, and those who repudiated circumcision—for they could follow Paul. St. Jerome’s reasons for holding this view are briefly that Paul could not have withstood Peter, who was his senior, and further that Paul, by circumcising Timothy and shaving his head at Cenchre, was guilty of the same obsequiousness towards Jewish prejudices. Some, he says, try to avoid the dilemma by saying that “Cephas” is not the Apostle Peter, but one of the Seventy disciples, and, moreover, that Acts is silent concerning the whole affair. But St. Jerome replies that Cephas and Peter are but Aramaic and Greek forms of the same name; that he knows of no other Cephas than the one who is termed at one time “Cephas,” at another “Peter”; and finally, that St. Luke was not bound to mention every event he knew of.
St. Chrysostom’s explanation is fundamentally the same as that of St. Jerome. It could not, he urges, have really been a dispute, for this they would have had in private. Therefore “to his face,” κατὰ πρόσωπον, must be a figure of speech, and the equivalent of “in appearance,” σχημα. The explanation, then, is that Peter withdrew from the table of the uncircumcised converts for two reasons: lest he should offend the Jewish converts, and in order to give St. Paul an occasion for correcting him. This correction was necessitated, not because St. Peter was in the wrong, but because those who saw him eat with Jews might fancy he did so out of fear of St. Paul. The latter, of course, had no such feeling. “Paul, then, rebukes, and Peter bears with it; so that while the master is silent under rebuke his disciples may be the more easily induced to put aside their suspicion. . . . Peter, then, joins Paul in this pretense, συνυποκρινεται, as though were really in fault, so that owing to this rebuke they might be corrected. . . . Thus, by his silence Peter corrected their false suspicions; he put up with the imputation of dissimulation so as, by a real dissimulation, to free the Jews.”
This view was strenuously combated by St. Augustine, who pointed out that it made Scripture untruthful. St. Jerome replied that his view was derived from Origen, and that it seemed to him compelling from the twofold consideration that (a) Peter knew from the conversion of Cornelius that the Gentiles were to be received into the Church, and (b) that St. Paul had done the same in the case of Timothy, and in shaving his own head at Cenchre. Finally, he endeavored to show that he and Augustine were really saying the same thing in different words. But Augustine declined to accept this statement. The idea that the whole scene was fictitious was repellent to him, since it imperiled the whole truth of Scripture: “Non nunc inquiro quid fecerit, sed quid scripserit quaero.” “If Peter was doing what he had a right to do, then Paul lied when he said that Peter walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel. . . . But if Paul wrote the truth, then it was true that Peter walked not rightly.” St. Augustine then shows that the cases of Timothy and the shaving of Paul’s head are not parallel with this episode at Antioch; he further points out that in St. Jerome’s list of authorities for his view Apollinaris the Laodicean and Alexander are heretics, while Jerome himself acknowledges that there are errors in Origen and Didymus. Augustine’s main exegetical point, however, is that the scene at Antioch took place either after or—as he himself at that date seems to have thought merely more probable—before the Council at Jerusalem. If after the Council, then it is to be noticed that whereas the Decrees forbade anyone to compel the Gentile converts to Judaize, they did not prohibit the Jewish converts from Judaizing. If before the Council, then it is not to be wondered at that St. Paul should urge St. Peter to uphold what he had already learnt from the case of Cornelius. But Augustine really based his whole position on the irrefragable veracity of Scripture; again and again in the course of the controversy does he return to the principle that if the scene is fictitious, then we can no longer trust Scripture. It is certainly remarkable that St. Jerome nowhere takes up this point, while his marked descent from acrimony to an unusual suavity in the course of the correspondence seems to indicate that he felt that Augustine’s position was really the sounder, though he never sang the palinodia for which St. Augustine called!
The point to notice in this commentary is the lack of consensus among the early church fathers even about as important an episode as this for claims about the primacy of Peter. The constant theme at Called To Communion is that the early church is in agreement about the deposit of the faith and that this provides a much more certain basis for faith than do Protestant interpretations of the Bible. Well, if Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine don’t see eye to eye on this matter, how unified are those early fathers? What kind of consensus exists that falls right down from Matt. 16:18 to a unified body of truth? Or how is it that Roman Catholic understandings of the early church fathers’ teaching do not rely on interpretations while Protestants only have their opinions? History is not so easily appropriated.
And that is an important point implicitly in Eamon Duffy’s history of the papacy (Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, Yale, 1997). As students of the Reformation may know, Duffy is one of those historians that Roman Catholics like to cite because his book on England (The Stripping of the Altars) shows how vibrant Roman Catholic piety was before Henry VIII came along. Instead of being moribund, late medieval piety was alive and popular. But his introduction to Saints and Sinners will not set well with those CTCers who claim that the reality of Rome needs no interpretation:
All the essential claims of the modern papacy, it might seem, are contained in this Gospel saying about the Rock, and in Irenaeus’ account of the apostolic pedigree of the early bishops of Rome. Yet matters are not so simple. The popes trace their commission from Christ through Peter, yet for Irenaeus the authority of the Church at Rome came from its foundation by two Apostles, not by one, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone. The tradition that Peter and Paul had been put to death at the hands of Nero in Rome about the year AD 64 was universally accepted in the second century, and by the end of that century pilgrims to Rome were being shown the ‘trophies’ of the Apostles, their tombs or cenotaphs, Peter’s on the Vatican Hill, and Paul’s on the Via Ostiensis, outside the walls on the road to the coast. Yet on all of this the New Testament is silent. Later legend would fill out the details of Peter’s life and death in Rome — his struggles with the magician and father of heresy, Simon Magus, his miracles, his attempted escape from persecution in Rome, a flight from which he was turned back by a reproachful vision of Christ (the ‘Quo Vadis’ legend), and finally his crucifixion upside down in the Vatican Circus in the time of the Emperor Nero. These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church — Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter’s later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (p. 1)
As I’ve said, the idea that only Protestants have opinions and Roman Catholics have epistemic certainty is nonsense historically considered.
85 Comments
Dr. Lee,
Bryan Cross’ most recent post answers this question. If you go to CtC it’s titled “Imputation and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas…” I will offer a longer response tonight though. I’m tied up until then with work. Gotta run.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy,
The reference to your time at RTS is further evidence of arrogance referred to earlier. CTC folks wear their Reformed degrees or credentials as proof that they really get the Reformation, and reject it knowingly, with eyes wide open. Yet their words often show a failure to understand the most basic Reformed teachings.
I’m not surprised in the least that there are many folks at Westminster East or West or RTS who don’t understand Reformation doctrine, or understanding it, reject it. Most confirmed catholics, and many priests, lack basic understanding of Roman doctrine. But your credentials don’t get you off the hook for showing that you understand it in debate by actually representing it accurately. Show your former insider status by your words, not by appeals to credentials or experience.
That is the force of DGH’s post. The claim that “Protestants interpret, Papists know” is patently and demonstrably false. Most Roman converts I know have embraced a romantic ideal of knowing, in lieu of the hard work of interpretation and exegesis. But there is no there there.
Great post, Darryl.
I am at RTS in DC, and if I taught you, sorry for not remembering your name. The rapidfire and occasional nature of the scheduling usually leaves me forgetting former students within weeks of the course. OK, my shoddy memory is to blame as well.
Though I am the youngest of six, I only have one child, so I’m not sure what you by “catching up with your family.”
Cheers, and thank you for your kind words about my class. I would only add to previous post that being a former student of mine is no guarantee of understanding Reformed doctrine, either (if not a liability).
Oops, I’m thinking of Peter Lee. I never had you Brian. My bad.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Brian Lee (not Peter Lee),
You write
Sorry you see this as arrogance. I can assure you that I understand Reformed Theology, I just disagree with certain aspects. This tactic though is common. Reformed people sometimes ignore whatever converts say and instead explain away every conversion as an instance of somebody not understanding Reformed Theology (which is nicer than the alternatives; we’re mentally unstable or have just turned from the Lord)
Brian, I encourage you to do justice to the Reformed Worldview, which in my opinion, is certainly big enough to allow for people who (A) understand Reformed Theology (B) Disagree with aspects of it and (C) still love Jesus.
I will address your agape question tonight; Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, I allow for the class of people you identify, who understand and reject the Reformation, and yet love Jesus. It was your own comment I was referring to, which belied a misunderstanding of sola fide:
“I realized that I couldn’t agree with all the implications of Sola Fide (that one can be saved without agape for God).”
Cross’s article doesn’t address this, as he doesn’t really identify what agape is. The only way your comment about sola fide is accurate is if “agape” is perfect love. But Cross equivocates on this point. He sets agape over against a list paradigm, but there is no such false dichotomy. The law points to love, but there is no space between them. The one who has agape keeps the whole list perfectly. If agape is less than the list, what is it? A sentiment? A desire?
If you choose to rely on the agape infused in your heart as the basis of your justification, it best be whole and perfect and entire love for God, including your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and reflected in your thoughts, actions, hopes, desires. No one is justified without agape, but no one is justified on the basis of their agape. Saving faith is never alone, though it alone acts to save.
D.G.
You wrote:
Not quite. Yes, a problem intrinsic to Protestantism is that Scripture alone is incapable of definitively determining for all Christians what is orthodox and what is heretical. But the Catholic solution to that problem is not “the Catholic Church has an historical fact,” but rather that the Catholic Church has a divinely established magisterium. Discovering this about the Catholic Church generally requires interpretation of historical and patristic evidence.
Yes and yes. The problem within Protestantism is not a multiplicity of interpretations per se, but rather an incapacity in principle to establish and determine definitively the content of the “one faith” of the Church. The multiplicity of interpretations within the Catholic Church occur within the context of magisterial authority, such that these interpretations either fall under the category of questions not yet definitively answered by the magisterium, or if not, are either contrary to or in conformity with magisterial teaching. Their presence therefore does not nullify the capacity of the magisterium definitively to resolve doctrinal and interpretive questions.
As I said in a previous comment on a previous thread here at OL, discovering the entirety of the shared Tradition within the Fathers cannot be done in a combox, or by prooftexting from the Fathers. So nothing here in what you have said or what any of us has said in a combox “adds up” to the patristic consensus.
The only way to answer that question is to go through the Church Fathers one by one, from the first century onward, and determine whether what they say fits better into the Catholic paradigm or the Protestant paradigm. Some opinions about history are better than others. Historical truths can be discovered. Institutions and offices can be historically uncovered.
In discussing this, it is important, in my opinion, to distinguish between that inquiry and investigation in which one engages prior to recognizing the authority of the magisterium, and that inquiry and investigation in which one engages as a Catholic under the authority of the magisterium. These two take place in different epistemic frameworks, and it is important when discussing these matters to identify clearly which epistemic condition is in view.
That conclusion does not follow. A theological opinion can be true even if it has not yet been definitively declared to be true by the magisterium. Theological reasoning and argumentation that self-consciously stands within and builds upon the Catholic theological tradition is important and significant even if the conclusions one reaches through such inquiry have not yet been addressed by the magisterium. Such reasoning and inquiry can also help to unveil a deeper understanding of the implications underlying previous magisterial decisions. And there is the whole preliminary stage of inquiry at the level of motives of credibility, prior to recognizing and submitting to magisterial authority. Interpretations and conclusions at that stage are important, because they can lead one toward or away from the truth regarding the identity of Christ, the Church and ultimately the gospel.
True, in the sense that they have no magisterial authority, or capacity to determine dogma definitively for all Christians.
I do not believe that without an infallible living authority, I cannot arrive at the truth regarding the motives of credibility concerning where and what is the Church Christ founded. The motives of credibility are open to investigation prior to recognizing the authority of the Church’s magisterium.
As I said above, Catholicism does not require or entail skepticism about grasping the motives of credibility prior to the ecclesial act of faith. Catholicism rejects fideism. So there is plenty for a Catholic to talk about regarding the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants, even while setting aside (for the sake of argument) the authority of the magisterium. There is also within Catholicism a belief in the authority of Tradition, which is broader than simply what popes and councils have explicitly said. So a Catholic consciously speaking from within the Catholic paradigm can draw from the Tradition as well to explain various Catholic doctrines and practices, including magisterial definitions.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Jeremy Tate: Richard Smith, Please quote from Trent, where exactly does it declare the Gospel of grace alone was declared anathema
Does Trent say this or is this how you interpret Trent?
RS: It would take a lot of posts to show how much and how often Trent denies the biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. I will post some, but here are some places where Trent denies the Gospel.
CHAPTER IV.
A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein 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 Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
CHAPTER V.
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient [Page 33] grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.
CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
CHAPTER VII.
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.
This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instru-[Page 35]mental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity.
CHAPTER X.
On the increase of Justification received.
Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.”
CHAPTER XI.
On keeping the Commandments, and on the necessity and possibility thereof.
But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burthen light. For, whoso are the sons of God, love Christ; but they who love him, keep his commandments, as Himself testifies; which, assuredly, with the divine help, they can do. For, although, during this mortal life, men, how holy and just soever, at times fall into at least light and daily sins, which are also called venial, not therefore do they cease to be just. For that cry of the just, Forgive us our trespasses, is both humble and true. And for this cause, the just themselves ought to feel themselves the more obligated to walk in the way of justice, in that, being already freed from sins, but made servants of God, they are able, living soberly, justly, and godly, to proceed onwards through Jesus Christ, by whom they have had access unto this grace. For God forsakes not those who have been once justified by His grace, unless he be first forsaken by them. Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself up with faith alone, fancying that by faith alone he is made an heir, and will obtain the inheritance,
CHAPTER XII.
That a rash presumptuousness in the matter of Predestination is to be avoided.
No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in [Page 40] the number of the predestinate; as if it were true, that he that is justified, either cannot sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance; for except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself.
CHAPTER XIV.
On the fallen, and their restoration.
As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when, God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance, when He said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,-at least in desire, and to be made in its season,-and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life;
CHAPTER XVI.
On the fruit of Justification, that is, on the merit of good works, and on the nature of that merit.
Before men, therefore, who have been justified in this manner,-whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or whether they have recovered it when lost,-are to be set the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord; for God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name; and, do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward. And, for this cause, life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto [Page 43] the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God Himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits. For this is that crown of justice which the Apostle declared was, after his fight and course, laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming. For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace: seeing that Christ, our Saviour, saith: If any one shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst for ever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up unto life everlasting. Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. Neither is this to be omitted,-that although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good works, that Christ promises, that even he that shall give a drink of cold water to one of his least ones, shall not lose his reward; and the Apostle testifies that, That which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all [Page 44] men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits.
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
Hey, why does Brian get a Dr. and not (all about) ME?
Darryl said: Jeremy T., I see the point of your analogy. But what you guys at CTC don’t seem to recognize is that the teacher in your scenario (since Vatican 2) resembles more a substitute teacher than one of the nuns that used to bring a yard stick into class and let students know when they were wrong morally and intellectually. So great, you have a teacher. What’s he doing about the Jesuits in the back of the class that keep throwing spitballs at the egg heads in the front?
John Y: Now there is some good and creative snark, perhaps an instant classic; except you can’t throw spitballs Darryl, you have to blow them. I want to be like Darryl. I dated a Catholic girl for 4 years who was strictly brought up in a Catholic home and attended all Catholic schools through high school. And this is exactly how she describe what the nuns were like. She was a wild Latin American girl and real fun to be around. But if you crossed her she turned into the devil-incarnate. She had a will of iron. Her brother was studying to be a priest but turned gay and was shoved off a balcony by a wounded lover. They never caught the guy who did it. It was deemed a suicide. I love the image of the Jesuits blowing spitballs at all the egg-heads in the front of the class.
Bryan, if Rome denies fideism, you guys at CTC should really strive to sound less fideistic. I mean is a debate with you really possible since the conclusion is already determined? We may debate the fathers or Scripture, but in the end your mind is made up and CTC functions as an echo chamber for minds made up.
As for whether or not your theological opinions are true independent of magisterial approval, the language of “can be” pretty much seals it. Your ideas are like Protestants until the pope delivers. It must be great having a theological calculator as a back up to your math. But seeing how a lot of people who weren’t infallible were responsible for constructing the calculator, this looks like a set of truth that can never be tested (or falsified).
And I’m still wondering what you make of Constitution 68 of the Fourth Lateran Council. Seeing as how authoritative and infallible your church is, is it still the case that Jews should wear different attire? Or is this one that doesn’t qualify as infallible? Is there a calculator that allows you to tell the difference between an authoritative church council and one the isn’t? Please supply the link.
She must not have ran into one of those substitutes- they branded that infused grace into her with a rod of iron. It certainly worked on her- her will was unbendable. She almost ended up destroying me too. It was the strangest 4 years I have ever been through in my life.
Bryan says;
The problem within Protestantism is not a multiplicity of interpretations per se, but rather an incapacity in principle to establish and determine definitively the content of the “one faith” of the Church. The multiplicity of interpretations within the Catholic Church occur within the context of magisterial authority, such that these interpretations either fall under the category of questions not yet definitively answered by the magisterium, or if not, are either contrary to or in conformity with magisterial teaching. Their presence therefore does not nullify the capacity of the magisterium definitively to resolve doctrinal and interpretive questions.
Sean:
This is beginning to remind me of dungeons and dragons when we would argue; ‘Nuh, uh my palladin cloak totally counters that.’ Not that I know, directly or anything, I just heard about it.
For what its worth I am a convert from the Presbyterian Church (PCA) as well and I have no seminary training whatsoever.
Dr. Lee,
Fair enough. I should have been more clear. Sorry. I understand (quite well) that the historic Reformed position has always bound together justification and sanctification (although insisting on their distinctness) The Reformed position still confuses the matter, however, as Sola Fide reduces to a mere hypothetical as “faith alone” doesn’t really exist because (as you say) saving faith never is alone. It seems strange to remain separated from the historic Church over a condition that could never exist in a real person (faith alone).
Bryan uses agape as synonymous with charity. See 1822 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Further on you write
Did you read all of Bryan Cross’ recent post? Again, he addresses this with great clarity.
Your question still presupposes the list paradigm. Do I love God perfectly? No. I do not love God perfectly, but I have the gift of agape infused into my heart which is the law written on the heart – “that perfection to which the external law always pointed.”
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy T: Fair enough. I should have been more clear. Sorry. I understand (quite well) that the historic Reformed position has always bound together justification and sanctification (although insisting on their distinctness) The Reformed position still confuses the matter, however, as Sola Fide reduces to a mere hypothetical as “faith alone” doesn’t really exist because (as you say) saving faith never is alone.
RS: Jeremy, once again this demonstrates that you don’t understand the historical and biblical concept of faith alone. Romans 4:16 teaches that it is by faith in order that it may be by grace. Sola Fide is not reduced to a mere hypothetical by your words. The intent of Sola Fide
is to protect and shine forth the glory of God in Sola Gratia. Without the bigger picture of grace alone there is no understanding of faith alone. Part of grace alone is also Christ alone to the glory of God alone. Truly, Jeremy T, you don’t understand the Reformed view.
Jeremy T: It seems strange to remain separated from the historic Church over a condition that could never exist in a real person (faith alone).
RS: But Rome is not the historic Church because it denies the historic and biblical Gospel. Until you really grasp what Sola Fide means, you will continue to think that it is strange. The soul that is saved by grace alone is saved apart from any merit in itself and any works or worth of self. The soul that is saved by faith alone is saved by Christ alone and as such by the free and uncaused and ill-merited grace of Christ.
D.G.
You wrote:
What have we said or written that “sounds” fideistic?
Should I take that to mean you’re uncertain about your own position, since otherwise you would let me know that debate with you is impossible? If you are uncertain about your own position, I think it would be better ask questions rather than criticize. But if you are certain, then you don’t really believe that “debate with [me is not] really possible since the conclusion is already determined,” since otherwise you wouldn’t be having this exchange with me.
Such a precondition (i.e. that all participating parties be uncertain of the truth of their own position) for genuine debate/dialogue would preclude from participation any persons who know the truth, and are certain that they know it. I see no reason to accept that skeptical presupposition as a necessary criterion for authentic debate/dialogue. Hence my “Two Ecumenicisms” article at CTC.
Have you taken a look around the Old Life combox lately? On the one hand, you criticize the Catholic Church for having a multiplicity of interpretations and views all over the place, while you joined a denomination of 30k+ people on the basis of your agreement with their tightly delineated interpretation of Scripture. On the other hand you fault us for being a an ‘echo chamber’ while we’re in the middle of 1.2 billion people and their multiplicity of interpretations, cultures, races, liturgies, spit balls, etc. Pot, kettle and all that. But the whole “echo chamber” accusation is just a veiled ad hominem, because it subtly implies that we only want to hear and read people who think like us. Ad hominems do not falsify anything I said in my previous comments.
If you’re speaking of the papacy, then, as you know, we believe Christ Himself instituted it. And Christ is infallible. As for falsifiability, I addressed that in a previous comment, and the podcast linked there. We believe that the Catholic Church is attested to by the motives of credibility. This is why becoming Catholic is not a leap in the dark, and fideism is false. (See my “Wilson vs. Hitchens: A Catholic Perspective.”)
In a previous thread, I pointed you to chapter three of Lumen Gentium, regarding the conditions under which we can know that the Spirit has protected the magisterium from error. Canon 68 of the Fourth Lateran is not doctrinal, and so does not fall under the specified conditions. It is not even disciplinary, because it enjoined a civil policy [under a particular social condition] that concerned the governance of persons who, under that condition were believed to fall under the categories of pagans or heretics, whereas canon law applies only to members of the Church.
See chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium. Ecumenical councils have magisterial authority; local councils have local authority, and are subordinate to the Church’s magisterial authority.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan, a debate is one thing. A conversation is another. And when the answers are already set, the dialogue in the combox has the feel of talking to Mormons at the front door. It may the problem of that calculator you speak through.
As for the OPC, Old Life is hardly the echo chamber of this communion. If you stopped by every once in a while and got out of all the pope talk at CTC you might see that the views here are highly contested. In case you missed it, 2k theology, which Jason Stellman once advocated, is not a favorite of theonomists, neo-Cal’s and experimental Calvinists. I stand by the echo chamber. I don’t see CTC interacting much with the folks at First Things, for instance. Whether that makes you or Rusty Reno fringe, only the magisterium can tell. But I’m betting First Things is more representative of conservatives in the American Roman Catholic Church.
Your claim that Christ instituted the papacy is an interpretation of what Christ said. If the pope says that this is what Christ said, and he is the one whose authority is preserved by that interpretation, you tell me whether this is a little circular (if not borderline fideisitc). Either way, it’s an interpretation that you won’t question because of the interpreter of Christ’s words. In other words, it’s a historical claim and history is no more objective than Scripture.
I skimmed through chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium. I missed a reference to the Fourth Lateran Council. Perhaps you could break it down for us. Or would that be an interpretation of a historical document?
D.G.,
The scope of infallibility is explained in more detail the Catholic Encyclopedia article “Infallibility.” If the answer to your question is still not clear, just email me (or any other sufficiently-catechized Catholic). May God bring us to full visible unity, through the power of His grace.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan Cross: May God bring us to full visible unity, through the power of His grace.
RS: As long as Rome does not denounce Trent I, there can be no unity in the Gospel. For those who truly hold that the biblical Gospel is what the Reformers taught and what Trent I declared as anathema, there can be no unity. There can be no unity apart from unity in the truth.
Bryan, thanks for the link. The answer is still hardly clear and involves lots of interpretation, the bugaboo of Protestantism. I’d think you have more of a point if a pope had ruled that Constitution 68 wasn’t infallible.
Why does reading Bryan’s defenses of Catholicism remind me of those games at the carnival that I used to blow all of my money on as a kid? I hoped to win the big panda bear but at best all I could get was the pocket knife that I inevitably cut my finger on
John Yeazel – Could it be said of that Catholic girl that you used to date that:
“She was a fast machine, she kept her motor clean Was the best damn woman that I ever seen She had the sightless eyes, telling me no lies Knocking me out with those American thighs.”?
D.G.
As I pointed out two comments ago, canon 68 does not even rise to the level of discipline. And no disciplines are infallible, because, as Vatican I and chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium explains (and as the Catholic Encyclopedia article I referred you to explains), infallibility only applies to definitive teachings on matters of faith or morals. So a fortiori, canon 68 is not infallible.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
D.G.,
The extended quote by E. Duffy at the conclusion of this post, concerning the founding of the Church in Rome and the monepiscopacy in the first century echoes the errors of F. Sullivan (or vice versa), set forth in the latter’s book, From Apostles to Bishops. TOn both counts, their inferences from the available evidence have been shown to be mistaken. See Oswald Sobrino, “Was Peter the First Bishop of Rome?” (http://www.catholic-convert.com/documents/PeterInRome.doc) and Michael C. McGuckian SJ, “The Apostolic Succession: A Reply to Francis A. Sullivan” (abstract).
I recently addressed the question of the Peter narrative in Acts. As a matter of fact, literary considerations of Acts 12 lead us to believe that Luke envisioned an important role for Peter in the continuing life of the Church. We get a taste of this in the depiction of Peter’s role in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). This is what we find in Acts 12, as I wrote elsewhere:
Any careful reader can discern that the Lukan narrative sets the stage for Peter’s continuing ministry (which history reveals as being his mission to Rome), particularly if we pay attention to where Luke ends his account of Peter: A miraculous deliverance from prison, the presence of an angel, an appearance to the disciples, and a departure to “another place.” This account follows the pattern of the most significant event recorded in the NT [i.e., the Resurrection of Christ].
Finally, although I had made up my mind to ignore your repeated attempts to marginalize CTC as being on the Catholic fringe, I will make one point: Per our statement of purpose, CTC exists to “effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition.” There are already plenty of Catholic websites that do many other worthy things. We have chosen to focus on the fundamental doctrinal differences (church, authority, salvation) between the Catholic Church and the Reformed tradition. If that constitutes a Catholic fringe, then you might consider that this says more about the groups that we are addressing than the nature of the address.
Andrew
Bryan, does Rome have an index of which councils’ assertions are infallible and which aren’t? Same goes for encyclicals? I am actually curious.
Andrew, what kind of reconciliation does CTC envision if it means submitting to the Bishop of Rome? That’s the only union imaginable, right? So why not be up front and say CTC’s aim is to convert Reformed Protestants, you know, those Protestants who take inerrancy seriously.
BTW, I think you’d have to be a very very careful reader to detect a large presence for Peter in the NT after Acts 15.
D.G./Bryan – And does that index stipulate which are INFALLIBLE and which are merely infallible…
And Brian – At this point we know you know Latin and we know you have studied formal logic so could you just speak slowly in plain English from this point on so the peons like me who went to public school can try to follow along?
D.G. has letters after his name but you can follow along with him like you were talking with him at the neighborhood pub.
Andrew – So basically you are saying CTC is a Catholic fringe attempting to win over a Protestant fringe? Evangelicals are way easier pickings, man. Trust me. They don’t read much, though.
D.G.,
Just careful enough to spot the Petrine texts in Matthew, Luke, and John, which were all (most probably) written after the date traditionally assigned to the martyrdom of St. Peter (and that of Paul) in Rome.
As far as reconciliation goes, the first step is simply to acknowledge that we are not in full communion. We each have different ideas about just what would be necessary for full communion in one visible Church, including whether or not that is an important goal. Thus, the long, slow conversation.
Erik,
I’d say rather that its a fringe conversation, but the even the Pope is willing to go out on limb if perhaps some might be saved (see Anglicanorum Coetibus).
I don’t know whether or not Evangelicals read much, but I do think that the Reformed blogosphere presents unique challenges for any dialogue the purpose of which is arriving at unity in truth. So far as I can tell, however, that challenge doesn’t have anything to do with how much (or little) Reformed folks read.
Andrew,
Out of curiousity, do you abide a higher critical method of dating the NT scriptures? No gotcha’s just trying to get something clear in my own thinking.
Andrew, I don’t seem much conversation at CTC about infallibility. It is simply a given, the basis for all right thinking. That leaves me and a lot of Roman Catholics out.
D.G.,
On the topic of infallibility, there is a collection of posts that can be found in the Index, under the category, “The Church.”
I don’t know about its being the basis of all right thinking, but it does make a difference when it comes to believing, or simply holding a few (and a bunch of) theological opinions, as I explained in this post.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar: Finally, although I had made up my mind to ignore your repeated attempts to marginalize CTC as being on the Catholic fringe, I will make one point: Per our statement of purpose, CTC exists to “effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition.” There are already plenty of Catholic websites that do many other worthy things. We have chosen to focus on the fundamental doctrinal differences (church, authority, salvation) between the Catholic Church and the Reformed tradition. If that constitutes a Catholic fringe, then you might consider that this says more about the groups that we are addressing than the nature of the address.
RS: So your goal is to “effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition.” First you are going to have to be honest about what Trent I taught and deal with it. As long as Trent I stands as it is and what Luther and Calvin stand as they are, there is no reconciliation between the two. The two positions cannot be reconciled since they are logically contradictory. So the issue cannnot really be reconciation or reunion, it must be your effort to get people to submit to Rome.
“Roman Catholic polemics has frequently contrasted the variations of Protestantism with the stable and unchanging doctrine of Roman Catholicism. It seems that theologians have been willing to trace the history of doctrines and doctrinal systems which they found to be in error, but that the normative tradition had to be protected from the relativity of having a history or of being, in any decisive sense, the product of history” – Pelikan, “The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)” p. 8